The Coalition of Mutual Fund Investors is currently monitoring litigation brought against mutual fund companies by individual investors and plaintiff law firms.

Rule 12b-1 Fee Fee Litigation

Several plaintiff law firms have pending litigation involving the American Funds and the Davis Funds, alleging that the use of 12b-1 fees by these Funds has been improper, excessive, and not in the interest of shareholders. These lawsuits contend that the 12b-1 fees charged to the Funds and their shareholders were not reasonably related to the services provided.

In re American Mutual Funds Fee Litigation

Click here for a copy of the Fourth Amended Complaint (5/16/2008)

Click here for a copy of the Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Brief (8/24/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Defendants' Post-Trial Brief (8/24/2009)

Korland v. Capital Research and Management Company

Click here for a copy of the Shareholder’s Complaint (6/18/2008)

Click here for a news article describing the lawsuit (7/2/2008)

Click here for a copy of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (9/12/2008)

Click here for a copy of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition (11/25/2008)

Click here for a copy of the Defendants' Reply Memorandum (1/12/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Shareholder's First Amended Complaint (3/30/2009)

Turner v. Davis Selected Advisers

Click here for a copy of the Shareholder's complaint (7/28/08)

Click here for a copy of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (10/6/2008)

Click here for a copy of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition (12/16/2008)

Click here for a copy of the Shareholder's Amended Complaint (4/23/2009)

Advisory Fee Litigation

Shareholders in funds sponsored by Washington Mutual and Principal Financial have filed a lawsuit allleging that more than 50% of advisory fees paid to these management companies were used to pay brokers to sell the funds.

Robinson v. Washington Mutual, Inc.

Click here to read a copy of the class action complaint (8/20/2008)

Click here to read a copy of the first amended class action complaint (9/26/2008)

Click here to read a copy of the second amended class action complaint (12/12/2008)

Click here to read a copy of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (1/26/2009)

Click here to read a copy of the Court's Order on the motion to File a Stipulated Dismissal (4/7/2009)

Shareholders have also brought a lawsuit against Wells Fargo alleging improper revenue sharing payments to brokers for selling fund shares.

Kreek v. Wells Fargo & Company

Click here to read a copy of the class action complaint (4/4/2008)

Click here to read a copy of the amended class action complaint (11/26/2008)

Click here to read a copy of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (1/22/2009)

Click here to read a copy of the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (3/6/2009)

Shareholders have brought two lawsuits against the investment advisers for the Oakmark Funds and the Riversource Funds. The lawsuits allege, in part, that these investment advisers charged higher advisory fees to their individual investors than they charged their institutional clients.

Jones v. Harris Associates (Oakmark Funds)

Click here for a copy of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (3/1/2005)

Click here for Part I of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition (3/15/2005)

Click here for Part II of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition (3/15/2005)

The District Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on April 7, 2005.

Click here for a copy of the Court's Order (4/7/2005)

Click here for a copy of the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (9/12/2006)

Click here for a copy of the Plaintiffs' Opposition (10/10/2006)

On February 27, 2007, the District Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case.

Click here for a copy of the District Court's Opinion (2/27/2007)

On May 19, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed the District Court decision.

Click here for a copy of the Court of Appeals' Opinion (5/19/2008)

On August 8, 2008, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for rehearing. Five judges, including Judge Richard Posner, dissented on the denial of the rehearing en banc. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Posner raised concerns about the investment adviser charging its "captive" funds more than twice what it charges independent funds (i.e. institutional investors).

Click here for a copy of Judge Posner's Dissenting Opinion (8/8/2008)

This case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court accepted the case on March 9, 2009.

Click here for a copy of the Petitioner's Brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court (6/10/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Brief for Law Professors in Support of Petitioner (6/15/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Brief for AARP and the Consumer Federation of America in Support of Petitioner (6/15/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Brief for United States of America in Support of Petitioner (6/15/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Brief for John C. Bogle in Support of Petitioner (6/15/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Brief for Robert Litan, Joseph Mason, and Ian Ayres in Support of Petitioner (6/17/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Brief for The North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc., in Support of Petitioner (6/17/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Brief for the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT) in Support of Petitioner (6/17/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Brief for Professor Deborah A. DeMott and Professor Mark L. Ascher in Support of Petitioner (6/17/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Brief for the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association in Support of Respondent (8/27/2009)

Click here for a copy of the Brief for Respondent Harris Associates, L.P. (8/27/2009)

Click here for the copy of the Brief for the Mutual Fund Director's Forum in Support of Respondent (9/3/2009)

Click here for the copy of the Brief for the CATO Institute in Support of Respondent (9/3/2009)

Click here for the copy of the Brief for the Investment Company Institute in Support of Respondent (9/3/2009)

Click here for the copy of the Brief for Fidelity Management & Research Company in Support of Respondent (9/3/2009)

Click here for the copy of the Brief for the Independent Directors Council in Support of Respondent (9/3/2009)

Click here for the copy of the Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Respondent (9/3/2009)

Click here for the copy of the Brief for the Law and Finance in Support of Respondent (9/3/2009)

Click here for the copy of the Reply Brief for Petitioner Jerry N. Jones, Mary F. Jones, and Arline Winerman (9/28/2009)

On November 2, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on the case.

Click here for a copy of the transcript of the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court (11/2/2009)

Gallus v. Ameriprise Financial (Riversource Funds)

Click here for a copy of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (12/21/2004)

Click here for a copy of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition (1/18/2005)

Click here for a copy of the Court's Order (3/7/2005)

Click here for a copy of the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (3/13/2007)

Click here for a copy of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition (4/9/2007)

On July 6, 2007, the District Court granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case.

Click here for a copy of the District Court's Opinion (7/10/2007)

On April 8, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision. The Court of Appeals based its decision, in part, on the discrepancy in fees being charged by the adviser to its mutual fund and institutional clients.

Click here for a copy of the Court of Appeals' Opinion (4/8/2009)

 

 

400 North Capitol St. NW, Suite 585
Washington, D.C. 20001
www.investorscoalition.com
© 2003-2009 Coalition of Mutual Fund Investors