文章基本信息

标题：The Investors Weren’t Tricked, but How Were They Treated? The Seventh Circuit’s New Definition of Fiduciary Duty inJones v. Harris Associates, L.P., 527 F.2d 923 (7th Cir. 2008)
本地全文：下载
作者：Leslie M. Warren
期刊名称：Southern Illinois University Law Journal
印刷版ISSN：0145-3432
出版年度：2010
卷号：34
期号：2
页码：445
出版社：Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
摘要：Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act imposes a fiduciary duty on mutual fund advisers to the investors of a fund. For over twenty years, the mutual fund industry and the federal judiciary used a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc, as the standard in determining if a mutual fund adviser had breached his duty to the investors. The Gartenberg approach involved analyzing an adviser’s fees to determine if they were excessive or disproportionately unfair. In 2008 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided in Jones v. Harris Associates, L.L.P. to “disapprove” of the Gartenberg approach, by holding that as long as advisers made full disclosures regarding their fees, there would be no limit to the fees they could receive. This Casenote argues that the Seventh Circuit incorrectly interpreted the fiduciary duty imposed upon mutual fund advisers by section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. Further, this Casenote argues that any person or company who holds a fiduciary duty has a much higher duty than simply making disclosures.