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...

  • 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 

    The article reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the Jerry Jones v. Harris Associates LP case. The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. says that the high court's decision would set a dangerous precedent, if it will reverse the decades of reliance on independent boards. The Independent...

  • 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...

  • 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...

  • 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...

  • 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...

  • Supreme Court Revisits Fund Fees. Morgan, John // Money Management Executive;3/16/2009, Vol. 17 Issue 11, p1 

    The article discusses a U.S. Supreme Court case that could determine the fate of the Gartenberg standard for determining unreasonable fees. The Gartenberg standard is an old legal precedent used to determine whether mutual fund fees are too high that has set a high burden of proof for investors...

  • Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P.: The Unconflicted Fiduciary. DEL CASINO, COLLEEN // University of Miami Law Review;Fall2010, Vol. 65 Issue 1, p207 

    The article presents the Jones versus Harris Associates L.P. case about a breach in the statutory fiduciary duty when it charged its captive fund double what it charged its institutional clients like pension funds, for the same service. Particular focus is given to the Gartenberg case, where the...

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