|
|
Article: The fiduciary duty in mutual fund excessive fee cases: ripe for reexamination.
- Article from:
- Duke Law Journal
- Article date:
- October 1, 2009
- Author:
CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 2009 Duke University, School of Law. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)
|
ABSTRACT
Congress imposed a fiduciary duty regarding compensation on investment advisors by adding Section 36(b) to the Investment Company Act of 1940. Legislators intended this fiduciary duty to protect mutual fund investors from excessive management fees. It has failed. Mutual fired investors continue to pay significantly higher fees than institutional investors for the same money management services. In Jones v. Harris Associates, decided in 2008, the Seventh Circuit broke with the widely followed, thirty-year-old precedent of Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management. Chief Judge Easterbrook authored the majority opinion and Judge Posner wrote vigorously ...
Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles:
|
|
Article: Fiduciary duty and members of parliament.
Canadian Parliamentary Review;
June 22, 2008 ;
700+ words
... ... concept of a fiduciary relationship and fiduciary duty, and provides a brief summary of how ... then outlines the case for extending fiduciary duty to elected members of parliament ... consequences of the application of fiduciary duty, referring specifically to the advantages ...
|
|