liability under 15 U.S.C.S. § 80a-35(b), an adviser's fee had to be so
disproportionately large that it bore no reasonable relationship to the
services rendered and could not have been the product of arm's length
bargaining; thus, the Seventh Circuit's rejection of that test was vacated, and
mutual fund shareholders' claims were remanded.
subscribers can view the enhanced version of Jones
v. Harris Assocs. L. P., 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2926 (March 30, 2010)
Non-subscribers may view
the free, unenhanced version of Jones v. Harris Assocs.
L. P. lexisONE's Free Case
may access Supreme Court briefs for this case.
See other LexisNexis Corporate & Securities Law Community items about Jones v. Harris Assocs. L.P.:
Richard Phillips and Mike Eisenberg on Jones v. Harris Associates
Articles powered by martindale.com:
The Supreme Court Decides in Mutual Fund Case that the Gartenberg
Approach is Correct
Supreme Court Rules in Jones v. Harris