Legal Opinion
Jones v. Harris Associates L. P.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 30, 2010No. 08-586PublishedCited by 59 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Alito
We consider in this case what a mutual fund shareholder must prove in order to show that a mutual fond investment adviser breached the “fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services” that is imposed by § 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U. S. C. § 80a-35(b) (hereinafter § 36(b)).
I
A
The Investment Company Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 789, 15 U. S. C. §80a-l et seq., regulates investment companies, including mutual funds. “A mutual fond is a pool of assets, consisting primarily of [a] portfolio [of] securities, and belonging to the individual investors holding…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Pepper v. LittonSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- General Motors Corp. v. TracySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Burks v. LaskerSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Jurijus Kadamovas v. Michael StevensCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
- Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative TradersSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- U. S. Bank N. A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLCSupreme Court of the United States · 2018
- Renfro v. Unisys Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- Loomis v. Exelon Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2011
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.