Articles «Previous

Must We Teach Abstinence? Pensions' Relationship Investments and the Lessons of Fiduciary Duty

Ethan G. Stone, University of Iowa College of Law

Article comments

Copyright © 1994 by the Columbia Law Review Association, Inc. Reprinted by permission. This Note originally appeared at 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2222 (1994).

Abstract

Commentators have speculated that pension funds do not act as activist investors because of the constraints of fiduciary duties under ERISA. This note examines the case law under ERISA and the common law of trusts on which it is based and concludes that there are no legal constraints. The institutional incentives of the people who manage pension funds seem a better explanation for their inactivity (assuming that activism is, in fact, cost-justified).

Suggested Citation

Ethan G. Stone. "Must We Teach Abstinence? Pensions' Relationship Investments and the Lessons of Fiduciary Duty" Columbia Law Review 94.7 (1994): 2222-2266.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/ethan_stone/4