TURNER V. DAVIS SELECTED ADVISERS

Back to Litigation Tracker


A shareholder of Davis New York Venture Fund initiated a lawsuit against the investment adviser (Davis Selected Advisers) and the distributor (Davis Distributors) of this Fund. This lawsuit sought to recover for the Fund certain excessive and disproportionate fees paid by the Fund to the defendants, who allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Fund under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

 

This lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On June 1, 2011, the Court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ending this case at the District Court level. The Court determined that the plaintiff’s allegations largely consisted of general conclusions and not specific facts and the plaintiff did not explain how any of its alleged facts met the Gartenberg test, in which a particular fee is “so disproportionately large that its bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.”

  • Court Grants Motion to Dismiss and Ends Lawsuit
    On June 1, 2011, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants and ended the case. The Court held that the plaintiff did not explain how any of its alleged facts met the Gartenberg test, in which a particular fee is “so disproportionately large that its bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.”
    application/pdf iconDavis Funds Order Dismissing Case 6-1-2011.pdf
  • Defendants File Reply Brief
    On November 3, 2009, the defendants filed a Reply Brief on their Motion to Dismiss the case.
    application/pdf iconDavis Funds Defendants Reply Brief 11-03-2009.pdf
  • Plaintiff Files Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
    On September 25, 2009, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
    application/pdf iconDavis Funds Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition 9-25-2009.pdf
  • Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Case
    On June 23, 2009, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this lawsuit.
    application/pdf iconDavis Funds Motion to Dismiss 6-23-09.pdf
  • Shareholder Files Amended Complaint with the Court
    On April 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with the Court. The Amended Complaint sought to recover for the Fund certain excessive and disproportionate 12b-1 fees and investment advisory fees paid by the Fund to the defendants, who allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Fund under Section 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
    application/pdf iconDavisFundsAmendedComplaint4-23-09.pdf
  • Plaintiff Files Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
    On December 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition, arguing that the fees paid for activities that do not involve the sale or distribution of Fund shares are not authorized by the plain language of SEC Rule 12b-1. The Memorandum also argued that these fees are inconsistent with the standards articulated in the Gartenberg test.
    application/pdf iconDavisFundsOppositionBriefDec08.pdf
  • Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Case
    On October 6, 2008, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. The Motion argued that the payment of 12b-1 fees in the manner alleged is authorized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including for the purpose of maintaining shareholder accounts. The Motion also argued that the plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts that are inconsistent with the standards for evaluating excessive fees, as articulated in Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc.
    application/pdf iconDavisFunds12b1MotiontoDismissOct08.pdf
  • Shareholder Files Complaint on Behalf of Davis New York Venture Fund
    On July 28, 2008, a shareholder in the Davis New York Venture Fund filed a Complaint with the Court. The Complaint alleged that Rule 12b-1 fees have been paid in a manner that is: (1) excessive and disproportionate to the benefits conferred on the Fund and its shareholders; and (2) in contravention of the statutory and Rule 12b-1 requirements that the fees benefit both the Fund and its shareholders.
    application/pdf iconDavisFunds12b1ComplaintAugust2008.pdf
Login or register to post comments
There are currently no blog posts related to this issue.
Back To link
Litigation Tracker
../litigation-tracker

A shareholder of Davis New York Venture Fund initiated a lawsuit against the investment adviser (Davis Selected Advisers) and the distributor (Davis Distributors) of this Fund. This lawsuit sought to recover for the Fund certain excessive and disproportionate fees paid by the Fund to the defendants, who allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Fund under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

 

This lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On June 1, 2011, the Court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ending this case at the District Court level. The Court determined that the plaintiff’s allegations largely consisted of general conclusions and not specific facts and the plaintiff did not explain how any of its alleged facts met the Gartenberg test, in which a particular fee is “so disproportionately large that its bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.”

Document Title: 
Court Grants Motion to Dismiss and Ends Lawsuit
Document Desc: 
On June 1, 2011, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants and ended the case. The Court held that the plaintiff did not explain how any of its alleged facts met the Gartenberg test, in which a particular fee is “so disproportionately large that its bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.”
Upload Document: 
application/pdf iconDavis Funds Order Dismissing Case 6-1-2011.pdf
Document Title: 
Defendants File Reply Brief
Document Desc: 
On November 3, 2009, the defendants filed a Reply Brief on their Motion to Dismiss the case.
Upload Document: 
application/pdf iconDavis Funds Defendants Reply Brief 11-03-2009.pdf
Document Title: 
Plaintiff Files Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On September 25, 2009, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
Upload Document: 
application/pdf iconDavis Funds Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition 9-25-2009.pdf
Document Title: 
Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Case
Document Desc: 
On June 23, 2009, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this lawsuit.
Upload Document: 
application/pdf iconDavis Funds Motion to Dismiss 6-23-09.pdf
Document Title: 
Shareholder Files Amended Complaint with the Court
Document Desc: 
On April 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with the Court. The Amended Complaint sought to recover for the Fund certain excessive and disproportionate 12b-1 fees and investment advisory fees paid by the Fund to the defendants, who allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Fund under Section 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Upload Document: 
application/pdf iconDavisFundsAmendedComplaint4-23-09.pdf
Document Title: 
Plaintiff Files Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On December 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition, arguing that the fees paid for activities that do not involve the sale or distribution of Fund shares are not authorized by the plain language of SEC Rule 12b-1. The Memorandum also argued that these fees are inconsistent with the standards articulated in the Gartenberg test.
Upload Document: 
application/pdf iconDavisFundsOppositionBriefDec08.pdf
Document Title: 
Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Case
Document Desc: 
On October 6, 2008, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. The Motion argued that the payment of 12b-1 fees in the manner alleged is authorized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including for the purpose of maintaining shareholder accounts. The Motion also argued that the plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts that are inconsistent with the standards for evaluating excessive fees, as articulated in Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc.
Upload Document: 
application/pdf iconDavisFunds12b1MotiontoDismissOct08.pdf
Document Title: 
Shareholder Files Complaint on Behalf of Davis New York Venture Fund
Document Desc: 
On July 28, 2008, a shareholder in the Davis New York Venture Fund filed a Complaint with the Court. The Complaint alleged that Rule 12b-1 fees have been paid in a manner that is: (1) excessive and disproportionate to the benefits conferred on the Fund and its shareholders; and (2) in contravention of the statutory and Rule 12b-1 requirements that the fees benefit both the Fund and its shareholders.
Upload Document: 
application/pdf iconDavisFunds12b1ComplaintAugust2008.pdf
816 VIEWS
http://www.investorscoalition.com/litigation-tracker/turner_v_davis_selected_advisers

Tags

Turner v. Davis Selected Advisers