Zucker v. Federated Shareholder Services Company

1 Citing case

  1. Northstar Financial Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Investments

    807 F. Supp. 2d 871 (N.D. Cal. 2011)   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Several other district court decisions follow the reasoning of Hamilton, Stegall and Forsythe and conclude that when investors in Massachusetts business trust mutual funds bring fiduciary duty breach claims asserting a harm that affects all investors equally, no direct duty is owed to the investors and the claims are therefore derivative of duties owed to the trust. See Zucker v. Federated Shareholder Servs. Co., No. 06cv241, 2007 WL 709305, at *4, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15186, at *11 (W.D.Penn. Mar. 5, 2007) (relying in part on Stegall ); In re Blackrock Mut. Funds Fee Litig., No 04 Civ 164, 2006 WL 4683167 at *8–*9, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13846 at *29–*30 (W.D.Penn. Mar. 29, 2006) (same); Everett v. Bozic, No. 05 Civ. 00296(DAB), 2006 WL 2291083, at *4, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55824, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2006) (dismissing fiduciary duty claims predicated on diminution of value in a mutual fund as derivative without deciding “whether such a direct [fiduciary] duty exists or not”).