The plaintiffs’ attorney in the mutual fund fee case heading to the Supreme Court has somehow obtained e-mails between two executives at
In the discussion, one appears to be saying that there essentially isn’t a great deal of difference between the institutional and retail funds, which would play in favor of the plaintiffs.
Michael Neary, head of marketing at Harris evidently wrote that if the lawsuit is charging that the two types of funds have a similar strategy but levy higher fees on retail investors, the case “is weak but not zero.”
Harris responded by saying the lawyer was taking isolated statements out of context.
But whether the statements in the e-mails are out of context or not, an earlier case regarding mutual fund fees allowed e-mails, and the precedent could prove difficult for Harris. The case was Gallus et al. v. Ameriprise Financial.
E-mails May be Smoking Gun in Supreme Court Fund Fee Case
A Harris Associates executive admits in writing there may be little difference between institutional and retail funds.
The plaintiffs’ attorney in the mutual fund fee case heading to the Supreme Court has somehow obtained e-mails between two executives at
In the discussion, one appears to be saying that there essentially isn’t a great deal of difference between the institutional and retail funds, which would play in favor of the plaintiffs.
Michael Neary, head of marketing at Harris evidently wrote that if the lawsuit is charging that the two types of funds have a similar strategy but levy higher fees on retail investors, the case “is weak but not zero.”
Harris responded by saying the lawyer was taking isolated statements out of context.
But whether the statements in the e-mails are out of context or not, an earlier case regarding mutual fund fees allowed e-mails, and the precedent could prove difficult for Harris. The case was Gallus et al. v. Ameriprise Financial.
