A Pennsylvania Trustee’s Guide to ESG Investment Conversations: What Would My Father’s Cousin Allen Have Done?

by Renzo A. Cerabino, JD, MBA, CFP®, CLU

Picture it: Brooklyn, 1985.[i] Roughly 11 years old at the time, I vividly recall grocery shopping with my grandmother. We would meticulously visit several stores to find sales, even if it meant saving just a few pennies. I would inevitably complain and plead for her to finish. Her answer was always the same factual phrase, “The more I spend, the less you find.” At the time, I didn't appreciate or fully understand her statement. But now I see she was acting as a fiduciary, safeguarding our family's financial legacy. I credit her with my career and personal fascination with estate and financial planning.

As I further reflect, her motto essentially summarizes the traditional approach to a trustee’s fiduciary duty. A trustee must scrutinize financial decisions through a lens that views less optimal investments as problematic and antithetical to the duty to protect value – just like buying retail-priced zucchini. Through this lens, I've been intrigued by the recent ethical and fiduciary debate around environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) investing.

Brief Summary of the Evolution of ESG

Before diving into the ethical and fiduciary implications of ESG investing, let’s briefly review its history. Incredibly, this concept has been around since 1500 BC when various religious groups  sought to avoid investments in things they deemed morally harmful.[ii] Equally incredibly, not much changed until the 1960s, when the socially responsible investing (“SRI”) movement, which sought to support the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements, became part of the allocation world.[iii] The term "ESG" emerged in 2005 with the UN's "Who Cares Wins" report, highlighting ESG's financial significance.[iv] Over time, ESG has moved from the fringes to the forefront of investment strategies, spurred by the “Principles for Responsible Investment” in 2006, various reporting frameworks like the Global Reporting Initiative and increasing regulatory demands for transparency. This evolution reflects both investor interest in sustainable finance and the need for clearer ESG performance metrics.

Views on ESG investing are often hotly contested.[v] Proponents laud it for aligning financial returns with societal benefits, suggesting that companies with robust ESG practices are more resilient and better managed for long-term success. Critics, however, question whether ESG genuinely improves financial outcomes, pointing to potential biases in decision-making due to the subjective nature of ESG metrics and concerns about "greenwashing." They also highlight the lack of standardization in ESG ratings. Neutral analyses call for enhanced data quality, transparency and consistency in ESG assessments to truly gauge its impact and effectiveness, acknowledging that while ESG does not assure superior performance, it offers a valuable lens for evaluating long-term risks and opportunities.

Before we go any further, part of the significant challenge in discussing this issue is vocabulary. Because this area is relatively new, definitions vary significantly. For the purposes of this article let’s use the following glossary:

• ESG Investing. The CFA Institute states that “ESG stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance.” ESG investing is when investors apply “these non-financial factors as part of their analysis process to identify material risks and growth opportunities. Some common examples include: Environment - Conservation of the natural world, Social - Consideration of people & relationships and Governance - Standards for running a company.”[vi]

• Concessionary ESG Investing: Investment strategies that intentionally prioritize achieving ESG outcomes, even if it means accepting lower financial returns or taking higher risks compared to traditional market-rate investments. Whereas Non-Concessionary ESG Investing: Investment strategies that incorporate ESG criteria without sacrificing financial returns.

Case Study

First, I need to keep my grandmother out of this because I still fear earning her disapproving gaze. But let’s keep the setting adorned by my childhood and look at a fictionalized scenario starring my family:

Armando (Father / Grantor): Unfortunately, Armando was diagnosed with health challenges early in life and didn’t expect to live beyond his early 50’s. As a result of his condition, he set up The Cerabino Family Trust in the late 1980’s. Armando had two children, Renzo and Lisa. Armando was an investment banker who was very focused on returns.

Armando’s Cousin Allen (Trustee): Allen is a highly skilled estate attorney and has provided timely notice and all necessary disclosures to Renzo and Lisa for many years. He also has been willing to provide foundational education and answer questions.

Renzo (Child / Beneficiary): Renzo is in his early 50’s (but looks significantly younger). He graduated from law school and practiced corporate law for several years before turning his focus to wealth management and wealth strategy. This makes him an annoying beneficiary for Cousin Allen because he thinks he knows the law. He has become particularly insufferable now that he has been excused from the consequences of his legal interpretations.

Lisa (Child / Beneficiary): Lisa is in her early 40’s, obtained a college degree in finance and has focused her career on medical administration. She is successful and a much nicer person than her brother. 

The Cerabino Family Trust: A GST exempt trust with typical mutigenerational provisions utilizing a HEMS (health, education, maintenance and support) standard for Renzo and Lisa. The trust included a testamentary limited power of appointment either outright or in further trust for lineal descendants. ESG investments were not prevalent in the late 80’s when charitable gifts were generally made at the individual level.

The ESG Discussion: Lisa has read about ESG investing and has become ever more curious about using it to help to further equitable health-care access and encourage global medical innovation. Renzo believes that charitable and impact investing should be done with personal funds and therefore, has no interest in using trust assets for ESG investing. However, Renzo is not necessarily opposed to investigating the matter to support Lisa and agreed to bring the matter to Allen. While he may not be their favorite relative, Renzo and Lisa certainly do not want to expose Allen to liability and appreciate that he has a fiduciary obligation under Pennsylvania law. Therefore, they have agreed to let Allen to look into the matter.

They agree that the issue is as follows: What are the ethical considerations for a Pennsylvania trustee when a beneficiary requests implementation of non-concessionary ESG investment strategies?

Because this is a big decision, they agree they will break the topic up into a few meetings.

Trust Fundamentals

What is a Trust and What is a Beneficiary’s Interest in a Trust?

While it’s axiomatic, it’s worth taking a step back to consider trust basics. A trust is a fiduciary relationship in which a grantor gives another party, known as the trustee, the right to hold title to property or assets for the benefit of a third party.[vii] In other words, it’s a gift with rules that are set by the grantor, executed by the trustee for someone else’s benefit. In Pennsylvania, a beneficiary's interests are primarily governed by Title 20 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, known as the Uniform Trust Act (“PA UTA”).[viii]

Of course, there are limits to the rules a grantor can set. The grantor’s intent must be lawful and not contrary to public policy.[ix] For example, a trust likely will be void if it encourages illegal acts, restricts marriage or promotes separation or divorce. A trust also may be void if it is deemed capricious or arbitrary, lacks ascertainable beneficiaries, has an indefinite or impossible purpose, lacks an enforcement mechanism or violates Pennsylvania’s Rule Against Perpetuities statute.

Can Beneficiaries Interact with Trustees?

Beneficiary involvement with trustees is hardly a ground-breaking concept. Beneficiaries interact closely with trustees very frequently in a variety of financial and non-financial ways by virtue of their rights and role as beneficiaries, including the right to information, enforcement of fiduciary duties, seeking judicial interpretation of trust terms, exercising rights granted by the trust, collaboration with co-trustees or directed trustees, consent to trustee actions, termination or modification by agreement and advocacy for equitable distributions.

May a Trustee Provide Non-Financial Benefits to a Beneficiary?

While we will explore some of the trustee’s duties in greater detail in the context of ESG investing, it’s also well established that in Pennsylvania trustees are generally obligated to act in the best interests of beneficiaries and manage trust assets prudently. While their duties are often financial in nature, it’s also generally accepted that trustees may provide non-financial benefits to beneficiaries when such actions are consistent with the trust's terms and purposes. Examples include: distributing personal property for use or sentimental value, supporting beneficiaries’ education or personal development, allowing use of trust-owned property and facilitating family or cultural traditions.

The Guiding Light of Material Purpose

All trustee actions are limited to changes, interpretations or discussions that do not violate the “material purpose” of the trust. While the PA UTA does not explicitly define material purpose, it refers to the concept repeatedly. In short, the focus is on the grantor’s intent. For example, if the trust's material purpose has been achieved or becomes impossible to fulfill, the court may allow modification or termination.[x] 

Preparing for the First Meeting

Allen is an experienced trustee.  He knows that he must meticulously review his duties to the beneficiaries. He begins his research on the intersection of ESG and various trustee duties, including the duty to administer, the duty of loyalty, the duty of impartiality, and the duty of care. Based on his exhaustive reading, he knows he needs to document the desires of the beneficiaries for both their sake and his.

Case Study: The First Meeting

Cousin Allen begins this meeting by noting that he is responding to Lisa’s request to investigate this question and notes Renzo’s support. Although he has done so many times, Allen reviews everyone’s roles along with their duties and obligations. He meticulously spells out that their father’s intent must remain at the forefront of how the trust operates.

Regarding investments, the trust grants broad investment powers to the trustee and from that Cousin Allen reasonably assumes that Armando intended to maximize the trust’s financial benefit for his children. While Armando didn’t spell out his intent regarding ESG investing, Allen believes it’s reasonable to assume that a non-concessionary ESG investment would support maximizing financial benefit. He also notes that providing a non-financial benefit to Lisa is permissible under Pennsylvania law and would not be against the material purpose of providing financial assistance to Armando’s children and grandchildren. In fact, Allen could argue that investing in a non-concessionary ESG investment provides the best of both worlds. The trustee can provide for the non-financial benefit of supporting a cause close to Lisa’s heart and still have the growth and income associated with a solid investment.

There is no question in Cousin Allen’s mind that this goal is legal and in no way against public policy. Finding no impediment so far, Cousin Allen closes this meeting and sets their second meeting where he will dive into his duty to administer and his duty of loyalty.

Duty of Administration

The fiduciary framework for a trustee is set forth under the PA UTA upon acceptance of the role. This is known as the duty to administer and defined under §7771.

“Upon acceptance of a trusteeship, the trustee shall administer the trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes and the interests of the beneficiaries and in accordance with applicable law.”[xi]

This seemingly simple definition creates many fiduciary duties. Within the context of this discussion, let’s focus on loyalty, impartiality and care along with some of their ancillary responsibilities.

Duty of Loyalty

The PA UTA §7772(a) describes a trustee’s duty of loyalty in a very simple and direct way:

“A trustee shall administer the trust solely in the interests of the beneficiaries.”[xii]

The trustee must administer the trust solely for the benefit of the beneficiaries, avoiding actions that favor the trustee’s personal interests or those of third parties. In essence, the trustee must avoid conflicts of interest. So, what constitutes a conflict of interest? PA UTA §7772(c) provides:

“[a] A sale, purchase, exchange, encumbrance or other disposition of property is presumed to be affected by a conflict between personal and fiduciary interests if it is entered into by the trustee with: (1) the trustee’s spouse; (2) the trustee’s parent or a spouse of the parent; (3) a descendant of the trustee’s parent or a spouse of the descendant;(4) an agent of the trustee …; (5) a corporation or other person or enterprise in which the trustee or a person that owns a significant interest in the trustee has an interest that might affect the trustee’s judgment, …; or (6) the trustee personally.”[xiii]

In other jurisdictions, this is sometimes referred to as the “No Further Inquiry Rule.” It stipulates that if a trustee engages in self-dealing, it has breached its duty of loyalty by the very act.[xiv] Under this rule, courts do not examine the fairness of the transaction; the mere existence of self-dealing triggers the rule.[xv] 

There are, however, circumstances where such transactions are permissible and those are set forth in §7772(b):

“(1) the transaction was authorized by the terms of the trust; (2) the transaction was approved by the court; (3) the beneficiary did not commence a judicial proceeding within the time allowed … ; (4) the beneficiary consented to the trustee’s conduct, ratified the transaction or released the trustee … ; or (5) the transaction involves a contract entered into or claim acquired by the trustee before the person became or contemplated becoming a trustee.”[xvi]  

To round out the analysis, I note that the statute also deals with transactions between a trustee and a beneficiary “that does not concern trust property but that occurs during the existence of the trust or while the trustee retains significant influence over the beneficiary and from which the trustee obtains an advantage is voidable by a court upon application by the beneficiary unless the trustee establishes that the transaction was fair to the beneficiary.”[xvii] And also involves a conflict  “between personal and fiduciary interests if the transaction concerns an opportunity properly belonging to the trust.”[xviii]

Case Study: The Second Meeting

Just like the last meeting, Cousin Allen begins this meeting by noting that he is responding to Lisa’s request to investigate this question and notes Renzo’s support. He explains that he is bound by a duty of loyalty where he must administer the trust solely in their interest. As the trust does not address this duty directly, he has reviewed Pennsylvania law. He does not believe there is any conflict of interest between him and the decision to invest in a non-concessionary ESG strategy. Cousin Allen does not have any interest in any ESG investments that would trigger PA UTA §7772(c). So long as the ESG investment will support Armando’s goal of providing financially for Lisa, Renzo and Armando’s more remote descendants, Allen is satisfied he will have met his duty to administer the trust and avoid conflicts. Allen concludes this meeting and sets another as he examines his duty of impartiality.

Duty of Impartiality

PA UTA §7773 defines a trustee’s duty of impartiality when dealing with two or more beneficiaries:

“If a trust has two or more beneficiaries, the trustee shall act impartially in investing, managing and distributing the trust property, giving due regard to the beneficiaries’ respective interests in light of the purposes of the trust. The duty to act impartially does not mean that the trustee must treat the beneficiaries equally. Rather, the trustee must treat the beneficiaries equitably in light of the purposes of the trust.” [xix]

This definition highlights two highly interrelated concepts around acting impartially: material purpose and equitable (not equal) treatment.

Let’s deviate from our case study for a moment and consider the familiar example of a dynasty trust benefiting a couple’s children during their lifetimes, after which it benefits future generations on similar terms. In a well-worn but highly salient refrain, the couple’s children will likely prioritize income where grandchildren and future generations may (at least until they become income beneficiaries) wish to focus on growth.

The material purpose discussion above remains highly relevant. However, seeking to understand the trust’s material purpose helps to support equitable treatment. The trustee may consider questions such as:

• Is the material purpose spelled out in the document and a supporting letter?

• While the trust has a dynasty structure suggesting a strong desire to consider future generations, is the trust more focused on the current beneficiaries?

• Did the grantor contemplate the possibility of the trust being completely drained during the children’s lifetimes?

• Does the trust continue as a pot trust or does it split into separate shares? If not, is it appropriate to consider dividing the trust?

• Is it appropriate to consider the Pennsylvania Uniform Principal and Income Act?[xx]

• Does case law help to provide guidance?

Case Study: The Third Meeting

As usual, Cousin Allen begins this meeting by noting that he is responding to Lisa’s request to investigate this matter and is doing so with Renzo’s support. He begins by laying out his duty to be impartial - meaning that he must, within the bounds of material purpose, treat the beneficiaries equitably but not equally. He notes that the trust is clearly intended to be multi-generational due to each sibling having a limited power of appointment. Although it has not come up in conversation, Allen notes that Renzo has three young adult children. Lisa has chosen not to have children. Should Lisa pass without descendants, her share would flow to Renzo, if he survives, or to his children if he predeceases.

In Cousin Allen’s view, this may impact his duty to be impartial because Renzo and his children may be affected by the decision to pursue an ESG strategy for Lisa. To minimize future conflict (and Allen’s potential liability), Allen then notes the need for Renzo to think about directly supporting a non-concessionary ESG strategy. It also may be an ideal time to begin to involve Renzo’s children. Of all of the ethical issues, this one gives Cousin Allen the most pause. Allen ends the meeting by scheduling their final discussion so he can do further research on his duty of care and make suggestions on how to proceed.

Duty of Prudent Administration (Duty of Care)

Beginning as always with the PA UTA, Prudent Administration is outlined in § 7774:   

“A trustee shall administer the trust as a prudent person would, by considering the purposes, provisions, distributional requirements and other circumstances of the trust and by exercising reasonable care, skill and caution.”[xxi]

History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme.[xxii] So let’s break down the key components of the section. Note we begin with the trustee’s duty to “administer the trust.” The duty we discussed above does not change simply because we are now discussing investments. So, the trustee shall administer the trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes and the interests of the beneficiaries and in accordance with applicable law.”[xxiii] In this case the “applicable law” calls into focus how to invest as a “prudent person would …” and that invokes the Prudent Investor Rule.

Prudent Investor Rule is codified in 20 Pa. C.S.A. §7201 - 7214. While an exhaustive analysis is beyond the scope of this article, let’s cover some of the main principles. Section 7203(a) sets forth the general rule:

“A fiduciary shall invest and manage property held in a trust as a prudent investor would, by considering the purposes, terms and other circumstances of the trust and by pursuing an overall investment strategy reasonably suited to the trust.”[xxiv]

This rule emphasizes a modern portfolio theory approach, requiring trustees to make investment decisions based on the trust’s purposes, terms and the interests of the beneficiaries. It focuses on the overall risk and return of the portfolio rather than the performance of individual assets.[xxv] In addition, there is a duty to monitor, that is, the trustee must continuously review and adjust investments to meet the trust’s objectives even if the trustee properly delegates this power.[xxvi]

Thankfully, §7203(c), while not limiting the scope of the inquiry, provides considerations in making and managing investment decisions:

(1)   the size of the trust;

(2)   the nature and estimated duration of the fiduciary relationship;

(3)   the liquidity and distribution requirements of the trust;

(4)   the expected tax consequences of investment decisions or strategies and of distributions of income and principal;

(5)   the role that each investment or course of action plays in the overall investment strategy;

(6)   an asset’s special relationship or special value, if any, to the purposes of the trust or to one or more of the beneficiaries …;

(7)   to the extent reasonably known to the fiduciary, the needs of the beneficiaries for present and future distributions authorized or required by the governing instrument; and

(8)   to the extent reasonably known to the fiduciary, the income and resources of the beneficiaries and related trusts.[xxvii]

Although I temporarily skipped over it, the rhyme continues because the trustee must proceed by “considering the purposes, terms and other circumstances of the trust…” Therefore, our prior discussion of material purpose remains relevant.  

Case Study: The Fourth and Final Meeting

Accompanied by the simultaneous roll of both Renzo’s and Lisa’s eyes, Cousin Allen begins this meeting by noting that he is responding to Lisa’s request to investigate this matter and is doing so with Renzo’s support. He briefly reviews the Prudent Investor Rule with Renzo and Lisa. Allen feels that applying this lens to a non-concessionary ESG investment is fairly straightforward. As part of a fully diversified investment strategy that is properly monitored and adjusted, an ESG investment (like any other) can certainly play a role in a trust’s investment portfolio.

At this point, Cousin Allen feels that his review of the fiduciary issues is complete. His remaining question is whether Renzo and Lisa can agree on how to proceed. Allen outlines the options:

If they agree they could consider:

A Nonjudicial Settlement Agreement: PA UTA §7710.1(b)  provides that so long as the agreement is consistent with the material purpose of the trust “all beneficiaries, all trustees and other persons, if any, who have an interest in a matter relating to a trust may enter into a binding nonjudicial settlement agreement with respect to the matter.”[xxviii] Cousin Allen notes that we would have to consider and likely get the approval of the remainder beneficiaries (Renzo’s children).

A Statement of Vision, Values and Goals: Cousin Allen is well connected to several professionals who can help craft and refine Renzo’s and Lisa’s ESG goals. While this is a non-binding document, it can help to focus Cousin Allen and help him to better choose a proper non-concessionary investment vehicle. In addition, this could set a great precedent for Cousin Allen (or his successor) to have a similar conversation with Renzo’s children both now and when they eventually become principal and income beneficiaries.

If they can’t agree they could consider:

Division of the Trust: PA UTA §7740.7 provides that “[a] trustee may, without court approval, divide a trust into separate trusts, allocating to each separate trust either a fractional share of each asset and each liability held by the original trust or assets having an appropriate aggregate fair market value and fairly representing the appreciation or depreciation in the assets of the original trust as a whole. The beneficiaries of the separate trusts may be different so long as their rights are not impaired.” 

Given that the trust is composed of only investable assets, division should be fairly easy to achieve mechanically. Cousin Allen does note that even upon division, all his fiduciary duties still apply so they would need to continue to review materiality, duty of care, duty of loyalty and duty of prudent administration with each family line. Cousin Allen also notes that Renzo’s children are now adults and so they will likely need to consent. There is an additional complication here as Renzo’s children also may inherit Lisa’s share. At that point, they may need to revisit this conversation and think about options such as making a unitrust election.

If they wish to pursue ESG strategies with their personal assets or through their powers of appointment:

They should carefully consider enabling language so it’s clear that the trustee has this power. Perhaps language such as “The Trustee is authorized to consider Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) factors in the selection and management of trust investments. Such considerations may include, but are not limited to, environmental sustainability, social responsibility and governance practices of potential investments. The Trustee may prioritize ESG investments, even if such investments may not produce the highest immediate return, provided the Trustee determines that such investments align with the purposes of the trust and the interests of the beneficiaries. This authorization is subject to the Trustee’s obligations and duties under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act and any other applicable laws." And of course, a statement of vision, values and goals also would be extremely helpful.

Perhaps someday legislation will deal with this issue, but that’s all Cousin Allen has for now. Renzo and Lisa are very grateful for all his work. Renzo has reflected on all of this and agreed to help Lisa realize her goal and eventually agreed to a reasonable allocation to her desired ESG investment. They will work with Cousin Allen to document the specifics and involve Renzo’s children as a best practice. However, all these meetings have left Renzo wondering … “Did Cousin Allen bill the trust for all of this research?”

Renzo is a partner at WhartonHill Investment Advisors and their Director of Wealth Strategy. In this role, he collaborates with clients on customized trust and estate planning techniques and creates personalized financial plans to incorporate broad-ranging objectives.  As a former corporate attorney, Renzo has additional expertise with the complex needs of entrepreneurial and ultra-high- net-worth families. Prior to Renzo’s career in finance, he practiced law, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and private placement securities.  Renzo received his Bachelor of Science from Cornell University in 1996 and his JD and MBA from Villanova University in 2000.  Renzo currently serves on the Board of the Philadelphia Estate Planning Council and serves on multiple committees.

[i] Honorable mention to the television show “Golden Girls” and the incomparably talented comedic actress, Estelle Getty who portrayed Sophia Petrillio. “Picture It. Sicily, 1920…” was one of her many hilarious bits. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088526/.

[ii] The History of Socially Responsible Investing, Cnote, https://www.mycnote.com/blog/the-history-of-socially-responsible-investing/, 2024 CNote Group, Inc.

[iii] https://www.iccr.org/mission-history/ Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility

[iv] The United Nations Global Compact released the report “Who Cares Wins,” https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/280911488968799581/pdf/113237-WP-WhoCaresWins-2004.pdf.  

[v] See e.g., Lauren J. Wolven, Jennifer B. Goode & Amy E. Szostak, It’s Not Easy Being Green – Is ESG Investing Sustainable for Trustees? 2024 University of Miami School of Law; and Max M. Schanzenbach & Robert H. Sitkoff, Reconciling Fiduciary Duty and Social Conscience: The Law and Economics of ESG Investing by a Trustee, 72 STAN. L. REV. 381, 411-418 (2020). 

[vi] See https://help.cfainstitute.org/s/article/What-is-ESG-Investing.

[vii] Kagan, Julia, “What is a Legal Trust? Common Purposes, Types and Structures.” Investopedia. Updated April 15, 2023. and https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trust.asp.

[viii] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7701 et seq.

[ix] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7705(b)(3).

[x] See 20 Pa. C.S. § 7740.2(a).

[xi] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7771.

[xii] 20 Pa. C.S. § 7772(a).

[xiii] Citation redacted and emphasis added. See 20 Pa.C.S. § 7772(c) for full text.

[xiv] See Restatement (Second) of Trusts §170(1) & Comments.

[xv] See generally Estate of Harrison, 2000 Pa. Super. 19, 745 A.2d 676, 679 (2000).

[xvi] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7772(b).

[xvii] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7772(d).

[xviii] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7772(e).

[xix] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7773.

[xx] See 20 Pa.C.S. § 8101 et seq.

[xxi] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7774.

[xxii] Attributed to Mark Twain but that seems to be an open question.

[xxiii] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7771.

[xxiv] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7203(a).

[xxv] See Supra,  Lauren J. Wolven, Jennifer B. Goode & Amy E. Szostak, It’s Not Easy Being Green – Is ESG Investing Sustainable for Trustees? 2024 University of Miami School of Law, citing Philip J. Ruce, The Trustee and the Prudent Investor: The Emerging Acceptance of Alternative Investments as the New Fiduciary Standard, 53 S. TEX. L. REV. 653, 671-673 (2012).

[xxvi] See 20 Pa.C.S. § 7777.

[xxvii] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7203(c).

[xxviii] 20 Pa.C.S. § 7710.1(b).