U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status


Docket Number



2009 Term

Oral Argument Date

November 02, 2009


Questions Presented

Whether the court below erroneously held, in conflict with the decisions of three other circuits, that a shareholder’s claim that the fund’s investment adviser charged an excessive fee - more than twice the fee it charged to funds with which it was not affiliated - is not cognizable under §36(b), unless the shareholder can show that the adviser misled the fund’s directors who approved the fee.

Case Updates

Supreme Court rules on mutual fund management fees

March 30, 2010

The Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit's opinion in Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc. applied the correct standard for determining whether a mutual fund adviser breached its fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA).

U.S. Chamber files amicus brief

September 03, 2009

NCLC urged the Supreme Court to rule that Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA) is not a vehicle for private plaintiffs to police how investment adviser fees are set. In this case, certain mutual fund shareholders sued the fund’s investment advisor.

Case Documents