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


Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | USA | 8 Oct 2010

Derivative claims against Ernst & Young LLP and KPMG LLP dismissed in Computer Associates Derivative Litigation

On September 29, 2010, in the Computer Associates International Derivative Litigation, Judge Thomas C. Platt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss derivative claims asserted against Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y") and KPMG LLP ("KMPG"), the former and current auditors of Computer Associates ("CA").


Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP | USA | 13 Sep 2010

Second Circuit finds “insured vs. insured” exclusion ambiguous in a contract for D&O liability insurance

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the “insured vs. insured” exclusion in a Directors and Officers (“D&O”) liability policy is ambiguous in a case brought by the legacy entity’s directors and officers against representatives of a newly formed corporate entity.


Dechert LLP | USA | 7 May 2010

Second Circuit rules securities fraud claim of mutual fund shareholders relating to affiliated transfer agent arrangements may proceed, but upholds dismissal of breach of fiduciary duty claim

A two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Court”) on February 16, 2010 vacated the dismissal of a putative class action securities fraud claim brought by shareholders of the Smith Barney family of funds (the “Funds”) under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and remanded the case to the district court.


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 | 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.


Jorden Burt LLP | USA | 14 Apr 2009

Eighth Circuit adopts new standard for evaluating excessive advisory fee claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is the latest court to establish a standard for evaluating excessive fee claims under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, a standard that focuses on the adviser's conduct during the negotiation process and the end result.

Previous page 1 Next page