Goodman v. J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.



Two shareholders in several J.P. Morgan bond funds filed a lawsuit alleging excessive investment advisory fees by J.P. Morgan. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

 

The plaintiffs allege that the investment advisory fees charged to their bond funds are as much as 525% higher than the rates negotiated at arm's length by J.P. Morgan with other clients for the same or substantially similar investment advisory services.

 

The plaintiffs also claim that J.P. Morgan is not passing along any savings to shareholders as a result of the benefits of the funds' economies of scale.

 

The plaintiffs seek to recover for their bond funds any excessive fees in violation of the Investment Company Act, as well as any other damages caused by the payment of those fees by the bond funds.

 

On July 10, 2014, J.P. Morgan filed a motion to dismiss the case.  The plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on August 28, 2014, and J.P. Morgan filed its reply brief on September 23, 2014.

 

On March 4, 2015, the District Court denied the defendants motion to dismiss, stating that the plaintiffs have pled sufficent facts to present a plausible claim that the fees in question are disproportionately large.

 

The Court consolidated this case with the Campbell Family Trust case on February 18, 2016. 

  • District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
    On March 4, 2015, the District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The Court stated that the plaintiffs' complaint pleads sufficient facts about the fees paid and their relationship to the advisory and subadvisory services rendered to present a plausible claim that the fees are disproportionately large.
  • J.P. Morgan Files Reply Brief
    On September 23, 2014, J.P. Morgan filed its reply brief on the motion to dismiss. J.P. Morgan argues that the plaintiffs have failed to show an unreasonable relationship between the fees and services provided by the investment adviser to these funds.
  • Plaintiffs File Opposition Brief
    On August 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs argue that the significantly higher fees charged by J.P. Morgan are not justified by any meaningful difference in the investment advisory services provided.
  • J.P. Morgan Files Motion to Dismiss the Case
    On July 10, 2014, J.P. Morgan filed a motion to dismiss the case. In its brief, J.P. Morgan challenges the plaintiffs' comparisons between the role of an investment adviser and the role of a sub-adviser, regarding services and fees.
  • Shareholders File Excessive Fee Complaint Against J.P. Morgan
    On May 5, 2014, two shareholders in several J.P. Morgan bond funds filed a lawsuit alleging excessive investment advisory fees by J.P. Morgan. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs allege that the investment advisory fees charged to their bond funds are significantly higher than the rates negotiated at arm's length by J.P. Morgan with other clients for the same or substantially similar investment advisory services.

Two shareholders in several J.P. Morgan bond funds filed a lawsuit alleging excessive investment advisory fees by J.P. Morgan. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

 

The plaintiffs allege that the investment advisory fees charged to their bond funds are as much as 525% higher than the rates negotiated at arm's length by J.P. Morgan with other clients for the same or substantially similar investment advisory services.

 

The plaintiffs also claim that J.P. Morgan is not passing along any savings to shareholders as a result of the benefits of the funds' economies of scale.

 

The plaintiffs seek to recover for their bond funds any excessive fees in violation of the Investment Company Act, as well as any other damages caused by the payment of those fees by the bond funds.

 

On July 10, 2014, J.P. Morgan filed a motion to dismiss the case.  The plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on August 28, 2014, and J.P. Morgan filed its reply brief on September 23, 2014.

 

On March 4, 2015, the District Court denied the defendants motion to dismiss, stating that the plaintiffs have pled sufficent facts to present a plausible claim that the fees in question are disproportionately large.

 

The Court consolidated this case with the Campbell Family Trust case on February 18, 2016. 

Document Title: 
District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On March 4, 2015, the District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The Court stated that the plaintiffs' complaint pleads sufficient facts about the fees paid and their relationship to the advisory and subadvisory services rendered to present a plausible claim that the fees are disproportionately large.
Document Title: 
J.P. Morgan Files Reply Brief
Document Desc: 
On September 23, 2014, J.P. Morgan filed its reply brief on the motion to dismiss. J.P. Morgan argues that the plaintiffs have failed to show an unreasonable relationship between the fees and services provided by the investment adviser to these funds.
Document Title: 
Plaintiffs File Opposition Brief
Document Desc: 
On August 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs argue that the significantly higher fees charged by J.P. Morgan are not justified by any meaningful difference in the investment advisory services provided.
Document Title: 
J.P. Morgan Files Motion to Dismiss the Case
Document Desc: 
On July 10, 2014, J.P. Morgan filed a motion to dismiss the case. In its brief, J.P. Morgan challenges the plaintiffs' comparisons between the role of an investment adviser and the role of a sub-adviser, regarding services and fees.
Document Title: 
Shareholders File Excessive Fee Complaint Against J.P. Morgan
Document Desc: 
On May 5, 2014, two shareholders in several J.P. Morgan bond funds filed a lawsuit alleging excessive investment advisory fees by J.P. Morgan. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs allege that the investment advisory fees charged to their bond funds are significantly higher than the rates negotiated at arm's length by J.P. Morgan with other clients for the same or substantially similar investment advisory services.