Reso v. Artisan Partners Limited Partnership



On July 24, 2011, a shareholder of several Artisan Funds sued Artisan Partners to rescind certain investment advisory agreements, alleging that they were excessive compensation under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. The Complaint in this case asserted that investment advisory fees for three (3) Artisan Funds were higher than comparable fees Artisan charged to its institutional clients. The plaintiffs also alleged that certain investment advisory fees were higher than the advisory fees charged by other mutual fund complexes.

 

The defendant responded on August 30, 2011, by filing a Motion to Dismiss the case. The defendant argued that the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim under Section 36(b) that Artisan Partners has breached its fiduciary duty to shareholders, regarding the receipt of compensation for investment advisory services.

 

On October 19, 2011, the plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the advisory agreements with Artisan do not carry the "earmarks of an arm's length bargain," the standard confirmed by the Supreme Court in its Jones decision.  The plaintiff also argued that at least two other courts have denied motions to dismiss complaints after the Jones decision, with allegations similar to those in this case.

 

Artisan responded with a reply brief on October 28, 2011, arguing that some of the allegations against Artisan in the Complaint were copied from other complaints in unrelated mutual fund cases.

 

On August 13, 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant filed a stipulation with the District Court, agreeing that this case should be dimissed with prejudice.  The case has now been dismissed.

  • Artisan Case Dismissed Through Joint Stipulation
    On August 13, 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant filed a stipulation with the District Court, agreeing that this case should be dimissed with prejudice.
  • Artisan Files Reply Brief
    Artisan responded with a reply brief on October 28, 2011, arguing that some of the allegations against Artisan in the Complaint were copied from other complaints in unrelated mutual fund cases.
  • Plaintiff Files Brief Opposing Motion to Dismiss
    On October 19, 2011, the plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the advisory agreements with Artisan do not carry the "earmarks of an arm's length bargain," the standard confirmed by the Supreme Court in its Jones decision. The plaintiff also argued that at least two other courts have denied motions to dismiss complaints after the Jones decision, with allegations similar to those in this case.
  • Artisan Partners Files Motion to Dismiss the Case
    On August 30, 2011, Artisan Partners responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss the case. In its brief, Artisan argued that the plaintiff has not met its burden to state a plausible claim under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act, under the standards adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Harris Associates, 130 S. Ct. 1418 (2010).
  • Shareholder Files Complaint Against Artisan Partners
    On June 24, 2011, a shareholder in the Artisan Funds filed a complaint against the management company, alleging that it breached its fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. The plaintiff's complaint asserts that Artisan Partners received excessive investment advisory compensation, compared to the fees charged to their institutional clients. The complaint also alleges that the advisory fees were higher than fees charged by other mutual fund complexes.

On July 24, 2011, a shareholder of several Artisan Funds sued Artisan Partners to rescind certain investment advisory agreements, alleging that they were excessive compensation under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. The Complaint in this case asserted that investment advisory fees for three (3) Artisan Funds were higher than comparable fees Artisan charged to its institutional clients. The plaintiffs also alleged that certain investment advisory fees were higher than the advisory fees charged by other mutual fund complexes.

 

The defendant responded on August 30, 2011, by filing a Motion to Dismiss the case. The defendant argued that the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim under Section 36(b) that Artisan Partners has breached its fiduciary duty to shareholders, regarding the receipt of compensation for investment advisory services.

 

On October 19, 2011, the plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the advisory agreements with Artisan do not carry the "earmarks of an arm's length bargain," the standard confirmed by the Supreme Court in its Jones decision.  The plaintiff also argued that at least two other courts have denied motions to dismiss complaints after the Jones decision, with allegations similar to those in this case.

 

Artisan responded with a reply brief on October 28, 2011, arguing that some of the allegations against Artisan in the Complaint were copied from other complaints in unrelated mutual fund cases.

 

On August 13, 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant filed a stipulation with the District Court, agreeing that this case should be dimissed with prejudice.  The case has now been dismissed.

Document Title: 
Artisan Case Dismissed Through Joint Stipulation
Document Desc: 
On August 13, 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant filed a stipulation with the District Court, agreeing that this case should be dimissed with prejudice.
Document Title: 
Artisan Files Reply Brief
Document Desc: 
Artisan responded with a reply brief on October 28, 2011, arguing that some of the allegations against Artisan in the Complaint were copied from other complaints in unrelated mutual fund cases.
Document Title: 
Plaintiff Files Brief Opposing Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On October 19, 2011, the plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the advisory agreements with Artisan do not carry the "earmarks of an arm's length bargain," the standard confirmed by the Supreme Court in its Jones decision. The plaintiff also argued that at least two other courts have denied motions to dismiss complaints after the Jones decision, with allegations similar to those in this case.
Document Title: 
Artisan Partners Files Motion to Dismiss the Case
Document Desc: 
On August 30, 2011, Artisan Partners responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss the case. In its brief, Artisan argued that the plaintiff has not met its burden to state a plausible claim under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act, under the standards adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Harris Associates, 130 S. Ct. 1418 (2010).
Document Title: 
Shareholder Files Complaint Against Artisan Partners
Document Desc: 
On June 24, 2011, a shareholder in the Artisan Funds filed a complaint against the management company, alleging that it breached its fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. The plaintiff's complaint asserts that Artisan Partners received excessive investment advisory compensation, compared to the fees charged to their institutional clients. The complaint also alleges that the advisory fees were higher than fees charged by other mutual fund complexes.