For three reasons, the Seventh Circuit's judgment should be reversed. First, under the Court's longstanding precedent, in this context a fiduciary duty requires a fair fee, achieved through full disclosure and good-faith negotiation. Second, the best gauge of a fair fee is what the investment adviser charges at arm's-length in other transactions for similar services. And, third, applying that standard here, Harris charged twice as much in percentage terms for providing virtually identical advisory services in arm's-length transactions with institutional investors.

allowing plaintiffs to recover State law penalties in Federal court that they can't recover in State court on a State law cause of action would powerfully distort ex ante forum choices, which is precisely what the Erie doctrine seeks to avoid.

This Court should clarify that the purpose of the adequate State grounds doctrine isn't to strip State courts of their equitable power to excuse procedural defaults, but simply to ensure that they don't discriminate against Federal claims under the guise of procedural ruling.

By ensuring that alleged criminals are held accountable, we send a strong message that fleeing across the border does not mean you will escape justice. I am looking forward to meeting Attorney General Chavez tomorrow and discussing additional ways we as law enforcement partners can work together to hold such defendants, particularly alleged leaders and associates of drug cartels, accountable.

This Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.

We've come a long way in these negotiations and have now reached a compromise that strikes the right balance between national security concerns and the public's right to know. This new version preserves a strong protection for reporters interested in protecting their sources, while also making sure that the government can still do the job of protecting its citizens. This agreement should expedite this bill's movement through committee and the full Senate. The negotiated compromise creates a fair standard to protect the public interest, journalists, the news media, bloggers, prosecutors and litigants.