Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1698310
 
 

Footnotes (27)



 


 



The Downside of Judicial Restraint: The (Non-)Effect of Jones V. Harris


John C. Coates, IV


Harvard Law School

October 26, 2010

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, Vol. 6, 2010

Abstract:     
In Jones v. Harris, the Supreme Court rejected Judge Easterbrook's decision for the Seventh Circuit to narrow the grounds on which a mutual fund shareholder could win a fiduciary duty case against a mutual fund adviser under the Investment Company Act. In this article, I assess the likely impact of Jones and evaluate the Supreme Court's decision to exercise what might be called "judicial restraint" in its analysis. I show that the decision is unlikely to have a significant impact on fiduciary duty cases, and present preliminary data consistent with the idea that such cases are currently being brought against the wrong defendants (advisers to large funds) and not against the right ones (advisers charging extraordinarily high fees). I suggest that the "judicial restraint" exercised in Jones is in fact pernicious in this context, one in which courts must necessarily interpret a vague statute.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 8

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: October 28, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Coates, IV, John C., The Downside of Judicial Restraint: The (Non-)Effect of Jones V. Harris (October 26, 2010). Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, Vol. 6, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1698310

Contact Information

John C. Coates (Contact Author)
Harvard Law School ( email )
1575 Massachusetts
Hauser 406
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 501
Downloads: 86
Download Rank: 167,109
Footnotes:  27

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.328 seconds