By now, the law must have developed a distinct body of company law. The fact that two institutions have the same origin should not per se lead to the conclusion that the same body of principles applies. Brothers, despite their common parents, are not twins automatically. Directors’ duties, despite their origin in the trust, are not trustees’ duties. Latham CJ stated that ‘the power [to alter articles] must be exercised bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole‘. Malcom CJ said: ‘It cannot be said that the alteration was made otherwise than bona fide for the benefit of the unitholders as a whole.’ The apparent similarity of these two formulations is deceptive. If the unitholders are not associating, as Smith v. Anderson has suggested, is it right to look at all unitholders as a whole? Read the rest of this entry »
In respect of the manager, the following functions and duties are conferred explicitly or implicitly by the statutory provisions or trust deeds:
(1) Dealer in units.
One of the attractions of a unit trust is liquidity. The manager has since the early days of the unit trust been the provider of a ready market for the acquisition and disposal of units of schemes under its management. Under the Financial Services (Regulated Schemes) Regulations 1991, the manager must at all times during the dealing day be willing to issue units and be willing to redeem units. Similar provisions may also be found in trust deeds of non-authorized unit trusts. Read the rest of this entry »
There is no question that the distinction between this case and those cases where the retirement of trustees was with a view to purchase is a valid one. Implicit in this judgment is the recognition that there is no absolute rule against self-dealing. The willingness of his Lordship to look at the reality is consistent with the approach of the court in Holder and the recent application of the no-conflict rule in other contexts.
If the broader approach of Holder is adopted, it must be a question of fact whether a trustee in a unit trust can purchase. The court may take into account the fact the trustee does not participate in the decision to make the sale. Read the rest of this entry »
The trust in a unit trust is a trust with two limbs, a primary trust and a secondary trust. The primary trust is a trust whilst the scheme is a going concern. It may be interpreted as a trust of the Re Denley’s type or as a trust subject to the contractual provisions 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. The secondary trustonly arises at the very moment when the trust scheme is terminated. It is a trust for sale and distribution.
The provisions to which the primary trust is subject depend on whether the unit trust is an authorized unit trust or non-authorized unit trust. The most important of these provisions will be those along the line of regulation 7.02.2 and regulation 7.09.1. Regulation 7.02.2 provides: Read the rest of this entry »
- The trustee must not follow a direction of the manager if such direction is in breach of the express provisions of the unit trust. This is so irrespective of whether the power in question is beneficial or fiduciary. If it were otherwise, the duty of supervision would be completely hollow.
In respect of every investment proposed by the manager, this means that the trustee has to check each proposal against the letter of the unit trust deed. Read the rest of this entry »
As a general rule, directions given in a trust deed must be followed by the trustee. It follows that if the unit trust deed directs the trustee to follow the decision of the manager in the making or disposal of investments, the direction is imperative. But is this always the case?
Several cases in which third parties were given powers to direct the trustees have bearing on this point. Three aspects emerged. First, in all these cases, the courts approached this as a question of construction of the particular power involved. Read the rest of this entry »
Secondly, the holder of a directory power is under a positive duty to initiate a decision on matters covered by the power. In making that decision, the power holder is under a duty of skill and care. A veto power, however, is a power of review that only arises when the holder of the substantive power makes a decision. From the standpoint of the substantive power holder, the seeking of consent is only a condition of an exercise of the power. As a consequence, a veto power holder is not under a primary duty to initiate a decision. For example, if the unit trust deed requires the manager to seek the consent of the trustee in any investment in a single asset that exceeds 5 per cent of the value of the portfolio, there is no dutyon the trustee to initiate the investment. The initiating obligation remains with the manager. In principle, responsibilities for decision making and for reviewing a decision are different in scope. Read the rest of this entry »
