The conclusion from the foregoing discussion is that the trustee and the manager are not in partnership or in a general agency relationship. They are independent contracting parties to the unit trust deed. An examination of the terms of a typical trust deed of a non-authorized unit trust in detail reveals that the majority of the provisions are covenants made by either of them with unitholders or are provisions conferring powers or discretions on them by unitholders. When the regulations of the Financial Services (Regulated Schemes) Regulations 1991 are incorporated expressly into the trust deed of an authorized unit trust, it appears that they may be construed in the same manner. There are not many provisions that can operate as promises between these two parties.
Where provisions in the deed embody covenants made with unitholders, they can be enforced by unitholders as promisees. In respect of an exercise of power or discretion by the trustee which is without good faith or otherwise wrongful, unitholders can sue the trustee for breach of trust. In the case of the manager, unitholders may bring an action for an abuse of power on the basis of a breach of fiduciary duty. Thus, there is no problem of standing to sue for aggrieved unitholders. Read the rest of this entry »
The conclusion from the foregoing discussion is that the trustee and the manager are not in partnership or in a general agency relationship. They are independent contracting parties to the unit trust deed. An examination of the terms of a typical trust deed of a non-authorized unit trust in detail reveals that the majority of the provisions are covenants made by either of them with unitholders or are provisions conferring powers or discretions on them by unitholders. When the regulations of the Financial Services (Regulated Schemes) Regulations 1991 are incorporated expressly into the trust deed of an authorized unit trust, it appears that they may be construed in the same manner. There are not many provisions that can operate as promises between these two parties. Read the rest of this entry »
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 »
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 »
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 »
Unitholders cannot be characterized as partners. Actions done and decisions made by them through meetings can be regarded as the acts of owners of the rights constituted by the units. They are analogous to assents by beneficiaries of trusts.
Of course, as in companies, in order for actions to be taken by a large aggregate of individuals, meetings and rules for majority decisions are necessary. Voting rights simply are parts of the rights constituting units. Once the majority in a meeting is given the power to bind the minority, there emerges the tension between voting powers as property rights and the notion of fairness in the exercise of those powers. 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 »
Although the manager has extensive control over the ways that the trust assets are to be invested or dealt with, it is not a trustee. This is because the title to assets does not vest in it.
The first question is whether the manager’s power is a fiduciary power or a beneficial power for its own benefit. Scott and the American Restatement draw a clear distinction between such powers in the discussion of a private trustee being subject to directory or veto powers of others. It has been questioned if such a distinction exists in English cases. Indeed, judges in early English cases did not appear to be particularly concerned with enunciating such a principle. However, there is no reason to doubt that Scott’s position represents the English position as well. The early case Discconson v. Talbot supports such a proposition. So do cases on veto powers and some cases on powers of appointment. 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 »
The power is to direct the investment of the capital in such investments as the testatrix’s son may from time to time direct. Upon the language of the power as a whole, in my judgment, provided he acts in good faith, [the son] is entitled to give directions to the trustees to realise any investments constituting the trust fund which they from time to time may hold. In my judgment, upon the language of the clause, the trustees are bound to comply with those directions save that they are to satisfy themselves, the shares not being shares in which there is a free and open market, that the price which they pay for them is a reasonable and proper price at the time they make the purchase. 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 »
Under the Financial Services (Regulated Schemes) Regulations 1991, there are many situations where the trustee has to obtain the ‘consent‘, `approval’ or ‘agreement‘ of the manager, and vice versa. There are also provisions that require a party not to act without ‘consulting’ the other party.
For example, the manager ‘may instruct’ the trustee to create and to cancel units but the trustee may refuse to follow these instructions `[w]here . . . the trustee is of the opinion that it is not in the interests of participants‘. Similarly, the trustee may refuse to comply with the manager’s instructions to create units in exchange for assets if the trustee is not satisfied that there is no ‘material prejudice to the interests of participants or potential participants’. Read the rest of this entry »
A. Delegation Without Express Provisions
The contractual nature of the unit trust means that there are matters in which the trustee and the manager have interests as contracting parties. Thus, the distinction drawn by the law between beneficial and fiduciary powers is important. In relation to beneficial powers, the trustee can delegate without express authorization in the unit trust deed. I For fiduciary powers, the trustee will be in the same position as the trustees of private trusts. Read the rest of this entry »
It is established that the powers of the manager are not delegated powers derived from the trustee; the manager is a primary source of authority, having been responsible for the set up of the unit trust. However, despite this stated position, it is submitted that the trustee has reserve powers incidental to its status as a trustee by reason of its legal ownership of the properties and equity’s imposition of duties on such an owner. The position appears to be that if the manager cannot find authority for a particular act in the express or implied powers of the unit trust deed, the manager cannot do the act. The unit trust deed is the source of the manager’s authority. Read the rest of this entry »
It is true that where, as here, neither interest is in any way hypothecated or charged, the function of the trustees is simple, but that does not change the inherent character of the function, for the functional possibilities are present, and might at any time be invoked.
Nelson v. Adamson was distinguished as a decision as to what the income arose from, within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts of the United Kingdom. This is the same interpretation of Baker as that by Lord Morison in Reid’s Trustees.59 Read the rest of this entry »
