The amended complaint in the Infinity Q case includes further details regarding the flawed and deficient oversight of the Fund’s valuation of securities, which resulted in manipulation and inflation of the fund’s reported assets by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Morris Kandinov LLP represents a group of investors who oppose the inadequate proposed Infinity Q settlement in a New York class action.

Partner Aaron Morris proposes in a comment letter to the SEC that the new rules governing service provider oversight should require contracts with providers to clearly delineate when a provider is entitled to indemnification and expense advancements.

During and after a crisis, trustees more than ever must be prepared to shift the way they think about the fund’s relationships with service providers in order to obtain meaningful results for shareholders (and mitigate or eliminate their own litigation risk). This article provides an example of what not to do and a few practical suggestions.

Vice Chancellor Zurn denies defendants’ motion to dismiss in case arising from the collapse of the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund.

Morris Kandinov LLP is representing an investor in the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund in connection with a motion to stop a proposed settlement on unfair terms.

A recent BoardIQ article demonstrates, in my view, the perverse way in which trustees are encouraged to think about an investment adviser’s business.

Morris Kandinov LLP partners Aaron Morris and Andrew Robertson were recently profiled and quoted in a BoardIQ article regarding the use of inspection demands in advance of litigation involving investment companies.

Morris Kandinov LLP has filed two cases seeking to recover losses incurred by investors in the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (the “Fund”), a mutual fund that announced in early 2021 that it was liquidating because of extensive securities pricing errors that rendered its last reported net asset value (“NAV”) inaccurate.

The most recent wave of mutual fund fee litigation is now over and investors should not be happy with the result. The wave consisted of 25 or so cases alleging that the fees charged by mutual fund advisers were excessive. While a handful settled, most were dismissed at various procedural stages by federal judges who couldn’t find an excessive fee in the entire lot.