Supreme Court watch - Pay caps

An upcoming case will provide the first glimpse into how the justices feel about capping compensation.

EMAIL  |   PRINT  |   SHARE  |   RSS
 
google my aol my msn my yahoo! netvibes
Paste this link into your favorite RSS desktop reader
See all CNNMoney.com RSS FEEDS (close)
By Roger Parloff, senior editor

Photos
10 biggest CEO paychecks
Including salary, bonuses, stock and options, these public company CEOs took home pay packages last year worth up to $104 million.
Who's more influential?
  • Google's Sergey Brin and Larry Page
  • Golfer Tiger Woods
  • Financial analyst Meredith Whitney
  • Rapper and entrepreneur Jay-Z

(Fortune Magazine) -- Even as the Obama administration is unveiling plans to impose unprecedented pay caps on top officials at the seven U.S. companies receiving the largest federal bailouts, the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear a case that turns on whether to apply analogous pay caps on certain financial advisers.

Even more important, the court's ruling in the case known as Jones v. Harris Associates -- being argued November 2 -- will provide insight into how the current roster of justices view the economic question of our day: When should market forces be reined in by government?

Typically, when directors pay a CEO a suspiciously bloated salary, the action raises only state-law questions, not warranting the Supreme Court's attention.

The upcoming case, however, raises a closely analogous issue that does happen to be controlled by federal law: What happens when ostensibly independent directors of a mutual fund approve bloated fees for the fund's financial adviser -- the same adviser who most likely created the fund and, in most cases, still oversees it? (A 1970 amendment to the federal Investment Company Act imposes a fiduciary duty on fund advisers not to accept excessive compensation and empowers investors to enforce that duty in court.)

The facts of the case are these: In 2004 investors in three Oakmark mutual funds -- which had, ironically, each just completed three years of stellar performance -- sued the funds' adviser, Harris Associates, for allegedly accepting too much in fees during that time. (The investors' law firm also brought similar cases against 11 other leading fund advisers, including those for American Century, Fidelity, Janus (JNS), and Putnam.)

Citing the fact that Oakmark's fees had been fully disclosed and were well within industry standards -- roughly 1% of assets for the first $2 billion invested -- the district judge threw the case out before trial in 2007.

Last year the federal appeals court in Chicago affirmed that decision. U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook, one of the most eminent jurists of the conservative Chicago School of Law and Economics, explained his ruling bluntly: "A fiduciary must make full disclosure and play no tricks but is not subject to a cap on compensation." Ho-hum.

Then things took a turn toward the extraordinary. In August 2008, when the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear the case, five judges signed a rare dissenting opinion. More remarkable still, the dissent was authored by Judge Richard Posner, another towering intellect of the free-market Chicago school.

Perhaps undergoing a mid-financial-crisis crisis, Posner urged that market forces could not be trusted in this situation. In his view Judge Easterbrook's analysis was "ripe for reexamination" because of the "feeble incentives of boards of directors to police compensation." He stressed that Harris charged mutual fund investors roughly twice what it charged independent institutional investors.

Seeing the deep rift within the Seventh Circuit and a conflict with other circuit court rulings, the Supreme Court snatched the case up in March.

Even aside from its implications for CEO pay, Jones v. Harris Associates directly affects the $10 trillion mutual fund industry in which 92 million investors participate. At least 14 outside groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs.

Jones's supporters include Vanguard founder John C. Bogle, AARP, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Rooting for Harris Associates, on the other hand, are various industry trade groups and the libertarian Cato Institute.

We're wagering that the court will reject Judge Easterbrook's view -- that virtually any fee, so long as it's disclosed, is okay -- but still won't find Oakmark's fees to have been illegally out of whack.

Of greater interest will be the straw poll of the Supreme Court's views on laissez-faire capitalism itself. Is it, too, "ripe for reexamination"? To top of page

Company Price Change % Change
Bank of America Corp... 16.15 0.00 0.00%
Facebook Inc 58.94 0.00 0.00%
General Electric Co 26.56 0.00 0.00%
Cisco Systems Inc 23.21 0.00 0.00%
Micron Technology In... 23.91 0.00 0.00%
Data as of Apr 17
Index Last Change % Change
Dow 16,408.54 -16.31 -0.10%
Nasdaq 4,095.52 9.29 0.23%
S&P 500 1,864.85 2.54 0.14%
Treasuries 2.72 0.08 3.19%
Data as of 1:24pm ET
More Galleries
50 years of the Ford Mustang Take a drive down memory lane with our favorite photos of the car through the years. More
Cool cars from the New York Auto Show These are some of the most interesting new models and concept vehicles from the Big Apple's car show. More
8 CEOs who took a pay cut in 2013 Median CEO pay inched up 9% in 2013 to $13.9 million. But not everyone got a bump last year. Here are eight CEOs who missed out. More
Sponsors
Worry about the hackers you don't know 
Crime syndicates and government organizations pose a much greater cyber threat than renegade hacker groups like Anonymous. Play
GE CEO: Bringing jobs back to the U.S. 
Jeff Immelt says the U.S. is a cost competitive market for advanced manufacturing and that GE is bringing jobs back from Mexico. Play
Hamster wheel and wedgie-powered transit 
Red Bull Creation challenges hackers and engineers to invent new modes of transportation. Play

Market indexes are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer LIBOR Warning: Neither BBA Enterprises Limited, nor the BBA LIBOR Contributor Banks, nor Reuters, can be held liable for any irregularity or inaccuracy of BBA LIBOR. Disclaimer. Morningstar: © 2014 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer The Dow Jones IndexesSM are proprietary to and distributed by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and have been licensed for use. All content of the Dow Jones IndexesSM © 2014 is proprietary to Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Chicago Mercantile Association. The market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. FactSet Research Systems Inc. 2014. All rights reserved. Most stock quote data provided by BATS.