Jones v. Harris, 537 F.3d 728 and 527 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2008). These two citations refer to a majority and dissenting opinion (in the same case) that address the fiduciary duties of advisors to mutual funds based on federal statutes, as well as compensation payable to those advisors. The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted certiorari.
Prof. William Birdthistle has provided extensive commentary on the case that appears on The Conglomerate, e.g., here and here. In addition to the important issues of fiduciary duty and "executive compensation" that make this future decision by the SCOTUS worth monitoring, extra sizzle on this steak is provided by a "clash of intellectual titans" in the form of "dueling opinions" by the well-known "judical heavyweights" Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judge Richard Posner. Both were academics before they came on the bench and both have written prominent publications on "law and economics". These two opinions feature their very public split on aspects of these theories, which some have described as "classical v. behavioral" schools of thought on the topic.
Here is the decision of Judge Easterbrook, and here is the dissenting opinion of Judge Posner, which some have opined was written specifically to attract the attention of the SCOTUS and (successfully, as it turns out) obtain review by the nation’s highest court.