We believe that the deterrent effects of stockholder litigation—and the billions of dollars recovered for millions of investors over the preceding decades—are largely attributable to a small group of individual and institutional investors who were willing to assert their legal rights to remedy corporate misconduct.

The investor-protection mechanisms governing mutual fund fees continue to leave some to be desired.

Recent guidance from the Mutual Fund Directors Forum on the treatment of board notes and minutes deserves a closer look.

The case law on who bears the risks inherent in a mutual fund’s operations is becoming paradoxical, and may now require intervention by mutual fund boards.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in Oxford University Bank v. Lansuppe Feeder LLC, held that Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 creates a private right of action to seek rescission of an unlawful contract.

The Mutual Fund Directors Forum recently released guidance to fund directors for when a fund’s investment advisor is acquired by another investment advisor. The release merits close examination.  

A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit greatly missed the mark, and could be concerning for investors relying on the Investment Company Act to keep mutual fund advisors honest.

Plaintiffs in an excessive-fee case against The Hartford received some discouraging news last week when a judge ruled entirely in favor of the adviser at trial, the latest result in a wave of similar lawsuits.

In 2010, the Supreme Court, in Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P., 559 U.S. 335 (2010), issued a significant decision concerning Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which imposes a fiduciary duty on mutual fund advisers with respect to the fees they receive from the funds they manage.  So what happened next in the world of Section 36(b) litigation?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on securities litigation may not be as significant as some suggest.