The Trusted Voice of Fund Trustees

06:19 PM, Jul. 31, 2010
DOWNLOAD CURRENT ISSUE (PDF)
CORPORATE ACCESS
CONTACT US
SUBSCRIBE NOW
FREE TRIAL
Skip Navigation Links
NEWS
Home
Governance
Regulatory Update
Industry Groups
Bulletin Board
FEATURES
How Boards Work
Conferences
Q&A
Trustee Profiles
Learning Curve
Special Reports
Awards
RESOURCES
Archives
Links
Buyer's GuidesExpand Buyer's Guides
Rising StarsExpand Rising Stars
Events
Securities Technology Product & Services Online Guide
Hedge Fund Service Provider Guide
Pension Fund Service Provider Guide
Structured Finance Service Provider Guide
Scroll up
Scroll down
2010 Rising Stars of Public Funds
2009 Rising Stars of Hedge Funds
2009 Rising Stars of Foundations and Endowments
2009 Rising Stars of Mutual Funds
2009 Rising Stars of Public Funds
Scroll up
Scroll down
PRODUCTS & SERVICES
RSS Feeds
Corporate Access
Reprints
Career Center

Skip Navigation Links
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Agents
About Fund Directions
Contact Us
Help/FAQ's
ADVERTISING
Advertising Opportunities
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe
Free Trial

Jones v. Harris: What Next?



Mutual fund firms, financial advisors and independent fund directors have been watching Jones v. Harris Associates for months in anticipation of how the outcome will affect the funds industry. The case is currently before the Supreme Court, where the Securities and Exchange Commission has just filed an amicus brief on behalf of investors. Last week SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro jumped even further into the debate, asking Congress for more authority to define who can be an independent director. Washington Bureau Chief Stanley Wilson sat down with Bruce Rosenblum, partner at K&L Gates in Washington, D.C., to talk about the latest developments and where the case will go from here.



FD: What is the main issue the Court is currently considering in the Jones case?



Rosenblum: The Court is considering what standard lower courts should apply in cases where plaintiffs are alleging fund advisors are charging fund clients excessive fees, in particular, whether lower courts should be comparing fund fees to typically lower fees advisors charge institutional clients. [Section] 36(b) of the ’40 Act imposes a fiduciary duty on fund advisors regarding the fees they charge. So they can’t charge excessive fees.



FD: What yardstick have courts used up until now to decide when an advisor’s fees are excessive?

Rosenblum: Since 1982 the Gartenberg decision has served as the standard for courts to assess 36(b) cases. The Jones court basically said we don’t need Gartenberg anymore, as the mutual fund market has grown so large and competitive. So, if an advisor is charging fees comparable to what other fund advisors charge ...

To read this article, please subscribe or take a free trial.
Subscribe

Subscribers have unlimited access to all current content, email alerts and breaking news. Start your subscription today - click on the button below.

Subscribe

Free Trial

Taking a free trial will give you access to the current issue, email alerts and breaking news for a limited period. Start your free trial today.

Free Trial

Already Have An Account?

Username:
 Password:
Fund Directions | DOWNLOAD CURRENT ISSUE (PDF) | Corporate Access | Contact Us | Subscribe | Free Trial | Sitemap
© 2010 Institutional Investor | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy