Supreme Court Endorses Gartenberg, but it's not the Same Old Standard

Supreme Court Endorses Gartenberg, but it's not the Same Old Standard


In May 2008, in a case called Jones v. Harris, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit created significant uncertainty as to the legal obligations of investment company boards in approving investment advisory agreements for funds registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

After 25 years of virtual consensus regarding the factors detailed in Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, the Seventh Circuit concluded that an investment adviser has not violated Section 36(b) of the 1940 Act—which creates a private right of action for breach of “fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services” paid by the investment company to the adviser or its affiliates—unless an adviser “pulled the wool over the eyes of the disinterested trustees or otherwise hindered their ability to negotiate a favorable price for advisory services.”

Now, a unanimous US Supreme Court has rejected the Seventh Circuit’s pulled-the-wool standard under Section 36(b) and held that the Gartenberg formulation was correct: namely, liability under Section 36(b) requires that “an investment adviser 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.”

“The Supreme Court has restored much needed stability to the process by which boards review compensation for services to investment advisers and their affiliates,” says WilmerHale Partner Lori A. Martin, a member of the Investment Management and Securities Litigation and Enforcement Practice Groups, and the Business Trial Group. “The Jones v. Harris decision has restored the sensible framework created in Gartenberg, which focuses on the nature and quality of services provided by the adviser, as well as the range of fees that would be negotiated by arm’s-length bargaining. The Supreme Court’s articulation of the Gartenberg standard nonetheless comes with some new twists.”

Read the full text of a recent WilmerHale Email Alert on this subject: Supreme Court Endorses Gartenberg, but it's not the Same Old Standard.

WilmerHale’s Securities Department of more than 200 lawyers offers premier enforcement, litigation and regulatory capabilities, and is widely recognized for its experience in all aspects of capital markets, investment management, broker-dealer and financial services regulation. Recognized as “the number one firm for enforcement in the US” (Legal 500 US, 2008) and named Security Defense Firm of 2009 by Law360, WilmerHale has played a central role in a number of prominent US federal and state securities investigations, and regularly represents companies, directors and senior management in governmental and internal investigations. Our team has earned a national reputation—based on our defense of major class actions—as a leading defender of individuals and companies named in federal or state court by private litigants.