The U.S. Supreme Court today heard what "fiduciary" means for an investment adviser when it charges mutual funds more than institutional investors pay for similar services. See Transcript, Jones v. Harris Assocs. L.P. , No 08-586 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2009). Briefs here.
Blawgletter predicts a close decision — probably by one vote – in favor of mutual fund
Blawgletter sometimes rues the length of court opinions. We indeed find the feeling more common as we progress a few months into our second half century. And yet our patience has lately improved.
Judge Richard Posner helped today by explaining, in an ironically long opinion for him, why judicial sound bites can make bad law.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a pair of key civil cases on November 2. One involves a claim to recover "excessive" fees under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Jones v. Harris Assocs., No. 08-586; and the other concerns states' ability to bar class actions asserting state law claims in federal court, Shady Grove
Matt Damon gives his all for his craft.
Blawgletter treasures the cinema. Watching film makes us giddy. Plus we adore any celluloid through which light can project flickering images, upon a screen or picture tube, of Matt Damon.
You thus may imagine our joy at seeing he who played Will Hunting . . . James Francis Ryan . .
Do people who bought stock at, say, $75 a share and who sell it at, oh, $80 per deserve our concern? Even if the company whose shares rose in value lied about something important, causing the price to dip before recovering?
The Seventh Circuit today said ix-nay on the orry-way but did it in terms
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered today that its seven members will gather for the next argument session on November 19 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Their Honors will hear from lawyers in, by Blawgletter's count, 16 potential MDL matters.
By the way, we confess to error in guessing the Panel would head south for this gathering.
DDAVP tablets help manage a form of diabetes.
Antitrust law seldom gets a boost in the federal courts any more. Their Honors seem more afraid of the risk that ruling for the plaintiff hurts competition than of the danger that killing a case encourages anticompetitive conduct and deprive consumers of any remedy for it. Fear of "false positives"
Blawgletter has fussed before about judicial noticing of facts on the basis of wishful thinking. Our prime targets have included the idea that class certification exerts "hydraulic pressure" for settlement and the notion that class actions involve little or no risk for plaintiffs' counsel.
Yesterday brought another instance — although, with the decision pending and therefore in
Arctic Glacier, the U.S. unit of a Manitoban outfit, pleaded guilty to violating section 1 of the Sherman Act. It confessed to conspiring with rival ice-makers not to vie for customers in Detroit and southeastern Michigan. The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice said:
|
|
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari today to review the 2006 criminal conviction of former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling on charges of securities fraud, insider trading, conspiracy, and lying to auditors. WSJ article here.
The Fifth Circuit upheld the verdict on January 6, 2009.
Update: SCOTUSBLOG says:
The Supreme Court agreed on