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 »
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 crude terms, in a unit trust, the manager performs all the functions of management of the trust assets that would have been carried out by the trustee if the trust were a private trust used as a means of disposition of properties. This leads to the question whether the manager can be considered as a trustee, by analogy to the statutory scheme contained in the Public Trustee Act 1906 that allows the simultaneous appointment of a custodian trustee and a managing trustee. A custodian trustee under this Act is one who gets in and holds the title to the trust property. The management of the trust property and the exercise of any power or discretion are vested in the managing trustee. As between the custodian trustee and the managing trustee, a custodian trustee has the custody of all securities and documents of title relating to the trust property, but the managing trustee is permitted free access to them and is entitled to take copies or extracts. A custodian has to concur in and perform all acts.’” 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 »
(1) Statutory Allocation of Powers and Duties
Against this background, a structure of dual administration in the unit trust is a logical step in the functional specialization of the powers and responsibilities previously found in the single person of the trustee. The unit trust was in the forefront of this development. The first regulation of unit trusts in the United Kingdom in 1939 made the trustee-manager structure a model for the management of unit trusts. This model was adopted by many statutes of common law countries and was followed closely by unregulated schemes. 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 »
Section 84 of the Financial Services Act 1984 provides:
Any provision of the trust deed of an authorised unit trust scheme shall be void in so far as it would have the effect of exempting the manager or trustee from liability for any failure to exercise due care and diligence in the discharge of his functions in respect of the scheme.
This section only applies to authorized unit trusts. Exemption clauses in non-authorized unit trusts are not affected. Read the rest of this entry »
Trust cases have demonstrated that the court is very reluctant to make an agent of a trustee liable to the beneficiaries directly on the basis of constructive trust. The agent will not be liable for merely carrying out the instructions of the trustee, even when it knows that the property is trust property. There must be a want of probity on its part.” One cannot expect an agent to make detailed investigations to see whether or not its principal is validly appointed or whether or not its principal is properly exercising its power. After the decision in Royal Brunei Airlines v. Read the rest of this entry »
Shortly after Charles was decided by the High Court of Australia, another fixed investment trust was the subject of taxation proceedings. This time, it was before the Supreme Court of Canada in MNR v. TransCanada Investment Corporation Ltd. The trust was a typical fixed investment trust. Under the trust deed, an administrator (i.e. the manager) was to purchase a fixed number of predetermined shares of common stock of companies to constitute a trust unit. Upon all the shares of underlying companies of a unit being vested in the trustee, the trustee would issue shares of a trust unit. Each share of a trust unit represented an undivided equal interest in the unit. Read the rest of this entry »
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 »
The trust is by nature a relationship fastened upon the properties of the trust. Considerable debate has been focused upon the rights of a beneficiary in the trust properties.5 In a private trust, the trust is a means of disposition of properties by way of gift. The trust corpus in the private trust, even when the settlor is one of the beneficiaries, is the subject matter of a gift. In this sense, the trust has a distributive character that makes use of equity’s recognition of a multiplicity of interests within a trust. A beneficiary’s interest is an interest in a gift. His interest is a matter of degree of ownership. If he is a beneficiary under a discretionary trust, he has nothing more than a right to be considered as a beneficiary. Read the rest of this entry »
