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 »
It cannot be denied that by entering into the trust deed, both the manager and the trustee are entering into a venture that provides services to their `customers’ and that produces their income. This is cooperation in business, but is unlikely to constitute them a partnership. Basically, the test of the existence of a partnership is by reference to the definition of a partnership discussed and also by reference to the statutory rules regarding co-ownership of assets, sharing of gross return, and also sharing of profit.
There is no business in common. The demarcation of functions under the unit trust deed draws the line of business between them. In essence, the trustee is carrying on the business as a professional trustee and the manager is carrying on the business of investment management. 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 »
A unit trust deed typically has provisions for (a) a primary trust to the effect that whilst the unit trust is a going concern the trustee will hold the unit trust assets for the unitholders ’subject to the terms and conditions of the trust deed‘ and, in the case of an authorized unit trust, ‘all regulations made under section 81 of the Financial Services Act 1986′ and (b) a secondary trust for realization of assets and division of its proceeds upon the termination of the trust by the trustee.There is thus no question that the trustee holds the assets in the capacity as a trustee of an express trust. However, it has often been said that the trustee’s function in a unit trust is merely to hold the trust assets for the unitholders and that it does not actively manage them like ordinary trustees. The question therefore is in what character does the trustee hold assets: a custodial agent, a bare trustee or an active trustee?”‘ 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 Midland Bank Trustee case therefore is a clear rejection of the wider proposition that intentional wrong, gross negligence, and fraud of a trustee cannot be excluded or modified. Before accepting this narrower formulation or the wider proposition or indeed either of the two propositions one must question the theoretical basis of each of these propositions.
It seems that even under the narrower view, an exemption clause cannot effectively exclude wilful default. 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 »
This covers the situation where the unit trust deed directs the appointment of agents or delegates in certain circumstances and the trustee or the manager is given no discretion. In some offshore unit trusts, the appointment of a custodian or investment adviser in certain markets or abroad may be made mandatory by the trust deed. Sometimes, an investment adviser’s contract may have been entered into prior to units being offered to the public. Thus, a property manager may have been appointed for a property trust. It is also very common for advisers to be appointed for futures and options funds, country funds, and trusts of specialized sectors. 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 »
