With respect to Merrill Lynch, the Tribunal found that the substitute`s court had duly established that the releases carried out by the petitioners were valid, as the petitioners had confirmed receipt of an informal accounting during the execution of the instruments and relieved Merrill Lynch of any liability and any right to formal accounting on the advice of counsel and after negotiation. Receipts and publications have been used both as shields and as swords in estate proceedings when agents are confronted with claims that have been previously settled, or at least assumed. Although the publication is instinctively seen as an absolute blocking of ongoing litigation, the actual circumstances of obtaining the publication and the conditions of the publication itself often fuel the result. In light of the above, the Tribunal found that the agent`s evidence was sufficient to raise genuine factual questions about what the petitioner knew or had been disclosed. The court held that, although an agent acts at the risk of seeking a general discharge without accounting, there is nothing in the law that requires it as a necessary condition for its validity. There is nothing to prevent even an agent from following a time-forward at a lower cost to move to an accounting if the informed beneficiaries request it and the informed beneficiaries consent. In addition, the Tribunal rejected the view that only the agent could make the necessary disclosure in order to obtain authorization from the recipient. On the contrary, the Tribunal held that the relevance of a disclosure must be determined in light of the circumstances, the touchstone being fairness. By refusing to hold a hearing and notifying the opening of a hearing, the Tribunal has warned the agents who are entitled to the protection afforded by the release and has indicated that, to the extent that a transaction between an agent seeking the release of a beneficiary is essentially self-management, the law provides evidence of the full disclosure of the facts and legal rights of the beneficiary by the agent. , as well as an appropriate consideration. In addition, the Tribunal found that the absence of misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence in obtaining an unblocking would not protect the instrument from a subsequent attack on the beneficiaries.
On the contrary, the agent must answer in the affirmative that the beneficiaries have been informed in all their details of the nature and legal effect of the merger. In this regard, the Tribunal found, on the basis of the petitioner`s allegations and the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the petitioner had argued prima facie that the dissemination at issue had not been obtained fairly and therefore had not necessarily denied her right to accounting.