On March 30, the Supreme Court of the United States released its decision in the case of Jones v. Harris. The case considered the fiduciary duty imposed on mutual fund advisers by section 36 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA) with respect to the receipt of compensation for services. This particular issue has been the topic of recent judicial attention.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the basic formulation of the Gartenberg test, stating that "to face liability under §36(b), an investment adviser must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm's length bargaining." While the basic formulation of the test appeared to be relatively uncontroversial in this case, the parties disagreed on a number of points concerning its application. Thus, the Supreme Court provided guidance on a number of issues. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated that:
- since the ICA requires consideration of all relevant factors concerning the fees charged, there is no categorical rule prohibiting comparisons between the fees charged by advisers to different types of clients. The weight to be allocated to such comparisons, however, depends on the circumstances and the ICA does not ensure fee parity between mutual funds and institutional clients;
- Courts should not rely too heavily on the fees charged by other advisers; and
- A court's evaluation of an investment adviser's fiduciary duty must take into account both procedure and substance. "Where a board's process for negotiating and reviewing investment-adviser compensation is robust, a reviewing court should afford commensurate deference to the outcome of the bargaining process." Where the board's process was deficient or the adviser withheld important information, however, a court may take a more rigorous look at the outcome.
Finding that the Seventh Circuit panel focused almost entirely on disclosure, the Supreme Court vacated the Circuit Court's decision and remanded the case.
The immediate decision's effect on mutual fund fees remains to be seen, and will ultimately depend on the interpretation given to the Supreme Court's findings by lower courts. Thus, the mutual fund industry will undoubtedly watch with interest as this case, and those like it, proceed through the lower courts.
PDF Version