Jones v. Harris Associates
2010 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Jones v. Harris Associates L. P.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., 559 U.S. 335 (2010), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which investors claimed that the fees they paid to an investment advisor were too steep, violating the Investment Company Act of 1940.[1][2][3]
Jones v. Harris Associates | |
---|---|
Argued November 2, 2009 Decided March 30, 2010 | |
Full case name | Jerry N. Jones, et al., Petitioners v. Harris Associates L.P. |
Docket no. | 08-586 |
Citations | 559 U.S. 335 (more) 130 S. Ct. 1418; 176 L. Ed. 2d 265; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2926; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 95,653; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 183 |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit |
Holding | |
For a claim to be valid under the Investment Company Act fees must be disproportionately large that they cannot be related to the services rendered, Seventh Circuit reversed. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by unanimous |
Concurrence | Thomas |
Laws applied | |
Section 36(b)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 |
The case held that the court has the jurisdiction to regulate fees of investment advisers in the mutual fund industry under the Investment Company Act of 1940, when those fees are excessive, and in breach of fiduciary duty. It is notable from a law and economics perspective for the vigorous opinion in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal of Judge Frank Easterbrook and the powerful dissent of Richard Posner, regarding the necessity and market failure in respect of adviser fee regulation.