On November 1, 2023, the industry groups (the Petitioners) challenging the new Private Fund Adviser Rules filed in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit their opening brief (the Brief) setting forth their legal...more
11/7/2023
/ Audits ,
Custody Rule ,
Dodd-Frank ,
Investment Adviser ,
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ,
Investment Company Act of 1940 ,
Pay-To-Play ,
Private Funds ,
Registered Investment Advisors ,
Retail Investors ,
Rulemaking Process ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
On May 5, 2023, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission filed its first enforcement complaint under Rule 22e-4 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 17 C.F.R. § 270.22e-4 (the Liquidity Rule). The complaint was brought...more
5/11/2023
/ Enforcement Actions ,
Investment Adviser ,
Investment Company Act of 1940 ,
Investment Funds ,
Liquidity ,
Liquidity Risk Management Rule ,
Open-Ended Fund Companies (OFCs) ,
Reporting Requirements ,
Risk Management ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Violations
The state of Delaware recently amended the Delaware Statutory Trust Act to adopt a control share acquisition statute (the “Control Share Statute”) as an anti-takeover defense. Beginning on August 1, 2022, the effective date...more
After years of relative silence related to variable annuity exchanges on the regulatory front, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced last week settled charges against RiverSource Distributors, Inc...more
Within the last two weeks, a group of plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed derivative lawsuits in U.S. federal court in New York against three separate special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”) — Pershing Square Tontine...more
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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)