Some states, like Colorado, have institutionalized the remedy in legislation. The rationale for the common law limitation is that it is not in the public interest for the partnership business relationship to be disrupted by a legal action aimed at one partner when the other partner is assumed not to be not involved. But that rationale is plainly absent in a typical trust FLP where the trust settlor is the general partner and the settlor's trustee is the limited partner. When a partnership is dissolved, the return of assets to the partners is currently considered to be a distribution analogous to a return of capital to shareholders in a corporation, not a transfer of a legal interest in the assets. A transfer made to hinder, delay or defeat a creditor claim is fraudulent.
Risk management is usually a matter of compromise.
Even if they wish to retain them, clients might consider reducing the amount or value of assets held in FLPs. Clients might consider recommending that their trustee place assets with a bank in the asset protection jurisdiction. As between trustee and the bank the assets are traceable in the normal way in that jurisdiction. But once pooled with other bank assets and invested, the funds are no longer 'trust' assets and are not traceable in either the offshore jurisdiction or the domestic jurisdiction. Thus assets may be placed in US institutions through the bank.