Latest Publications

Share:

In First Published Appellate Decision Addressing Gartenberg Factors Since Jones v. Harris, U.S. Court of Appeals Rejects...

On March 30, 2020, 10 years to the day after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jones v. Harris, 559 U.S. 335 (2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued the first published federal appellate decision...more

Not Dead Yet: Second Circuit Revives Private Rights of Action Under Section 47(B) of the Investment Company Act of 1940

Since 2002, federal courts have refused to find that implied private rights of action exist under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA). Last week, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held...more

Another Court Grants Summary Judgment to Adviser In Section 36(B) Mutual Fund Excessive Fee Lawsuit Brought Under Subadvisory Fee...

In a newly unsealed decision, the federal district court in Manhattan granted summary judgment in favor of a mutual fund’s investment adviser in a lawsuit filed pursuant to Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940....more

Second Circuit Affirms Pre-Discovery Dismissal of Section 36(b) Subadvisory Fee Comparison Complaint

On March 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal prior to discovery of a complaint filed under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Second Circuit’s decision is...more

Another Court Partially Denies Summary Judgment, Sends Case to Trial in Section 36(b) Excessive Fee Action

On October 25, 2018, Judge George Wu of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles largely denied an investment adviser’s motion for summary judgment in an action against Metropolitan West...more

Court Partially Denies Summary Judgment for Adviser in Section 36(b) Excessive Fee Action

On October 3, 2018, Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision that largely denied an investment adviser’s motion for summary judgment in an action filed against...more

Rejecting Subadvisory Fee Comparison, Federal District Court Enters Summary Judgment for Investment Adviser and Administrator in...

On March 9, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered summary judgment for defendants in an action brought under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The plaintiffs in the action...more

Court Rules for Fund Adviser in Excessive Fee Case Against Hartford

On February 28, the court in the mutual fund excessive fee case against Hartford (Kasilag v. Hartford Inv. Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 1:11-cv-01083 (D.N.J.)) issued a 70-page opinion ruling in favor of the fund adviser and against...more

Court Rules in Favor of Investment Adviser after Trial in Section 36(b) Excessive Fee Case

In a case closely watched by the mutual fund industry, the federal district court in New Jersey ruled on Thursday in favor of a mutual fund’s investment adviser and against the shareholders who had brought the lawsuit under...more

9 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide