Decision in AXA excessive-fee lawsuit preserves the status quo

One attorney called the lawsuit an "attack" on the investment-management structure within variable annuities

Aug 31, 2016 @ 2:04 pm

By Greg Iacurci

A judge's recent decision favoring AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. in a lawsuit over excessive mutual fund fees in variable annuities was a win of sorts for insurance companies, in that it upholds a traditional structure of offering investment options.

At issue in the lawsuit, Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. et al, is whether the insurer and an RIA subsidiary, which act as investment advisers to mutual funds inside AXA variable annuity contracts, received disproportionally large fees for services rendered to the funds.

Plaintiffs claim AXA delegated investment management responsibility to subadvisers, yet paid those subadvisers only a fraction of the fee, keeping the bulk for itself, despite them performing virtually all fund services.

“This was an attack on the structure for mutual funds used in variable annuities. And that attack failed,” said Mike Isenman, a partner in Goodwin Procter's securities litigation and SEC enforcement practice.

“It's a big deal a court is saying the status quo is okay, because if the court had said otherwise, there would have been repercussions,” Mr. Isenman said, adding it would have “sent shockwaves through the industry.”

The AXA case, originally filed in 2011, is the first to be tried in more than six years under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which gives fund shareholders recourse to recover compensation received by an investment adviser who breached their fiduciary duty to a fund.

Although there have been a number of similar suits that have gone to trial in the past (in which plaintiffs have never prevailed) the AXA case is slightly unique, said Mr. Isenman, a defense attorney.

Whereas in the past, suits have scrutinized costs by comparing proprietary mutual fund fees to those charged by the same adviser to separate accounts, this case is more directly focused on the sub-advised fund itself, according to Robert Skinner, a partner in the securities litigation practice at Ropes & Gray.

The judge who handed down the decision on Aug. 25, Peter Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, said plaintiffs “failed to meet their burden” to demonstrate breach of fiduciary duty on the part of AXA or show “any actual damages.”

The AXA suit was the first to go to trial among approximately 20 pending lawsuits with similar allegations, Mr. Isenman said. Those include companies such as Principal Financial, Voya Financial, New York Life, State Farm, Prudential and The Hartford, as well as non-insurance firms such T. Rowe Price and BlackRock.

The Hartford's trial is next on the docket, with a trial scheduled for December, according to Mr. Isenman.

Due to the facts-dependent nature of these cases, Mr. Skinner, a defense attorney, cautioned that people should tread lightly when extrapolating from one court decision.

“I think if had gone the other way, people would have certainly paid attention, but it wouldn't have signaled that fees across the industry were excessive,” he said.

One attorney involved in some of the pending cases, who requested anonymity due to sensitivities regarding ongoing litigation, pointed to one shortfall on the plaintiffs' side that may be unique to this case, and could have ultimately lost them the trial.

While plaintiffs concretely identified how much sub-advisers to the AXA funds were paid for services, “it remains unclear how much FMG retained in fees,” Judge Sheridan wrote in the opinion. FMG represents AXA subsidiary AXA Equitable Funds Management Group.

That lack of information “makes the Court's ultimate decision in this case nearly impossible,” he said, because there wasn't “competent evidence” to determine if fees were excessive relative to services rendered.

Plaintiffs may provide such proof in later litigation and the court will have to grapple with that “key” issue, the anonymous attorney said.

Plaintiffs are planning an appeal, according to their attorney, Robert Lakind of law firm Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader. He declined additional comment.


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Upcoming Event

Mar 14



InvestmentNews is honoring female financial advisers and industry executives who are distinguished leaders at their firms. These women have advanced the business of providing advice through their passion, creativity, inclusive approach and... Learn more

Featured video


What's driving volatility and what's ahead?

Will there be another rate hike? How could it impact markets in 2019. Ed Rosenberg of American Century breaks it down and has all the answers.

Latest news & opinion

Look for more changes at Cetera Financial Group

CEO Robert Moore's resignation signals further adjustments at the IBD network.

10 top scams targeting seniors

Phone calls to a Senate committee hotline show trends in frauds perpetrated against seniors.

Robert Moore, Cetera CEO, stepping down for health reasons

Chairman Ben Brigeman will serve as interim chief executive while a search for a permanent CEO is conducted.

The AMT is no longer a problem for many clients

With income thresholds higher and a lower SALT deduction after tax reform, the AMT will realistically only apply to wealthy Americans with out-of-the-ordinary tax events.

Cetera, other broker-dealers refuse to sign Ohio National contracts

Advisers wonder what the lack of a formal brokerage agreement means from a regulatory standpoint.


Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print