Jones v. Harris Associates
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Jones_v._Harris_Associates an entity of type: Thing
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.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Jones v. Harris Associates
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Jerry N. Jones, et al., Petitioners v. Harris Associates L.P.
xsd:integer
24942268
xsd:integer
895899185
xsd:integer
8
rdf:langString
unanimous
rdf:langString
Section 36 of the Investment Company Act of 1940
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
xsd:integer
335
xsd:integer
559
xsd:gMonthDay
--11-02
xsd:integer
2009
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-30
xsd:integer
2010
rdf:langString
Jerry N. Jones, et al., Petitioners v. Harris Associates L.P.
rdf:langString
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.
rdf:langString
Jones v. Harris Associates
rdf:langString
Alito
rdf:langString
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. 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.
rdf:langString
Thomas
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
20626
