Weight-loss shake tycoon's death triggers inheritance row between lover and siblings

Telegraph

01-05-2025

The death of a weight-loss shakes tycoon has triggered an inheritance feud between his lover and siblings.
Alan Lorenz became a multimillionaire after giving up his legal career to work for Herbalife, a California health drinks company.
Following his death in 2021, aged 78, his £6.4 million estate was left to his Maltese partner, Sheila Caruana, who had entered into a civil partnership with him just weeks earlier.
But the will is at the centre of a court fight, with his siblings, Robert Lorenz, 81, Anthony Lorenz, 77, and Vanessa Manasseh, 79, claiming a half-share.
The case reached the Court of Appeal this week where the three siblings claimed that Mr Lorenz had an 'abhorrence' for paying tax and only left his estate to his partner so he could avoid inheritance tax.
They argued Mr Lorenz had created a 'secret trust' under which Ms Caruana was trusted to hand half of the estate to his siblings.
But Ms Caruana is fighting their claim on the basis that Mr Lorenz left her with no binding obligation to give his family anything at all.
During previous hearings, the court heard that Charterhouse-educated Mr Lorenz gave up his career as a divorce lawyer to join Herbalife in 1984, rising to become a senior member.
Mr Lorenz began his relationship with Ms Caruana in about 2012.
His previous wills left his siblings a share of his estate, but he made a new will in 2020 which left everything to his partner.
After his death, Robert Lorenz, backed by his siblings, brought the family's claim to court, claiming Mr Lorenz had 'a history of aggressive tax avoidance and indeed an abhorrence of paying tax'.
They claimed Mr Lorenz was 'close' to all of his siblings and believed that Ms Caruana was '100 per cent honourable' and would give half his money to his family.
In June, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith dismissed the family's claim, finding there was no realistic prospect of establishing that Mr Lorenz had created a 'secret trust' benefiting his siblings.
In an appeal against the decision on Wednesday, Richard Wilson KC argued the judge was 'plainly wrong' to dismiss the claim.
He said: 'Robert's claim is that Alan gave oral instructions to Sheila on how to deal with the residuary estate and that those instructions gave rise to a secret trust.
'There is clear evidence that instructions were given.
'The evidence is clear that there was at the very least some form of obligation on Sheila to make gifts to Alan's siblings in accordance with his settled and consistent intention to make provision for them.'
For Ms Caruana, barrister Penelope Reed KC said the appeal should be dismissed.
'Alan had a longstanding desire to avoid tax where possible and consistently went to some effort to do so – even living abroad for decades,' she said.
'When faced with the choice of having control over the gifting of his assets to any family members and having to pay inheritance tax, he chose with barely any hesitation to avoid the tax, accepting the uncertainty and lack of control.
'Once the proposition is accepted, as it has been by all parties, that Alan's overriding intention was the avoidance of tax, Alan simply could not have achieved that aim by leaving his estate on a binding secret trust.
'His goal was incompatible with an intention to create a secret trust, and was solely consistent with his estate going to Sheila beneficially.'