Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo


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

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Chris Lazarini Analyzes Breach of Fiduciary Claims Under Investment Company Act Section 36(b)

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

April 4, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini analyzed the case of Goodman vs. J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc., in which Plaintiffs alleged Defendants, mutual fund administrators, breached their fiduciary duties by overcharging JP Morgan mutual funds in violation of Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. The Court holds that under §36(b), breach of fiduciary duty claims can be brought against direct payees, not against those receiving payments indirectly. Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). 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 SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

Goodman vs. J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-414 (S.D. Ohio, 2/26/16) 

*Plaintiffs suing investment advisers under §36(b) of the Investment Company Act must allege facts supporting the disproportionality of the advisers' fees, rather than general facts about the potential for abusive practices, to survive a motion to dismiss.
**Section 36(b) provides for breach of fiduciary duty claims against the direct payee; not against those receiving fees indirectly. 

Plaintiffs in this consolidated action allege that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty by overcharging certain JPMorgan mutual funds in violation of §36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("ICA"). Defendants are affiliated entities and include J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. ("JPMIM"), the investment adviser to some of the funds; JP Morgan Funds Management, Inc. ("JPMFM"), the funds' administrator; and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA ("JPMCB"), a sub-administrator engaged by JPMFM. In an earlier opinion (SLA 2015-12), the Court denied JPMIM's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, finding the complaint presented a plausible claim that the advisory fees charged the funds were disproportionally large.

In this installment, JPMFM and JPMCB seek dismissal of the claims that the administrative fees were excessive. JPMCB argues that the claims against it should be dismissed because §36(b) liability only attaches to a direct recipient of fees. As sub-administrator, JPMCB was paid indirectly, receiving from JPMFM a portion of the administrative fees charged the funds by JPMFM. Plaintiffs concede that the funds do not pay JPMCB directly, but argue the intent of §36(b) permits claims against entities indirectly receiving excessive fees charged by an affiliate. The Court sides with JPMCB and dismisses the claims against it, finding the plain language of the statute limits claims to direct payees only.

JPMFM asks the Court to review its contracts attached to the complaint and compare the services provided the JPMorgan funds with those provided to unaffiliated funds. It argues the contracts show the services provided to the JPMorgan funds are more extensive and, therefore, justify the higher administrative fees. The Court rejects the notion that a simple comparison of a list of JPMFM's services reveals whether the fees charged are within the range of what would be negotiated in an arm's length transaction. It is the work done and not the label given that ultimately will be dispositive. The Court denies JPMFM's motion, concluding that its arguments are more appropriate for summary judgment or trial.


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.