Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Chris Lazarini Examines Sixth Circuit Case of First Impression

Publications

October 28, 2014

Chris Lazarini analyzed the recent decision in Laborers' Local 265 Pension Fund vs. iShares Trust, where the Sixth Circuit, in a case of first impression, held that no implied private right of action exists under Section 36(a) of the ICA of 1940. Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator. The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the Securities Litigation Commentator, please click here to sign up for the newsletter.

Laborers' Local 265 Pension Fund vs. iShares Trust, No. 13-6486 (6th Cir., 9/30/14)

In a case of first impression, the Sixth Circuit determines that no implied private right of action exists under Section 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

As part of its regular mutual fund operations, iShares lends its securities holdings to various borrowers who pay interest on the loans. The practice generates substantial net revenue for iShares, 35% of which is paid to its lending agent, Defendant Black Rock Institutional Trust ("BTC"), pursuant to a Lending Agreement between iShares and BTC. BTC wholly owns Defendant BlackRock Fund Advisors ("BFA"), the investment adviser for iShares, which receives advisory fees for its services and which engaged BTC as lending agent. Plaintiffs, several iShares pension fund shareholders, sought to challenge BTC's 35% lending fee as excessive and in violation of various provisions of the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("ICA"). The district court granted Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and this appeal followed.

On appeal, Plaintiffs focused only on their claims under Sections 36(a) and 36(b) of the ICA. Conducting a de novo review, the Court affirms the dismissal. It first rejects Plaintiffs' Section 36(b) argument that BFA (the investment adviser) received excessive compensation because its advisory fees should be aggregated with BTC's lending fees. The Court finds that Plaintiffs did not protest BFA's advisory fees in the complaint and, therefore, forfeited the right to make the aggregation argument on appeal. The Court goes on to explain multiple reasons why the Section 36(b) claim would fail even if the advisory fees had been challenged in the complaint. Notably, the Court recognizes the separate nature of BFA's advisory fees and BTC's lending fees and concludes that there is no logical basis for aggregating them.

Turning to the Section 36(a) claim, the Court states that the issue of whether an implied private right of action exists under the Section is one of first impression in the Sixth Circuit. The Court recognizes that all circuits that have considered the issue in the wake of Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), have held that an implied private right of action does not exist. Sandoval stands for the proposition that the "express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others." Id., at 290.

Applying this standard, the Court first examines the text of Section 36(a) and concludes that the presumptive answer is that no private right of action exists because the Section reads: "The Commission is authorized to bring an action . . ." Next, the Court focuses on Section 36(b), which was amended by Congress in 1970 to expressly create a private right of action, and concludes that the absence of a similar amendment to Section 36(a) suggests that Congress' omission of a similar amendment to Section 36(a) was intentional. The Court also notes that the text of Section 36(a) does not contain any rights-creating language, instead focusing on the persons regulated rather than the individuals protected. Finally, the Court concludes that even though the ICA has broad remedial purposes, those remedial purposes must yield to the unambiguous text and structure of the statute.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.