Selected Published Decisions

Benak v. Alliance Capital Management LP, 2004 WL 1459249 (D.N.J. 2004)
Successfully argued that plaintiffs’ claims for failure to conduct research and/or negligence in deciding to invest in a particular stock did not state a claim under Section 36(b) of the 1940 Act, notwithstanding the fact that the investment adviser received compensation for this effort.

Goggins v. Alliance Capital Management LP, 349 F. Supp. 2d 882 (D.N.J. 2004)
Successfully argued that complaint alleging fraudulent and misleading prospectus disclosures should be dismissed because plaintiffs’ securities law claims were time-barred since plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of “storm warnings” pertaining to the fund’s investments.

Green v. Fund Asset Management LP, 286 F.3d 682 (3d Cir. 2002) 
Successfully argued on summary judgment that potential conflict of interest created by the structure of the advisory fee arrangements for six leveraged closed-end bond funds did not breach fiduciary duties under the 1940 Act.

Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Management LLC, 305 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2002)
Successfully argued that service by mutual fund directors on multiple boards within the same fund complex for substantial compensation did not render them “interested” under the 1940 Act.

In re Merrill Lynch & Co. Research Reports Securities Litigation,
272 F. Supp. 2d 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
Successfully argued motion to dismiss claims under the 1933 Act, 1934 Act, and 1940 Act alleging that the Merrill Lynch Global Technology Fund and its adviser failed to disclose use of purportedly misleading research reports and investment banking conflicts of interest.

Olmsted v. Pruco Life Insurance Co., 283 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2002)
Successfully argued that no private right of action exists under Section 26 or 27 of the 1940 Act.

Olesh v. Dreyfus Corp., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶98,907 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)
Defended class and derivative actions by Dreyfus mutual fund shareholders challenging merger of Dreyfus and Mellon Bank as violative of 1940 Act; court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction seeking to block the merger and subsequent dismissed the complaints.

Riley v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management LP, 292 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2002)
Successfully argued that SLUSA preempted Florida state-law class actions alleging that Merrill Lynch misrepresented the risks and objectives of the Merrill Lynch Growth Fund.

Scalisi v. Fund Asset Management LP, 380 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004)
Successfully argued in a shareholder derivative action that the pre-suit demand requirement applied and that demand was not excused as futile.

Young v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., 183 F.R.D. 502 (S.D. Tex. 1998)
Successfully defeated class certification of Rule 10b-5 and 1940 Act claimes alleging that American Century Investments misrepresented that an insurance-only mutual fund was a "clone" of a similarly-named retail fund.