Mutual fund shareholders will be interested to learn that the firms they’ve hired to manage their money are no more than “speechwriters.” That was the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday that fund managers, who typically control every aspect of a mutual fund’s operation, cannot be held responsible for misrepresentations in a fund’s prospectus. This is the same court that in a 2010 decision restated its longstanding position that the fund manager exercises de facto control over its funds.

Where does this leave fund shareholders who buy shares, for example, of a conservative bond fund (according to the prospectus) that invests primarily in risky stocks? Whom does the law hold responsible for fraudulent prospectuses?