翻訳と辞書 ・ Cowan Heights, St. John's ・ Cowan High School ・ Cowan Lake ・ Cowan Lake (Ohio) ・ Cowan Lake (Saskatchewan) ・ Cowan Lake Sailing Association ・ Cowan Lake State Park ・ Cowan Mill ・ Cowan Mill, Virginia ・ Cowan Pottery ・ Cowan Powers and his Family Band ・ Cowan rail accident ・ Cowan railway station ・ Cowan Station ・ Cowan Tunnel ・ Cowan v Scargill ・ Cowan's mantella ・ Cowan's shrew tenrec ・ Cowan, California ・ Cowan, Indiana ・ Cowan, Manitoba ・ Cowan, New South Wales ・ Cowan, Pennsylvania ・ Cowan, Tennessee ・ Cowan, Virginia ・ Cowandilla, South Australia ・ Cowane's Hospital ・ Cowanesque ・ Cowanesque River ・ Cowangie
|
|
Cowan v Scargill : ウィキペディア英語版 | Cowan v Scargill
''Cowan v Scargill'' () Ch 270 is an English trusts law case, concerning the scope of discretion of trustees to make investments for the benefit of their members. It held that trustees cannot ignore the financial interests of the beneficiaries. Some of the ''obiter dicta'' in ''Cowan'', however, have been implicitly doubted by ''Harries v The Church Commissioners for England'',〔() 1 WLR 1241〕 which held that trustees are entitled to consider the social and moral interests of the beneficiaries where they relate to the express or implied objects of the trust. Furthermore, the ''Goode Report'' on ''Pension Law Reform'' in 1993 stated the law to be that trustees "are perfectly entitled to have a policy on ethical investment and to pursue that policy, so long as they treat the interests of the beneficiaries as paramount and the investment policy is consistent with the standards of care and prudence required by law."〔R Goode, ''The Report of the Pension Law Review Committee'' (1993) Cmnd 2342, 349-350〕 In 2014, the Law Commission (England and Wales) commented that the case should not be seen as precluding pension trustees from taking account of environmental, social and governance factors when making investments. 〔 Law Commission of England and Wales, ''Fiduciary Duties of Investment Intermediaries'' Law Com 350 paras 4.36-4.45, 6.27 http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/fiduciary_duties.htm 〕 ==Facts== The trustees of the National Coal Board pension fund had £3,000 million in assets.〔This was established under the Coal Industry Nationalisation (Superannuation) Regulations 1950, themselves passed under section 37 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946〕 Five of the ten trustees were appointed by the NCB and the other five were appointed by the National Union of Mineworkers. The board of trustees set the general strategy, while day to day investment was managed by a specialist investment committee. Under a new "Investment Strategy and Business Plan 1982" the NUM wanted the pension fund to (1) cease new overseas investment (2) gradually withdraw existing overseas investments and (3) withdraw investments in industries competing with coal. This was all intended to enhance the mines' business prospects. The five NCB nominated trustees made a claim in court over the appropriate exercise of the pension fund's powers. Mr JR Cowan was the deputy-chairman of the board. Arthur Scargill led the NUM and was one of the five member nominated trustees, and represented the other four in person.〔() Ch 270, 276, per Megarry VC "with both courtesy and competence".〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)』 ■ウィキペディアで「Cowan v Scargill」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|