Post by lairezippert on Jan 13, 2010 22:22:22 GMT 4
The Core Nature of Fiduciary Accountability
Robert Flannigan
University of Saskatchewan
New Zealand Law Review, Vol. 2009, p. 375, 2009
Abstract:
Likely reacting to the perception of a confused jurisprudence, several writers recently have sought to clarify (or reconfigure) the core nature of fiduciary accountability. Their claims, including various assertions of prescriptive content, differ in significant respects. That discordance only fuels the perception of confusion. A review of the claims indicates that none of the normative arguments offer a superior conceptual apparatus for framing the conventional function of the regulation, and none justify prescriptive content.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1523382_code118622.pdf?abstractid=1523382&mirid=1
Robert Flannigan
University of Saskatchewan
New Zealand Law Review, Vol. 2009, p. 375, 2009
Abstract:
Likely reacting to the perception of a confused jurisprudence, several writers recently have sought to clarify (or reconfigure) the core nature of fiduciary accountability. Their claims, including various assertions of prescriptive content, differ in significant respects. That discordance only fuels the perception of confusion. A review of the claims indicates that none of the normative arguments offer a superior conceptual apparatus for framing the conventional function of the regulation, and none justify prescriptive content.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1523382_code118622.pdf?abstractid=1523382&mirid=1