Jerry Buss structured his estate to keep the Los Angeles Lakers in the family following his death, but the mechanisms he put in place to preserve that legacy have sparked significant conflict among his six adult children. Five of Buss’ children have expressed their desire to sell the family’s remaining stake in the basketball franchise, currently valued at $12.5 billion based on recent transactions. However, Jeanie Buss, designated as the team’s governor, is actively opposing the sale, arguing that her siblings lack the legal authority to divest the family’s ownership stake. Jeanie Buss has sought court intervention to block the transaction and to remove siblings Janie and Joey from their roles as co-trustees of the family trust holding the NBA franchise stake.
Central to the dispute is a “last man standing” clause embedded within the family trust structure. This provision stipulates that when a sibling dies, their equity transfers to surviving siblings rather than passing to their own children. According to estate planning attorneys, this type of clause is relatively uncommon in family business succession plans. The clause was designed to incentivize siblings to sell during their lifetimes, but trusts and estates specialists note that while the underlying impulse makes sense—limiting the number of shareholders to maintain operational control—the approach can create unfair outcomes, particularly for subsequent generations who lose inheritance rights due to health circumstances or other factors.
Attorneys specializing in trusts and estates point out that the Buss family’s predicament, while involving an unusually high-value asset, reflects challenges that are increasingly common as wealth transfers accelerate across generations. They identify three key strategies that can help mitigate such disputes: using life insurance to compensate grandchildren when siblings’ equity reverts to surviving family members; allocating voting rights to one or two children best equipped to manage the business while distributing economic interests equally among all heirs; and consolidating family business shares into a single trust with one designated trustee rather than dividing decision-making authority among multiple siblings.
Experts also highlight a fundamental tension in family business succession: the desire to treat all children equally while recognizing that some children are better suited to lead the enterprise. Dividing both voting control and economic interests equally among all heirs can complicate decision-making and potentially harm the business, according to attorneys interviewed. However, concentrating decision-making authority in fewer hands while others are excluded from management raises its own risks, including resentment among shareholders lacking control and the potential for long-term family discord if decisions are made that disadvantage some family members.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI