Categories:Other Offshore

Hands off

  • Print
  • Comments (7)

Readers' comments (7)

  • If directors fail to charge enough for theirvfees then that is their problem. Their responsibilities do not diminish and these have been well known for years long before Bear Sterns and Weavering. One should also look at the Beacon Hill case where the US judge admonished the Cayman directors for their role in the fund's demise. Finally where directors have excessive directorship positions there are not enough hours in a day for them to carry out their responsibilities. Funds and other Cayman companies will fail because of the greed of t.hose directors who place their personal wellbeing over their fiduciary responsibilities. The Companies Law requires to be amended as it was in the UK a couple of years ago to remind directors of just what their fiduciary duties are and in addition a Directors Disqailification Law needs be enacted.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is somewhat ironic, to say the least, that this article should be written by the partner of a law firm that has a service company affiliate/subsidiary that provides directors to client companies. Tim Ridley

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is no doubt that issue of effectiveness of independent directors is key to establishing a structure within the hedge fund industry which can give investors a greater sense of security. however the real problem is that independent directors at the moment are not equipped with practical knowledge over such key areas as valuation of investments. The answer lies in attracting a more capable independent director who has the ability to exercise his duty. Hedge fund managers must embrace this oversight. However lowering fees may not be the answer. I suggest a read of the following blog: www.hedgefunndvet.bogspot.com which yesterday has a recent comment on this very topic.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In the spirit of transparency, it merits noting that the author of this article is an asset finance attorney whose knowledge and understanding of funds work is questionable. Ms. Todd's wholesale application of the Weavering decision to all offshore independent directors is unavailing. The Weavering decision was a fact specific decision whose application simply cannot be applied to all independent offshore directors. The references to the Bear Stearns matter are factually inaccurate and equally misguided.
    I do, however, agree with Ms. Todd that the fees for directorships should increase. In conjunction with increased fees, investors in hedge funds should demand that only directors with meaningful experience and relevance, 10 plus years of offshore directorship experience, should be appointed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • the lady doth protest too much, methinks

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Me thinks you're an idiot.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To Anonymous 9 Nov 9:38pm - if investors demand that only directors with 10 plus years of offshore directorship experience should be appointed, what happens when those directors retire? Where do the ned ones come from? You have to be a director with less than 10 years experience to get 10 years experience. At some point, people have to take on their first directorship, so how would or could your suggestion work? Shortsighted? I think so.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (7)