Fund Fees: How Might the Supreme Court Decide?

But I think status quo is different when the Supreme Court ratifies the status quo. And I think it would be troubling, because I think to the extent that there are fund complexes that do not feel bound to impose the lowest possible cost on their shareholders that this would be a carte blanche to raise them higher.

I think it is also possible that in a pro-defendant finding, ruling, by the Supreme Court that the issue would probably make its way to Congress before very long.

Leggio: Professor Coates, do you agree that it's more likely than not that the Supreme Court will end up codifying some type of Gartenberg standard?

Coates: Yes. I think there is probably more chance than Professor Birdthistle does that the court might uphold perhaps a modified version of Judge Easterbrook's approach to this test.

We didn't really ever talk about it much in this conversation, but just to state it, Easterbrook took the position that if the board is there, and the board is independent, and the board gets good information and has a good process, then courts ought to take a very careful--they ought to be very reluctant to then intervene in a fee case.

And I could imagine the court maybe not going quite as far as Judge Easterbrook did, but taking into account that factor more heavily than prior courts had done.

I also think that another option on the table is Gartenberg-plus, but a different plus. Not to necessarily focus, as I think could be misleading on the institutional-retail comparison, although I think that ought to be part of the mix, but rather to allow lower courts to put more weight on the competitive forces that I firmly believe are very present.

And I will say one more thing. I think the Supreme Court will and should take into account something that we have not talked about, which is that there are costs imposed on fund investors by these cases. These cases are not run by investors. They are run by lawyers. They are run by lawyers who have their own interests. They are run by lawyers who face less competitive pressure than the fund advisors that they are attacking. They are run by lawyers who do not have to submit their plan for the litigation, or even get approval for the litigation to investors before they bring the litigation, after the litigation, anywhere along the way.

And to pretend that the court system here is sort of a cost-free check for investors is wrong. And so I do think the Supreme Court will and should take into account the possibility that if they greatly loosen the standard and sort of encourage more cases of this kind, that in the end might actually worsen results for investors. It might lower fees slightly, but it also might lower performance, because in the end, the costs of the litigation are ultimately going to be borne by the investors themselves.

Leggio: Professor Birdthistle, I think that's an important point. If there is your type of Gartenberg-plus analysis where the profit levels or the fees of retail funds need to come closer in line with institutional funds, but then all that means is additional litigation, are shareholders really going to see a reduction in fees, even in the best-case scenario?

Birdthistle: Well, I think the boogeyman of increased litigation is almost a standard part of every defendant in front of the Supreme Court. Every time you are a defendant in front of the Supreme Court, you can say, "If we lose this case, more litigation will come."

I think it's equally plausible, or it's also plausible, that if they win this case, the costs will go up also. I don't know exactly. I don't think anyone knows exactly what the difference numerically will be.

But I think the judicial system has plenty of ways already of dismissing cases that are without foundation. And that happens all the time. Can you guarantee that you'll have a ruling in which no frivolous lawsuits will be brought? Of course you can't. People will bring them all the time.

But if, in fact, the fees do come down and there is no basis for a lawsuit, then the lawyers will lose. And after losing one or two, they won't bring many more.

So I don't think the possibility of a floodgate of litigation will be there unless of course they start winning, in which case it would suggest that there was something wrong.

Leggio: Well great. Professor Coates, Professor Birdthistle, thank you so much for joining us today.

Birdthistle: Thank you very much, Ryan.

Coates: Thanks for the invitation.

Leggio: And thank you for joining us. This is Ryan Leggio for Morningstar.