We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.


Refine your search

6 results found


Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP | USA | 2 Jun 2011

U.S. Supreme Court rules on remedies for deficient plan communications

The U.S. Supreme Court does not often issue decisions interpreting the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), so when the Justices speak, the issues are significant.


Seyfarth Shaw LLP | USA | 16 May 2011

Supreme Court holds that intentionally misleading SPD may give rise to claim for monetary relief

Today, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous 8-0 decision (with Justice Sotomayor taking no part in the consideration of the case) vacated and remanded CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, No. 09-804, 563 U.S. ____ (2011) to the district court for further consideration.


Pepper Hamilton LLP | USA | 13 Dec 2010

Federal court reaffirms gartenberg excessive fee framework

In the first excessive-fee case decided by a federal court in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Jones v. Harris Associates, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on December 9 reinstated its order granting summary judgment to defendant Ameriprise Financial in Gallus v. Ameriprise.


Jones Day | USA | 21 Apr 2010

Reaffirming Gartenberg: the Supreme Court upholds the long-standing framework for evaluating mutual fund fees

On March 30, 2010, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded the Seventh Circuit's denial of an appeal of summary judgment by plaintiffs alleging that a mutual fund's investment adviser charged excessive advisory fees.


Vedder Price PC | USA | 5 Apr 2010

U.S. Supreme Court rules in Jones v. Harris Associates; vacates and remands Gallus v. Ameriprise Financial

On March 30, 2010, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Jones v Harris Associates, embracing the Gartenberg standard (from the Second Circuit) for evaluating advisory fees and rejecting the approach articulated by the Seventh Circuit, which looks to market efficiency and trust law fiduciary duty.


Vedder Price PC | USA | 1 Jun 2009

Eighth Circuit adopts a new standard for evaluating mutual fund excessive fee claims

On April 8, 2009, in Gallus v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit weighed in on the ongoing debate regarding the evaluation of advisory fees and the corresponding fiduciary duty set forth in Section 36(b) of the 1940 Act and, in doing so, added yet another wrinkle to a debate which has worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Previous page 1 Next page