Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 SEPTEMBER 2015

Life and Annuity Series: Excessive Fee Cases

WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Contributor
WilmerHale

WilmerHale

WilmerHale's London office was established more than 40 years ago. With lawyers qualified in the...

View firm profile
Explore more from WilmerHale

Below is an update on the "excessive fee" cases under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

United StatesInsurance

Below is an update on the "excessive fee" cases under section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Most of these complaints are now proceeding on the "sub-adviser" theory: that annuity contract-holders pay "excessive fees" in violation of the' 40 Act when the insurer (or its affiliate) acts as the "adviser" for the investment options in the contracts, and delegates investment advisory and portfolio management services to an unaffiliated "subadviser." According to the complaints, these sub-adviser arrangements essentially result in an overall "excessive fee" (i.e., one that bears no reasonable relationship to the value of the services rendered) because the insurer (or its affiliate) is paid a large fee for doing little work.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from