<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2009/09/05/25-professors-submit-amicus-brief-in-supreme-court-investment-advisory-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:59:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>25 Professors Submit Amicus Brief in Supreme Court Investment Advisory Case</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2009/09/05/25-professors-submit-amicus-brief-in-supreme-court-investment-advisory-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=25-professors-submit-amicus-brief-in-supreme-court-investment-advisory-case</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2009/09/05/25-professors-submit-amicus-brief-in-supreme-court-investment-advisory-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial advisers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jones v. Harris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=3743?d=20090905110024EDT</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Editor’s Note: This post is by John Coates of Harvard Law School. On September 3, 2009, twenty-five corporate law and finance professors and scholars – including several contributors to this blog – filed an amici curiae brief in the case of Jones et al. v. Harris Associate L.P. The case is now pending before the [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px"><strong>Editor’s Note:</strong> This post is by John Coates of Harvard Law School.</div>
<p>On September 3, 2009, twenty-five corporate law and finance professors and scholars – including several contributors to this blog – filed an amici curiae brief in the case of Jones et al. v. Harris Associate L.P.  The case is now pending before the United States Supreme Court.  The brief is available <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/finallawandfinancebrief.pdf" target="_new">here</a>, and the names of those joining the brief are listed at the bottom of this post.  The Supreme Court is <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalNovember2009.html" target="_new">currently scheduled</a> to hear the case on November 2, 2009.</p>
<p>The Harris case is an appeal of the Seventh Circuit, in an <a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&amp;shofile=07-1624_014.pdf" target="_new">opinion</a> written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, noted previously on this blog <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2008/05/28/second-circuit-rules-on-mutual-fund-advisory-fees-in-jones-v-harris/" target="_new">here</a> and <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2009/05/11/mutual-fund-advisory-fees/" target="_new">here</a>.  That decision upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the case against Harris Associates, a mutual fund advisor,  on the ground that as long as a mutual fund adviser does not breach the fiduciary duty owed to shareholders by failing to disclose all pertinent facts or otherwise hindering the fund’s directors from negotiating a favorable price, no judicial review of the reasonableness of the adviser’s fee is required to dismiss a claim under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA).</p>
<p>Judge Easterbrook’s opinion rejected the long-followed Second Circuit decision in <em>Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc.</em>, 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982).  Gartenberg, while respecting deliberations of independent directors, required courts to consider those deliberations in light of multiple factors in determining whether investment adviser fees were excessive and, in dicta, suggested that evidence of comparable fees and competition among advisors should not be given much weight.  A decision by the Seventh Circuit declining to rehear the case en banc generated a <a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&amp;shofile=07-1624_018.pdf" target="_blank">dissent</a> from Judge Richard Posner.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2009/09/05/25-professors-submit-amicus-brief-in-supreme-court-investment-advisory-case/#more-3743" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading 25 Professors Submit Amicus Brief in Supreme Court Investment Advisory Case">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2009/09/05/25-professors-submit-amicus-brief-in-supreme-court-investment-advisory-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
