Principles of Trustee-Manager Relationship

Posted on June 1st, 2008 in Trust Funds | 5 Comments »

It is important, first of all, to define a fiduciary. Despite voluminous literature, there is no ready answer and the fiduciary relationship remains ‘a concept in search of a principle’. In general terms, it is possible to divide fiduciaries into two categories, status-based fiduciaries and fact-based fiduciaries.

The status-based category includes a core of well established relationships such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, director-company, principal- agent, solicitor-client, employer-employee, and partner-partner. They are relationships which are regarded by equity as fiduciary per se. It is debatable as to what is the common denominator behind these relationships but it is not a matter of concern here. Read the rest of this entry »

A Case in Search of the Trustee-Manager Relationship Principle?

Posted on June 1st, 2008 in Trust Funds | 6 Comments »

In Parkes Management Ltd. v. Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd. , the manager of a unit trust was aggrieved by the trustee’s issue of a certificate that it was in the interest of the unitholders that the manager should be dismissed. On the question of the manager’s locus standi, Hope JA said:

It is submitted for the Trustee that it is only a beneficiary who can challenge the exercise by a trustee of a power . . . There would appear to be three answers to this submission. Firstly, that the Manager was a beneficiary; secondly, that the provisions of cl. 20(1) of the Deed entitled the Manager to ensure that the Trustee exercised any power under the Deed bona fide without indirect motive, and with a fair consideration of the issues; and thirdly that being a party to the Deed the Manager was entitled to challenge the certificate . . . Read the rest of this entry »

The Rights of a Unitholder in Underlying Assets (the first proposition) (A2)

Posted on May 11th, 2008 in Trust Funds | 6 Comments »

The question before the court was the liability of the trustee to income tax on the interest. The relevant tax legislation made no provision for the deduction of tax from payments of income out of trust estates. The trustee argued, relying on Baker, that the liability to tax of income received by trustees depended upon the position as regards liability of the beneficiary; that in this case the interest received was treated as capital as a matter of ordinary principles of accounting between trustees and income- beneficiaries; that the beneficiaries would never receive the interest as income and therefore no liability to tax was possible. It was held by the Scottish Court of Session that on construction of the statute the interest was income and the trustees were the persons receiving or entitled to the income. Read the rest of this entry »

The Nature of the Trust Corpus and the Rights in a Unit (B)

Posted on May 10th, 2008 in Small Cap Funds, Trust Funds | 4 Comments »

B. Rights in a Unit: A Preliminary Analysis and Three Propositions

A modern trust deed invariably provides that the trustee will hold the unit trust assets for the unitholders ‘on and subject to the terms and conditions of the trust deed‘ and in the case of an authorized unit trust, the regulations made under section 81 of the Financial Services Act 1986.It is always possible for the trust deed or the relevant regulations to contain hundreds of covenants or terms that may alter or add to the rights in the beneficial interests of the trust assets. With the varieties of unit trusts and the varieties of units in the market today, the significance of the qualifying statement ‘on and subject to the terms and conditions of the trust deed‘ may easily be overlooked. Read the rest of this entry »

Legal Relationship Between Company Board and Shareholders

Posted on January 30th, 2008 in Asset Allocation Funds, Index Funds | 4 Comments »

In addition to the influence of dominant local shareholders, the legal relationship between a company board and its shareholders may limit the rights of the minority shareholders. In general, under U.S. state corporate law, a company’s directors owe a fiduciary duty primarily to its shareholders. By contrast, in many non-U.S. legal systems, the board may be required to consider the interests of other stakeholders in the enterprise, including the company’s labor unions and local suppliers, as well as community groups and local government.The interests of these groups may, on occasion, come into conflict with the interests of minority shareholders. Read the rest of this entry »

LogoAlexa CounterFeedBurner Counter