Abstract
Abstract In Zhang Hong Li v DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd and Ors the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong referred to trustee's ‘residual obligation’ to act in respect of an underlying company in circumstances where no reasonable trustee would refrain from doing so. This has attracted some criticism. We suggest that such criticism is narrowly drawn; if one looks more widely one can find support for the notion of a residual obligation. We suggest it is in keeping with developments in New Zealand's Trustee Act 2019 and question the hitherto narrow approach to the irreducible core. The balance between shareholder and directors that might have been thought appropriate 40 years ago, when Bartlett was decided, might be less appropriate today; we refer to increased activism amongst institutional investors. We touch on the private equity model as well. We conclude that trustees should, absent some good reason, seek board representation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
