TITLE

Supreme Court to Assess Mutual Fund Fees

PUB. DATE
October 2009
SOURCE
Journal of Financial Planning;Oct2009, Vol. 22 Issue 10, p10
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article discusses the court case of Jerry N. Jones and colleagues versus Harris Associates LP which involves the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940, particularly Section 36(b). The said section places investment advisers under a fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services. It is stated that a court ruling on the said case will center on whether an adviser misled fund directors.
ACCESSION #
44677386

 

Related Articles

  • Figuring Out Fees. DANZIG, CHRISTOPHER // InsideCounsel;Jun2010, Vol. 21 Issue 222, p18 

    The article reports on the battle to define excessive investment adviser fees in the legal case Jones v. Harris Associates. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Seventh Circuit's Gartenberg standard. In its ruling, section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act, which sets up the standard of...

  • JONES V. HARRIS: A FRESH APPROACH TO THE GARTENBERG STANDARD. Freeman, Kristen J.; Yeung, Amy Y. // Delaware Journal of Corporate Law;2010, Vol. 35 Issue 3, p959 

    The article analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Harris on the use of fiduciary duty under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA). It notes that the court explores a new approach to judicial review of the fiduciary duty of an investment advisor with regards...

  • GETTING BACK TO THE PURPOSE: ANALYZING JONES V. HARRIS ASSOCIATES L.P. IN LIGHT OF SECTION 1(B) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT. Obadina, Oladotun O. // Marquette Law Review;Winter2010, Vol. 94 Issue 2, p679 

    In Section 1(b) of the Investment Company Act, Congress expressly provides courts with a guide as to how its provisions should be interpreted. Congress lists a series of ways that investors participating in investment companies are adversely affected. It then expressly declares that interpreters...

  • Industry Defends Gartenberg Ruling as Excessive Fee Case Heads to Supreme Court. Morgan, John // Money Management Executive;9/14/2009, Vol. 17 Issue 35, p1 

    No abstract available.

  • THE DOWNSIDE OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT: THE (NON-)EFFECT OF JONES V. HARRIS. Coates IV, John C. // Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy;2010, Vol. 6, p58 

    The article discusses the impact of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the case of Jones v. Harris Associates LP on future cases concerning section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. It examines the implication of the court's decision on the practice of judicial restraint and...

  • An Empirical Study of Mutual Fund Excessive Fee Litigation: Do the Merits Matter? Curtis, Quinn; Morley, John // Journal of Law, Economics & Organization;May2014, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p275 

    Building on the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones v. Harris Associates, this article presents the first comprehensive empirical study of mutual fund excessive fee liability under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. We use a hand-collected data set of nearly all...

  • Jones v. Harris Associates L.P.: The Search for Investor Protection Continues�. BOLLMAN, RYAN; ANDREU, MARK // University of Miami Law Review;Winter2011, Vol. 65 Issue 2, p717 

    The authors ponder on the issue of investor protection in the U.S. in relation to the case Jones v. Harris Associates LP. They offer information on the structure and common practices in the mutual fund industry, explaining how a mutual fund is formed by an investment adviser and sold to...

  • DEFINING A NEW PUNCTILIO OF AN HONOR: THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD FOR BROKER-DEALERS. Di Lorenzo, Nicholas S. // Boston University Law Review;Jan2012, Vol. 92 Issue 1, p291 

    The article discusses the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) authority to impose standards on the behavior of broker-dealers and investment advisors in the wake of the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The U.S. Investment Advisers Act of 1940's...

  • Regulatory Future Drives Doubt. GIRDINA, MICHAEL // Money Management Executive;12/2/2013, Vol. 21 Issue 46, p1 

    The article focuses on the Regulatory Issues Survey as of December 2013 on fudiciary rules for advisors and brokers. It states that the Mary Jo White, chairwoman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, has stated on October 9, 2013 about the Securities Enforcement Forum which indicates...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics