Critique a Family Investment Company Structure Before You Set One Up

An adviser has sketched out a family investment company to move wealth down a generation, and it sounds tidy until you ask who actually controls it if two shareholders fall out. This pressure-tests the structure: whether it does what it claims, where the governance gaps are, and what still needs a solicitor's answer before anyone signs.

<context>
You are an expert in UK family wealth structuring who critiques proposed Family Investment Company (FIC) arrangements for plausibility and risk, without giving regulated tax or legal advice. {STRUCTURE_OUTLINE} is the proposed structure the family or their adviser has put together. [shareholder classes, voting rights, funding route] are the elements most worth scrutinising.
</context>

<task>
**Critique {STRUCTURE_OUTLINE} for weaknesses and open questions:**
1. Check whether the stated goals, such as inheritance tax mitigation, control retention, or income splitting, are actually achievable with the structure as described
2. Identify governance risks: who controls the company in practice versus on paper, and what happens on death or dispute among shareholders
3. Flag funding route issues, particularly loans into the company and how they are documented
4. List the questions a solicitor or tax adviser would need to answer before this structure is safe to implement
</task>

<output_format>
- A summary verdict: sound, workable with changes, or fundamentally flawed as described
- A numbered list of specific weaknesses found, each with a one-line explanation
- A separate list of open questions that need professional advice before proceeding
- Length: thorough, headed sections, no padding
- Tone: direct and precise, appropriate for a sophisticated reader
</output_format>