	Introduction

Concern about shareholder value, corporate governance, and the economic and social impact of escalating pay for corporate executives has led to a controversy regarding the practices of paying these executives. In the 110 th Congress, two laws containing executive compensation provisions applicable to executives of specific types of businesses were enacted: P.L. 110-289 , the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and P.L. 110-343 , the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Bills concerning executive compensation limits have been introduced in the 111 th Congress. In the 111 th Congress, Title VII of P.L. 111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), amended Section 111 of P.L. 110-343 to set forth somewhat different and more detailed restrictions on the compensation of executives of companies during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) remains outstanding. H.R. The House Committee on Financial Services circulated a discussion draft of H.R. 3269 , the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009. On July 31, 2009, the House passed an amended version of the bill. The bill is included as Title II of H.R. 4173 , passed by the House on December 11, 2009. As part of their financial regulatory reform legislation, both the House and the Senate passed bills with provisions applying to executive compensation. The House- and Senate-passed executive compensation provisions differed, in some cases significantly. The House and Senate conferees on Wall Street reform passed an executive compensation subtitle. On June 30, 2010, the House agreed to the conference report for H.R. 4173 , now referred to as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank). The Senate agreed to the conference report on July 15, 2010. The President signed the bill into law as P.L. 111-203 on July 21, 2010. In the 112 th Congress, H.R. 3606 , eventually a combination of several House bills, passed both the House and the Senate and is titled the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act). The bill's Section 102(a) exempts for up to five years certain companies with annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion, called emerging growth companies, from complying with the requirement of Dodd-Frank concerning the nonbinding shareholder vote on the approval of executive compensation. The President signed the bill on April 5, 2012. Jones v. Harris Associates

On March 3, 2009, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jones v. Harris Associates . Interest in this case from the executive compensation angle centers on the possibility that the decision may provide a hint as to what the Court could consider excessive executive compensation if it has before it a case concerning, for example, government actions limiting executive compensation. On November 2, 2009, the Court heard oral argument in this case. On March 30, 2010, the Court held that, in order to be successful in holding that an adviser misled the fund's directors and thereby violated his fiduciary duty, investors must show that an investment adviser has charged a "fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm's length bargaining."
Concern about shareholder value, corporate governance, and the economic and social impact of escalating pay for corporate executives has led to a controversy regarding the practices of paying these executives. Proposals have been made in the current and recent Congresses to limit executive compensation and the amount of deferred compensation for tax purposes. In the 110th Congress, two laws containing executive compensation provisions were enacted: P.L. 110-289, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and P.L. 110-343, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Bills have also been introduced in the 111th Congress concerning limiting executive compensation. In the 111th Congress, Title VII of P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), sets forth restrictions on the compensation of executives of companies during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) remains outstanding. In July 2009 the House Committee on Financial Services circulated a discussion draft of H.R. 3269, the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009. On July 31, 2009, the House passed an amended version of H.R. 3269, which is included as Title II of H.R. 4173, passed by the House on December 11, 2009. The Senate considered a proposal of a financial regulatory reform bill, of which Subtitle E of Title IX concerned executive compensation.
Both the House and the Senate passed bills with provisions applying to executive compensation. The House- and Senate-passed executive compensation provisions differed, in some cases significantly. The House and Senate conferees on Wall Street reform passed an executive compensation subtitle. On June 30, 2010, the House agreed to the conference report for H.R. 4173, now referred to as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank). The Senate agreed to the conference report on July 15, 2010. The President signed the bill into law as P.L. 111-203 on July 21, 2010.
In the 112th Congress, H.R. 3606, eventually a combination of several House bills, passed both the House and the Senate and is titled the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act). The bill has a provision which would exempt certain companies with annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion from complying with many of the executive compensation provisions of Dodd-Frank for up to five years. The President signed the bill on April 5, 2012.
On March 3, 2009, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jones v. Harris Associates, a case which challenged the fees charged by a mutual fund's investment advisers as excessive and a breach of fiduciary duty. Interest in this case from the executive compensation angle centered on the possibility that the decision might provide a hint as to what the Court could consider excessive executive compensation. On November 2, 2009, the Court heard oral argument in this case. On March 30, 2010, the Court held that, in order to be successful in holding that an adviser misled the fund's directors and thereby violated his fiduciary duty, investors must show that an investment adviser has charged a "fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm's length bargaining."