Mutual fund advisers fees and executive compensation

被引:1
作者
Frankel, Tamar [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Boston Univ, Sch Law Fac, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[2] Univ Tokyo, Oxford Univ, Harvard Law Sch, Harvard Business Sch, Tokyo, Japan
[3] Amer Law Inst, Massachusetts Bar, Philadelphia, PA USA
[4] Amer Bar Fdn, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
关键词
mutual fund; adviser; fees; fiduciary; director;
D O I
10.1057/jdg.2009.26
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
The case of Jones v. Harris (2008a) that is currently before the Supreme Court poses issues with regard to mutual fund managers' fees and expense (Advisory Fees). However, the case may signal the direction courts will take in reviewing management compensation of large corporations as well. Advisory Fees pose a number of fundamental issues that appear in many fiduciary relationships. First, why do the fees and compensation of fiduciaries raise unique problems? Second, what are the solutions to the fee problem? Third, what is the role of the courts in the determination of Advisory Fees? Fourth, what are the tests that the courts or the boards of the mutual funds should apply in determining Advisory Fees? Fifth, how did the Seventh Circuit decision in Jones v. Harris determine these questions? Sixth, what are the implications of Jones v. Harris ? In conclusion, by analyzing these questions we might uncover guidelines to the issues with regard to corporate executive compensation as well.
引用
收藏
页码:7 / 19
页数:13
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]  
Augstums I. M., 2009, BANK AM GIVING MERIL
[2]  
Caremark International Inc, 1996, DER LIT
[3]  
Choi S, 2007, BOSTON U LAW REV, V87, P1021
[4]  
Coates JC, 2007, J CORP LAW, V33, P151
[5]  
FRANKEL T, 2006, J BUSINESS TECHNOLOG, V1, P133
[6]  
Frankel T., 2008, FIDUCIARY LAW, P95
[7]  
FRANKEL T, 1995, OR L REV, V74, P1209
[8]  
Frankel T., 2001, REGULATION MONEY MAN
[9]  
FREEMAN JP, 2001, J CORP L, V26, P609
[10]  
Goldfarb Z. A., 2009, WASH POST