翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Jones Tract ・ Jones v Kaney ・ Jones v Kernott ・ Jones v Lipman ・ Jones v Lock ・ Jones v New Brunswick (AG) ・ Jones v Padavatton ・ Jones v Post Office ・ Jones v University of Manchester ・ Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. ・ Jones v. Bock ・ Jones v. City of Opelika (1942) ・ Jones v. Cunningham ・ Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC ・ Jones v. Flowers ・ Jones v. Harris Associates ・ Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union ・ Jones v. Racetrac Petroleum Inc. ・ Jones v. United States ・ Jones v. United States (1983) ・ Jones v. United States (1999) ・ Jones v. Van Zandt ・ Jones Valley ・ Jones Variety Hits ・ Jones Very ・ Jones Victor Mawulorm Dotse ・ Jones Warehouses ・ Jones! (New Zealand) ・ Jones' Battery ・ Jones' Fantastic Museum Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Jones v. Harris Associates ： ウィキペディア英語版 Jones v. Harris Associates ''Jones v. Harris Associates L.P.'', 08-586 (2010), is a case heard by the United States Supreme Court on November 2, 2009 in which investors claimed that the fees they paid to an investment advisor were too steep, violating the Investment Company Act of 1940.〔(Justices Scrutinize Adviser Pay (NYT) )〕〔(Mutual Assured Destruction: A big financial compensation case hits the Supreme Court. (WSJ) )〕 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. == Background == Harris Associates LP was the adviser to a set of $47bn Chicago funds including the Oakmark brands and is owned by French fund Natixis (which lost $450m to Bernard Madoff). The mutual funds are ‘open ended’ meaning they buy back shares at current asset value. Harris Associates was sued by Jones and other investors in Harris’ mutual funds. They argued that under the Investment Company Act 1940 s 36(b) and ''Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc.'', 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982) the company’s fees were unreasonably high. After an adverse finding in the Illinois District Court, Jones appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Jones v. Harris Associates」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.