TURNER V. DAVIS SELECTED ADVISERS



A shareholder of Davis New York Venture Fund initiated a lawsuit against the investment adviser (Davis Selected Advisers) and the distributor (Davis Distributors) of this Fund. This lawsuit sought to recover for the Fund certain excessive and disproportionate fees paid by the Fund to the defendants, who allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Fund under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

 

This lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On June 1, 2011, the Court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ending this case at the District Court level. The Court determined that the plaintiff’s allegations largely consisted of general conclusions and not specific facts and the plaintiff did not explain how any of its alleged facts met the Gartenberg test, in which a particular fee is “so disproportionately large that its bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.”

 

The plaintiff in this case has appealed the Motion to Dismiss and other Court rulings to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The plaintiff filed his opening brief on January 30, 2014.  In his brief, the plaintiff argues the amended complaint sufficiently alleges that the investment adviser charged the New York Venture Fund excessive and disproportionate advisory fees and Rule 12b-1 fees.

 

Davis filed its answering brief and oral argument on the case was held on June 10, 2015.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of this case on September 29, 2015, ruling that the plaintiff's complaint only offered conclusory statements and "inapt comparisons."

  • Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Case
    On September 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of this case. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiff's complaint only contained conclusory statements and "inapt comparisons."
  • Oral Argument Held Before 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
    Oral argument in this case was held on June 10, 2015, before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Click on the link below to access an archived video of the oral argument.
  • Plaintiff Files Reply Brief
    On May 9, 2014, the plaintiff in this case filed his reply brief. The plaintiff alleges that Davis is misrepresenting the decisional law and the allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings.
  • Davis Files Appellate Brief
    On April 18, 2014, Davis filed its appellate brief in this case. Davis argues that the fees it received were not excessive and not in violation of the Gartenberg standards.
  • Plaintiff Appeals Court Rulings to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    The plaintiff in this case has appealed the motion to dismiss and other court rulings to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff filed his opening brief on January 30, 2014. In his brief, the plaintiff argues the amended complaint sufficiently alleges that the investment adviser charged the New York Venture Fund excessive and disproportionate advisory fees and Rule 12b-1 fees.
  • Court Grants Motion to Dismiss
    On June 1, 2011, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants and ended the case. The Court held that the plaintiff did not explain how any of its alleged facts met the Gartenberg test, in which a particular fee is “so disproportionately large that its bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.”
  • Defendants File Reply Brief
    On November 3, 2009, the defendants filed a Reply Brief on their Motion to Dismiss the case.
  • Plaintiff Files Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
    On September 25, 2009, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
  • Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Case
    On June 23, 2009, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this lawsuit.
  • Shareholder Files Amended Complaint with the Court
    On April 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with the Court. The Amended Complaint sought to recover for the Fund certain excessive and disproportionate 12b-1 fees and investment advisory fees paid by the Fund to the defendants, who allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Fund under Section 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
  • Plaintiff Files Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
    On December 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition, arguing that the fees paid for activities that do not involve the sale or distribution of Fund shares are not authorized by the plain language of SEC Rule 12b-1. The Memorandum also argued that these fees are inconsistent with the standards articulated in the Gartenberg test.
  • Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Case
    On October 6, 2008, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. The Motion argued that the payment of 12b-1 fees in the manner alleged is authorized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including for the purpose of maintaining shareholder accounts. The Motion also argued that the plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts that are inconsistent with the standards for evaluating excessive fees, as articulated in Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc.
  • Shareholder Files Complaint on Behalf of Davis New York Venture Fund
    On July 28, 2008, a shareholder in the Davis New York Venture Fund filed a Complaint with the Court. The Complaint alleged that Rule 12b-1 fees have been paid in a manner that is: (1) excessive and disproportionate to the benefits conferred on the Fund and its shareholders; and (2) in contravention of the statutory and Rule 12b-1 requirements that the fees benefit both the Fund and its shareholders.
There are currently no blog posts related to this issue.

A shareholder of Davis New York Venture Fund initiated a lawsuit against the investment adviser (Davis Selected Advisers) and the distributor (Davis Distributors) of this Fund. This lawsuit sought to recover for the Fund certain excessive and disproportionate fees paid by the Fund to the defendants, who allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Fund under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

 

This lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On June 1, 2011, the Court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ending this case at the District Court level. The Court determined that the plaintiff’s allegations largely consisted of general conclusions and not specific facts and the plaintiff did not explain how any of its alleged facts met the Gartenberg test, in which a particular fee is “so disproportionately large that its bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.”

 

The plaintiff in this case has appealed the Motion to Dismiss and other Court rulings to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The plaintiff filed his opening brief on January 30, 2014.  In his brief, the plaintiff argues the amended complaint sufficiently alleges that the investment adviser charged the New York Venture Fund excessive and disproportionate advisory fees and Rule 12b-1 fees.

 

Davis filed its answering brief and oral argument on the case was held on June 10, 2015.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of this case on September 29, 2015, ruling that the plaintiff's complaint only offered conclusory statements and "inapt comparisons."

Document Title: 
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Case
Document Desc: 
On September 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of this case. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiff's complaint only contained conclusory statements and "inapt comparisons."
Document Title: 
Oral Argument Held Before 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Document Desc: 
Oral argument in this case was held on June 10, 2015, before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Click on the link below to access an archived video of the oral argument.
Document Title: 
Plaintiff Files Reply Brief
Document Desc: 
On May 9, 2014, the plaintiff in this case filed his reply brief. The plaintiff alleges that Davis is misrepresenting the decisional law and the allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings.
Document Title: 
Davis Files Appellate Brief
Document Desc: 
On April 18, 2014, Davis filed its appellate brief in this case. Davis argues that the fees it received were not excessive and not in violation of the Gartenberg standards.
Document Title: 
Plaintiff Appeals Court Rulings to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Document Desc: 
The plaintiff in this case has appealed the motion to dismiss and other court rulings to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff filed his opening brief on January 30, 2014. In his brief, the plaintiff argues the amended complaint sufficiently alleges that the investment adviser charged the New York Venture Fund excessive and disproportionate advisory fees and Rule 12b-1 fees.
Document Title: 
Court Grants Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On June 1, 2011, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants and ended the case. The Court held that the plaintiff did not explain how any of its alleged facts met the Gartenberg test, in which a particular fee is “so disproportionately large that its bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining.”
Document Title: 
Defendants File Reply Brief
Document Desc: 
On November 3, 2009, the defendants filed a Reply Brief on their Motion to Dismiss the case.
Document Title: 
Plaintiff Files Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On September 25, 2009, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
Document Title: 
Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Case
Document Desc: 
On June 23, 2009, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this lawsuit.
Document Title: 
Shareholder Files Amended Complaint with the Court
Document Desc: 
On April 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with the Court. The Amended Complaint sought to recover for the Fund certain excessive and disproportionate 12b-1 fees and investment advisory fees paid by the Fund to the defendants, who allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Fund under Section 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Document Title: 
Plaintiff Files Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On December 16, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition, arguing that the fees paid for activities that do not involve the sale or distribution of Fund shares are not authorized by the plain language of SEC Rule 12b-1. The Memorandum also argued that these fees are inconsistent with the standards articulated in the Gartenberg test.
Document Title: 
Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Case
Document Desc: 
On October 6, 2008, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit. The Motion argued that the payment of 12b-1 fees in the manner alleged is authorized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including for the purpose of maintaining shareholder accounts. The Motion also argued that the plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts that are inconsistent with the standards for evaluating excessive fees, as articulated in Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc.
Document Title: 
Shareholder Files Complaint on Behalf of Davis New York Venture Fund
Document Desc: 
On July 28, 2008, a shareholder in the Davis New York Venture Fund filed a Complaint with the Court. The Complaint alleged that Rule 12b-1 fees have been paid in a manner that is: (1) excessive and disproportionate to the benefits conferred on the Fund and its shareholders; and (2) in contravention of the statutory and Rule 12b-1 requirements that the fees benefit both the Fund and its shareholders.