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
On February 14, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan issued a decision dismissing a complaint brought under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, that...more
2/17/2018
/ Arms Length Transactions ,
Board of Directors ,
Dismissals ,
Excessive Fees ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Financial Adviser ,
Gartenberg Factors ,
Investment Adviser ,
Investment Company Act of 1940 ,
Mutual Funds ,
Section 36(b)
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
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
8/29/2016
/ Actual Damages ,
Board of Directors ,
Burden of Proof ,
Credibility ,
Excessive Fees ,
Expert Testimony ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
Gartenberg Factors ,
Investment Adviser ,
Judicial Deference ,
Mutual Funds ,
Section 36(b)