Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Decided
Docket Number
08-586
Term
2009 Term
Oral Argument Date
November 02, 2009
Questions Presented
Whether the court below erroneously held, in conflict with the decisions of three other circuits, that a shareholder’s claim that the fund’s investment adviser charged an excessive fee - more than twice the fee it charged to funds with which it was not affiliated - is not cognizable under §36(b), unless the shareholder can show that the adviser misled the fund’s directors who approved the fee.
Case Updates
Supreme Court rules on mutual fund management fees
March 30, 2010
The Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit's opinion in Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc. applied the correct standard for determining whether a mutual fund adviser breached its fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA).
U.S. Chamber files amicus brief
September 03, 2009
NCLC urged the Supreme Court to rule that Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA) is not a vehicle for private plaintiffs to police how investment adviser fees are set. In this case, certain mutual fund shareholders sued the fund’s investment advisor.