Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the US Supreme Court's March 30, 2010 decision in Jones v. Harris Associates, LP concerning the evaluation of investment advisory fees under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

The paper lays out the background of Section 36(b), the Second Circuit's 1982 decision in Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch, and the plaintiff's allegation in the Jones case; discusses differences of opinion among the circuit courts on the fiduciary duty standard in Section 36(b); and explains the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of the Gartenberg standard, including a review of Section 36(b) on advisers' fiduciary duty, the role of comparative fees in the Section 36(b) calculus, the role of independent directors, and the dangers associated with judicial review of a board's decision regarding advisory fees.

The Court concluded its opinion by once more endorsing the principles articulated in Gartenberg.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

During 2003, compensation practices for the retail sale of mutual funds came under fire. Recent revelations about failures in the processing of mutual fund breakpoints had triggered a more in‐depth investigation into mutual fund marketing and compensation practice by securities regulators, Congress, and the states. This article focuses on the regulation of sales compensation practices primarily as it affects a broker‐dealer selling mutual funds in the retail market. It addresses the regulatory framework for three key compensation practices: (1) the use of non‐cash compensation in connection with mutual fund sales; (2) marketing and compensation arrangements providing enhanced compensation to a selling firm as well as to its sales representatives for the promotion of certain fund securities over others, such as proprietary funds over non‐proprietary funds, preferred funds over non‐preferred funds, and Class B shares over Class A shares; and (3) the use of commissions for mutual fund portfolio trades as an additional source of selling compensation for selling firms, a practice sometimes referred to as ”directed brokerage.“

The UK has in recent years seen considerable growth of facilities management (FM) outsourcing across a range of industries. This paper considers the legal problems and risks inherent in FM outsourcing. It also suggests ways to facilitate the transactional negotiating process and discusses the methods by which business and legal risks can be fairly apportioned (between the user and the provider), how to ensure good contract management and, importantly, managing risks on contract termination and exit. The paper is relevant to both users and providers in terms of best negotiating practice and risk management. From a legal perspective, both the UK (and the European Union) are more highly regulated jurisdictions for FM deals than are the US and Canadian markets, and this paper focuses on UK (and European) issues. Cross‐border legal issues are also considered.

Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) is the federal department responsible for housing over 190,000 Canadian federal public servants. During Y2K preparations, it became apparent that a single source or form of integrated, emergency response information at the infrastructure level did not exist. A process had to be created and developed that would serve as a single vehicle and source for building‐based emergency response. These preparations for Y2K saw the creation of the Infrastructure Continuity Unit (ICU) and a system for the creation, validation, and maintenance of Infrastructure Continuity Plans (ICPs). An ICP is an event‐management document that contains a series of procedures and protocols to be used during a building‐based incident or disruption of services. The ICU is supported nationally by a network of Regional Coordinators who oversee the gathering of information needed to create ICPs for their own parts of the country. This paper demonstrates how this system, along with the ICU’s recent certification by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) to the ISO 9000 standard, have contributed to the ICU’s success. This paper takes the reader through an in‐depth exploration of the ICU’s processes, methodologies and procedures and demonstrates why, in a post‐September 11th world, the ICU has begun to attract international attention.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.

The experimental parliamentary subsidy on knights' fees and freehold incomes from lands and rents of 1431 was the only English direct lay tax of the Middle Ages which broke down. As such, this subsidy has a clear historiographical significance, yet previous scholars have tended to overlook it on the grounds that parliament's annulment act of 1432 mandated the destruction of all fiscal administrative evidence. Many county assessments from 1431–1432 do, however, survive and are examined for the first time in this article as part of a detailed assessment of the fiscal and administrative context of the knights' fees and incomes tax. This impost constituted a royal response to excess expenditures associated with Henry VI's “Coronation Expedition” of 1429–1431, the scale of which marked a decisive break from the fiscal-military strategy of the 1420s. Widespread confusion regarding whether taxpayers ought to pay the feudal or the non-feudal component of the 1431 subsidy characterized its botched administration. Industrial scale under-assessment, moreover, emerged as a serious problem. Officials' attempts to provide a measure of fiscal compensation by unlawfully double-assessing many taxpayers served to increase administrative confusion and resulted in parliament's annulment act of 1432. This had serious consequences for the crown's finances, since the regime was saddled with budgetary and debt problems which would ultimately undermine the solvency of the Lancastrian state.