On June 13th, the Supreme Court honored the corporate form and held that an investment adviser cannot be held liable for allegedly false statements made in a mutual fund prospectus that it did not file. Shareholders of the investment adviser's parent company brought a Rule 10b-5 lawsuit against the parent and adviser alleging that the prospectuses for the mutual funds for which the adviser provided advisory services contained false and misleading statements and seeking to hold the adviser liable for them. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the adviser cannot be held liable for the statements made in the fund prospectuses. The fund, not the adviser, filed the prospectuses with the SEC and the Court strictly respected the corporate form, noting that only one of the fund's trustees was also associated with the adviser. Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders. See also Reuters (reaction to Court's decision and predicted consequences).