Zoidis v. T. Rowe Price Associates



On April 27, 2016, a group of shareholders in the T. Rowe Price funds filed an excessive fee lawsuit in U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The complaint alleges that T. Rowe Price charges between 13-30 basis points more in advisory fees for investment management services to its retail mutual funds, compared to the "arm's length" rates it charges for sub-advisory services provided to outside mutual funds. 

 

T. Rowe Price filed a motion to dismiss on July 1, 2016.  The plaintiffs filed their opposition brief and T. Rowe Price filed a reply brief.

 

On August 4, 2016, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Maryland.  The Court permitted each party to file supplemental briefs in connection with the motion to dismiss in September 2016.

 

On March 31, 2017, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the case filed by T. Rowe Price.  The Court found the factual allegations in the complaint adequate to present a plausible claim under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.

  • Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
    On March 31, 2017, the District Court denied T. Rowe Price's motion to dismiss the case. The Court found the factual allegations in the complaint adequate to present a plausible claim under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.
  • T. Rowe Price Files Reply Brief
    On August 11, 2016, T. Rowe Price filed its reply brief, stating that the plaintiffs' fee comparisons to sub-advised funds do not make out a viable claim under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.
  • Court Orders Case Transferred to Maryland
    On August 4, 2016, the Court ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court in Maryland. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant reside in California.
  • Plaintiffs File Opposition Brief
    On July 22, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their opposition brief. The plaintiffs argue that the large disparity between fees charged to the T. Rowe Price retail funds vs. the sub-advised funds support a plausible inference that the fees charged to the retail funds are disproportionate to the services provided and outside the range of what could be negotiated at arm's length.
  • T. Rowe Price Files Motion to Dismiss
    On July 1, 2016, T. Rowe Price filed a motion to dismiss the case. T. Rowe Price alleges that the complaint does not state a plausible claim for relief under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.
  • Group of Shareholders Sue T. Rowe Price
    On April 27, 2016, a group of T. Rowe Price shareholders filed an excessive fee lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that T. Rowe Price charges its retail mutual funds between 13-30 basis points more in advisory fees than it charges for sub-advisory services to outside mutual funds.

On April 27, 2016, a group of shareholders in the T. Rowe Price funds filed an excessive fee lawsuit in U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The complaint alleges that T. Rowe Price charges between 13-30 basis points more in advisory fees for investment management services to its retail mutual funds, compared to the "arm's length" rates it charges for sub-advisory services provided to outside mutual funds. 

 

T. Rowe Price filed a motion to dismiss on July 1, 2016.  The plaintiffs filed their opposition brief and T. Rowe Price filed a reply brief.

 

On August 4, 2016, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in Maryland.  The Court permitted each party to file supplemental briefs in connection with the motion to dismiss in September 2016.

 

On March 31, 2017, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the case filed by T. Rowe Price.  The Court found the factual allegations in the complaint adequate to present a plausible claim under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.

Document Title: 
Court Denies Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On March 31, 2017, the District Court denied T. Rowe Price's motion to dismiss the case. The Court found the factual allegations in the complaint adequate to present a plausible claim under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.
Document Title: 
T. Rowe Price Files Reply Brief
Document Desc: 
On August 11, 2016, T. Rowe Price filed its reply brief, stating that the plaintiffs' fee comparisons to sub-advised funds do not make out a viable claim under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.
Document Title: 
Court Orders Case Transferred to Maryland
Document Desc: 
On August 4, 2016, the Court ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court in Maryland. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant reside in California.
Document Title: 
Plaintiffs File Opposition Brief
Document Desc: 
On July 22, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their opposition brief. The plaintiffs argue that the large disparity between fees charged to the T. Rowe Price retail funds vs. the sub-advised funds support a plausible inference that the fees charged to the retail funds are disproportionate to the services provided and outside the range of what could be negotiated at arm's length.
Document Title: 
T. Rowe Price Files Motion to Dismiss
Document Desc: 
On July 1, 2016, T. Rowe Price filed a motion to dismiss the case. T. Rowe Price alleges that the complaint does not state a plausible claim for relief under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.
Document Title: 
Group of Shareholders Sue T. Rowe Price
Document Desc: 
On April 27, 2016, a group of T. Rowe Price shareholders filed an excessive fee lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that T. Rowe Price charges its retail mutual funds between 13-30 basis points more in advisory fees than it charges for sub-advisory services to outside mutual funds.