The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on August 7, 2020 issued its post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law in Obeslo v. Great-West Capital Management, LLC et al. The ruling comes at the tail end of a...more
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini outlined the factors courts must consider in determining whether the fees an adviser charges a mutual fund are excessive and in violation of the Investment Company Act. All the...more
Key Takeaways - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirms that comparison of advisory fees to subadvisory fees is “inapt” under Jones v. Harris Assocs., relying on undisputed evidence of differences in services and risks. ...more
On September 27, 2019, following a two-week bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an action brought by mutual fund shareholders under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act...more
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a comprehensive post-trial ruling on September 30, 2019 in Chill v. Calamos Advisors LLC, holding that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show that...more
On August 5, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found for the defendant, Metropolitan West Asset Management, LLC (MetWest), following a bench trial in an excessive fee case brought under...more
Litigation and Enforcement Actions and Initiatives – SECTION 36(b) LITIGATION – Court Finds for Defendant Investment Adviser in Section 36(b) - Excessive-Fee Case – On August 5, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the...more
On July 31, 2019, Judge George H. Wu of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California released tentative findings of fact and conclusions of law dismissing an excessive fee claim brought under Section 36(b)...more
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
New Rules, Proposed Rules, Guidance and Alerts - PROPOSED RULES - SEC Proposes New Rule to Permit Certain ETFs to Operate Without an Exemptive Order - On June 28, 2018, the SEC issued a proposed new rule under the...more
Within recent weeks, there have been three noteworthy court rulings in pending Section 36(b) cases, with one court granting a motion to dismiss and two different courts fully granting substantive motions for summary judgment....more
On March 13, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered summary judgment for Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc. (“Harbor”) in consolidated actions brought under Section 36(b) of the...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
Following a four-day bench trial, New Jersey District Judge Renee Bumb granted judgment to defendant Hartford mutual fund advisers on "excessive fee" claims brought by fund shareholders under Section 36(b) of the Investment...more
The differences between the respective cost structures of exchange-traded funds and mutual funds and the nature of advisory services provided for each product may require boards to think about the Gartenberg factors...more
The Chairman of the Financial Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), on April 19, 2017 released an updated discussion draft of the Financial CHOICE1 Act (Bill), and the Committee held...more
Following a four-day bench trial, Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled in favor of an adviser on claims brought under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act by investors...more
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recently issued its post-trial ruling in Kasilag et al. v. Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC et al. The Hartford ruling is the second post-trial Section 36(b)...more
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
- AXA Prevails at First Post-Jones v. Harris Excessive Fee Trial - Potential Secondary Effects of Regulatory Examinations: Evidentiary Issues and Preclusion in Parallel Litigation - On The Horizon: Global...more
In its 2010 opinion in Jones v. Harris, L.P., the United States Supreme Court embraced the so-called Gartenberg standard for assessing an investment adviser’s fiduciary liability for excessive mutual fund fees under Section...more
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued its post-trial ruling on August 25, 2016 in Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company—the first Section 36(b) trial decision since 2009. The Court...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
The U.S. mutual fund industry is poised to see significant developments in the ongoing wave of Section 36(b) “excessive fee” litigation. Days apart in August, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary...more