No requirement to separately analyze adviser's sub-administrator fees

By Rodney F. Tonkovic, J.D. In a nonprecedential opinion, a Third Circuit panel concluded that a district court properly found that an investment adviser’s fees were not excessive in relation to the services provided. Taken as a whole, the fees were within the range of arm’s-length bargaining, and there was no reason to distinguish between fees paid to the manager and to a sub-administrator. The district court was also correct in deferring to the disinterested board's independent approval of the fees (Kasilag v. Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC, August 15, 2018, Restrepo, L.). The action was brought by shareholders of six mutual funds managed by Hartford Investment Financial Services. As manager, Hartford agreed to provide certain services in return for a fee from each fund based on its average daily net asset value. Hartford also contracted with a sub-administrator and sub-advisors to assist in its managerial duties. The shareholders filed an action…

Read more detail on Recent Banking and Finance Law posts –

This entry was posted in Banking and Finance law and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply