Search for: "Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc."
Results 1 - 20
of 22
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2010, 3:04 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982). [read post]
5 May 2010, 3:04 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982). [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 6:31 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc. applied the correct standard for determining when an investment adviser has breached the fiduciary duty owed to captive mutual fund shareholders established under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA). [read post]
5 May 2009, 2:30 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982) because they were substantially higher than fees charged to other institutional investors.The Seventh Circuit, however, rejected both variations of the Gartenberg test commonly used by courts in analyzing mutual fund advisory fees: (1) whether the fee represents a charge within the range of what would have been negotiated at arm’s-length in light of all surrounding… [read post]
6 Nov 2012, 1:27 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982). [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 1:54 pm
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982). [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 1:47 pm
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc.: “[T]he test is essentially whether the fee schedule represents a charge within the range of what would have been negotiated at arm’s-length in light of all of the surrounding circumstances. . . . [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 8:53 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 6:39 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc. (1982). [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 10:15 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 2:33 pm
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc. set prevailing standard for more than 25 years: Does the fee schedule represent a charge within the range of what would have been negotiated at arm's-length; or Are the fees so disportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered Gartenberg found that fees paid to other fund advisers were not dispositive A court should rely on its own business judgment to… [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 10:06 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc. set prevailing standard for more than 25 years: Does the fee schedule represent a charge within the range of what would have been negotiated at arm's-length; or Are the fees so disportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered Gartenberg found that fees paid to other fund advisers were not dispositive A court should rely on its own business judgment to… [read post]
28 May 2008, 12:46 pm
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982), which, while respecting the deliberations of independent directors, required courts to consider those deliberations in light of multiple factors in determining whether investment adviser fees were excessive. [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 6:50 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., holding that a breach of fiduciary duty occurs only when an adviser "charge[s] a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 5:28 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc. applied the correct standard for determining when an investment adviser has breached the fiduciary duty owed to captive mutual fund shareholders established under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA). [read post]
11 May 2009, 12:42 pm
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982), which, while respecting the deliberations of independent directors, requires courts to consider those deliberations in light of multiple factors in determining whether investment adviser fees are excessive. [read post]
29 May 2010, 4:27 pm
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F. 2d 923 (CA2 1982), held that there was no evidence that the fees were outside a range that could have been produced by arm’s length negotiations. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 8:32 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management (1982) that a violation occurs when the adviser charges a fee that is "so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered" and would be considered outside "the range of what would have been negotiated at arm's length. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 6:18 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982), which held that to violate Section 36(b) “the adviser-manager must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s-length bargaining. [read post]
5 Sep 2009, 8:00 am
Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 694 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982). [read post]
