Podcast: Federal Court Rejects Mutual Fund Fee Claims and Recognizes Market Realities
In the News. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed modifying the disclosure framework for mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (funds), which would create a new layered disclosure regime that attempts to...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
In a strong opinion, a federal court in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a suit alleging that the defendant charged “excessive” fees to a mutual fund....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
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to compel production of attorney-client privileged documents on April 25, 2017, in connection with the Section 36(b) lawsuit Chill v. Calamos...more
The fund manager was victorious in the first court decision to come from a group of complaints filed over the last several years against manager-of-manager models. Introduction - Following a 25-day bench trial, the...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
In Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., the Supreme Court adopted the Gartenberg standard for cases brought under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940: “[T]o face liability... an investment adviser must charge a...more