Mutual Fund Fees

Article in the Sunday New York Times about the fees investors pay for mutual funds and whether those fees are excessive. This piece contains some analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Jones v. Harris.

Of note for South Carolina, the article quotes John P. Freeman, professor emeritus at the University of South Carolina School of Law, and a study Professor Freeman co-authored comparing mutual fund fees with those of public pension funds.

Popular posts from this blog

What Authority the Principal Chose: Arredondo, POAs, and Arbitrability

Image
It was only a matter of time before arbitrability (the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate) put a South Carolina courts in the position to construe the language in a power of attorney ("POA"). And this opinion did.  I try to view these decisions through the lens of how an attorney practicing in South Carolina might learn from them. And this decision, like some others involving the FAA and arbitrability, (for example, Grant v. Kuhn Chevrolet  or Herron v. Century BMW  , had the litigator and the drafter in me scratching my head.  Or at least I was confused until I learned about what had happened legislatively in the time since the POAs at issue in Arredondo were scrutinized by three (3) South Carolina courts. This decision, involving a POA executed before January 1, 2017, is likely an anomaly or a one-off, as going forward the S.C. Uniform Power of Attorney Act (SCUPOA) provides a guide for the creation of POAs that may avoid the necessity for so much j...
Read more

Amended Rule 1.15 RPC, and the Need for S.C. Law Firms to Implement File Retention Policies

On March 1, 2012, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued an Order amending Rule 1.15, "Safekeeping Property," of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct . Minimum File Retention Requirement and Adoption of a File Retention Policy Rule 1.15(i) establishes for the first time in South Carolina the requirement for an attorney or law firm to maintain client files after they are closed for a minimum of 6 years (unless the file is delivered to the client or the client has authorized destruction of the file and no pending or threatened legal proceedings are known to the lawyer).  If the client does not request the file within 6 years following the end of the representation, the lawyer may destroy the file unless pending or threatened legal proceedings are known to the lawyer. The last sentence of Comment 13 to Rule 1.15(i) will be of particular interest to the Bar:  "Attorneys and firms should create file retention policies and clearly communicate these ...
Read more

People, Processes, AND Technology: Use All Three to Avoid Missing a Filing Deadline

Image
As With Information Security, So Too With Calendaring . . .  "This is a cautionary tale for every attorney who litigates in an era of e-filing." The first sentence of the 5th Circuit's opinion in Rollins v. Home Depot  is quite the attention-grabber. But this tale is nothing new. Attorneys must understand the potential pitfalls of electronic service and take reasonable steps to avoid them.  As I have been saying (writing) for over ten years now, you cannot blame computers or computer software for missed deadlines. Instead, use knowledgeable people and sound processes to manage this risk. Blaming the Machines is not a Good Play Rollins (Briefly) . All attorneys using the case management/electronic case files (CM/ECF) system in federal courts agree to accept service of filings (and other documents and notices) via email.  FCRCP 5(b)(2)(E) . Counsel for Home Depot moved for summary judgment. Rollins' counsel didn't see the electronic notification of the motion becaus...
Read more