Fund industry swats down fee suits, but they keep appealing

Many of the cases concentrate on subadvisor fees

Sep 1, 2017 @ 1:46 pm

By John Waggoner

+ Zoom

Mutual funds continue to swat down excessive fee cases, but they're still making it into court, which could mean that plaintiffs just haven't filed the best case yet.

The most recent cases involve subadvisory fees, where fund companies farm out the actual work of portfolio management to another company. For example, a fund might charge a 0.75% management fee to shareholders, yet pay the subadviser 0.25%. The plaintiffs' argument: The fund company does precious little for the 0.5% it pockets.

"That's excessive on a prima facie basis," said Niels Holch, executive director of the Coalition of Mutual Fund Investors and partner at Holch & Erickson LLP, a Washington, D.C. law firm.

Not surprisingly, the mutual fund industry takes a different view of the cases, which cite section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The section provides that the investment adviser of a registered investment company "shall be deemed to have a fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services," and expressly provides shareholders with the right to bring a lawsuit to enforce this duty.

The standard for compliance with section 36(b) is the Gartenberg standard, set by the Supreme Court in a landmark 2010 decision, Jones v. Harris Associates, L.P. "To be guilty of a violation of §36(b), … the adviser–manager must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm's–length bargaining." The fund industry feels that the charges in the recent cases, such as one against the Hartford funds, are baseless.

Mr. Holch isn't so sure. While the subadvisory bidding process is typically an arm's-length transaction, the division of the advisory fee sometimes isn't, he said. And, although the cases haven't been successful, they have fended off motions to dismiss, and several, such as the Hartford case, are currently under appeal.

And the funds' arguments that their share of the advisory fee covers the many costs of maintaining a fund and its client relationships may not hold, either, Mr. Holch noted. "It's a red herring. Advisory fees are separate from the many other fees a fund charges, such as transfer fees and 12-b(1) fees to brokers," he said.

While fund boards do have oversight duties over subadvisers, those costs are typically not large. "Shareholders have to ask, 'What are we paying for oversight?'" Mr. Holch said. Among the cases currently active:

Kasilag v. Hartford Inv. Fin. Serv., LLC, under appeal

Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co., under appeal

• In re BlackRock Mut. Funds Advisory Fee Litigation, in discovery

ICI Mutual, which insures funds against lawsuits, has paid $924 million in claims as of the end of 2016.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Does your pay stack up?

The Adviser Research Dashboard

Based on data collected through InvestmentNews' annual adviser research studies, this interactive, customizable tool allows you to view detailed data on compensation, staffing and financial performance practices from across the industry.

Learn more »

Featured video

Events

Fireside chat with new firms at Fuse

Fuse continues to attract new fintech firms to the event every year. Hear directly from the newcomers of Asset-Map and Quik! as to why they chose to attend.

Video Spotlight

Are Your Clients Prepared For Market Downturns?

Sponsored by Prudential

Video Spotlight

Path to growth

Video Spotlight

Path to growth

Latest news & opinion

What not to say to clients when the markets drop

Here's what advisers should steer clear of saying the next time stocks turn downward.

SEC bars former rep for alleged share price manipulation

George Thoreson tried to keep penny stock's price high to enable Nasdaq listing.

Nevada fiduciary law raises concerns among retirement professionals, brokerage industry

Critics complain that it conflicts with ERISA and SEC rules and has potential to spur other states to pass their own version of a fiduciary rule.

A special need for financial advice

Advisers don't have to be experts to help special needs families get a jump on lifelong planning.

Broker-dealers and RIAs at loggerheads over fiduciary rule delay

Companies and groups weighing in with comment letters have vastly different viewpoints on the delay's potential impact.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print