The limits of fiduciary duties: tomorrow at B.U.

Larry Ribstein —  28 October 2010

Tomorrow at Boston University I’ll be joining a distinguished group to discuss the Role of Fiduciary Law and Trust in the 21st Century, inspired by the work of Professor Tamar Frankel. 

Those who have followed my work will not be surprised that I’m going to focus on the limits of fiduciary duties, and their inappropriate application in such settings as broker-dealer conduct.   For some hints, see my previous articles, Are Partners Fiduciaries, Law v. Trust, Federal Misgovernance of Mutual Funds, and Senate testimony on the Goldman case.   

This is not only an interesting topic but a hot one.  Lawmakers seem to find fiduciary duties an attractive regulatory tool: find something you don’t like, label it “fiduciary,” and throw it over to the courts and litigators.  Pursuant to Dodd-Frank, the SEC is currently studying these issues in connection with brokers and dealers.  As we saw in the litigation leading up to Jones v. Harris, discussed in my mutual funds article above, the result is often costly chaos.  I have some thoughts on dealing with the chaos by focusing on the rationale for and functions of fiduciary duties.

Larry Ribstein

Posts

Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law

2 responses to The limits of fiduciary duties: tomorrow at B.U.

  1. 
    save_the_rustbelt 31 October 2010 at 7:54 am

    After we dissect all of the legalisms and ideologies, the fact remains many Americans think Wall Street is hopelessly corrupt, the game is rigged, the rich own the government, and corporate managers are overpaid pretty boys.

    How do we fix that?

  2. 

    Something seriously needs to be done. Corporations have made it so difficult to point the finger at any one person or fault them for losses.