Legal Opinion
Lionel Amron, Chana Yampolsky, and David Yampolsky v. Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. And Morgan Stanley Distributors Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided September 26, 2006No. Docket 04-3938-CV(L), 04-3940-CV (CON)PublishedCited by 68 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HALL, Circuit Judge:
This case requires us to examine the pleading requirements for an action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-1 et seq. (the “40 Act”). Plaintiffs Lionel Amron, Chana Yampolsky and David Yampolsky filed a complaint alleging that Defendants charged unreasonably high fees in violation of the 40 Act. They now appeal the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard Owen, J.) entered on June 25, 2004, granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims.
We…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug StoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. BroudoSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by68 opinions
- Patane v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- In Re Elevator Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2007
- Spagnola v. Chubb Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- John Meiners v. Wells Fargo & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2018
- Green v. City of Mount VernonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.