Legal Opinion
In Re Salomon Smith Barney Mutual Fund Fees Litigation
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided December 3, 2007No. 04 Civ. 4055(PAC), 04 Civ. 4296(PAC), 04 Civ. 4480(PAC), 04 Civ. 5289(PAC)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge.
On October 16, 2006, Plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against the investment advisors and distributors of nine individual Salomon Smith Barney mutual funds, 1 alleging that Defendants charged excessive fees to mutual fund shareholders in violation of Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“ICA”). 2 See 15 U.S.C. § 80a-35(b) (1997). Defendants move to dismiss the SAC with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 The Court grants Defendants’ motion.
I.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- Rothman v. GregorCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Roth v. JenningsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- Bellikoff v. Eaton Vance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- In Re Lord Abbett Mutual Funds Fee LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
- Hoffman v. UBS-AGDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Paskowitz v. Prospect Capital Management LP.District Court, S.D. New York · 2017
- In Re: Lord AbbettCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
- Jerry Jones v. Harris AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.