WIENER V. EATON VANCE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.



A shareholder of the Eaton Vance Municipals Trust initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the Trust against the trustees of these mutual funds and the distributor of the Trust (Eaton Vance Distributors). The lawsuit alleged that the defendants approved “asset-based compensation” to broker-dealers holding mutual fund shares in a brokerage account, contrary to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case, Financial Planning Association v. SEC.

 

This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 30, 2011, the Court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the case. In April 2011, the plaintiff appealed this dismissal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In June 2011, the plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

  • Plaintiff Files Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Appeal
    On June 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed a Motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Court Grants Motion to Dismiss the Lawsuit
    On March 30, 2011, the Court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
  • Reply Brief by Eaton Vance in Support of the Motion to Dismiss
    On September 10, 2010, Eaton Vance Distributors filed a Reply Brief in Support of the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
  • Reply Brief by the Independent Trustees in Support of the Motion to Dismiss
    On September 10, 2010, the independent trustees of the Eaton Vance Municipals Trust filed a Reply Brief in Support of the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
  • Plaintiff Files Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
    On August 20, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. In his Memorandum, the plaintiff argued that asset-based payments to broker-dealers who not registered as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 are unlawful under the federal securities laws.
  • Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
    On July 15, 2010, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. In their Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, the defendants argued that broker-dealers are permitted to receive Rule 12b-1 fees under the federal securities laws.
  • Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
    On June 28, 2010, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this case. In his Amended Complaint, the plaintiff asserted that broker-dealers are prohibited under federal securities laws from receiving asset-based compensation, including Rule 12b-1 fees, in brokerage accounts managed for their customers.
  • Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Lawsuit
    On June 7, 2010, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. In their Memorandum supporting the Motion to Dismiss, the defendants argued that asset-based compensation paid to mutual funds under Rule 12b-1 is authorized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and not inconsistent with the holding in Financial Planning Association v. SEC.
  • Shareholder Files Derivative Complaint on Behalf of the Eaton Vance Municipals Trust
    On March 26, 2010, a shareholder initiated a derivative complaint against the trustees and distributor of the Eaton Vance Municipals Trust. The Complaint alleged that Eaton Vance paid asset-based compensation to broker dealers in a manner contrary to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Financial Planning Association v. SEC.
There are currently no blog posts related to this issue.

A shareholder of the Eaton Vance Municipals Trust initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the Trust against the trustees of these mutual funds and the distributor of the Trust (Eaton Vance Distributors). The lawsuit alleged that the defendants approved “asset-based compensation” to broker-dealers holding mutual fund shares in a brokerage account, contrary to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case, Financial Planning Association v. SEC.

 

This case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 30, 2011, the Court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the case. In April 2011, the plaintiff appealed this dismissal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In June 2011, the plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Document Title: 
Plaintiff Files Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Appeal
Document Desc: 
On June 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed a Motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Document Title: 
Court Grants Motion to Dismiss the Lawsuit
Document Desc: 
On March 30, 2011, the Court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Document Title: 
Reply Brief by Eaton Vance in Support of the Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On September 10, 2010, Eaton Vance Distributors filed a Reply Brief in Support of the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Document Title: 
Reply Brief by the Independent Trustees in Support of the Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On September 10, 2010, the independent trustees of the Eaton Vance Municipals Trust filed a Reply Brief in Support of the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Document Title: 
Plaintiff Files Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On August 20, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. In his Memorandum, the plaintiff argued that asset-based payments to broker-dealers who not registered as investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 are unlawful under the federal securities laws.
Document Title: 
Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
Document Desc: 
On July 15, 2010, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. In their Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, the defendants argued that broker-dealers are permitted to receive Rule 12b-1 fees under the federal securities laws.
Document Title: 
Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
Document Desc: 
On June 28, 2010, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in this case. In his Amended Complaint, the plaintiff asserted that broker-dealers are prohibited under federal securities laws from receiving asset-based compensation, including Rule 12b-1 fees, in brokerage accounts managed for their customers.
Document Title: 
Defendants File Motion to Dismiss the Lawsuit
Document Desc: 
On June 7, 2010, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. In their Memorandum supporting the Motion to Dismiss, the defendants argued that asset-based compensation paid to mutual funds under Rule 12b-1 is authorized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and not inconsistent with the holding in Financial Planning Association v. SEC.
Document Title: 
Shareholder Files Derivative Complaint on Behalf of the Eaton Vance Municipals Trust
Document Desc: 
On March 26, 2010, a shareholder initiated a derivative complaint against the trustees and distributor of the Eaton Vance Municipals Trust. The Complaint alleged that Eaton Vance paid asset-based compensation to broker dealers in a manner contrary to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Financial Planning Association v. SEC.