Advertisement

July 22, 2014

Federal Court Dismisses BlackRock Securities Lending Case

On August 28, a federal district court in Tennessee dismissed two shareholders’ claims in a derivative lawsuit against BlackRock’s iShares Trust and iShares, Inc. (together, the Funds), Blackrock Fund Advisors (BFA), the Funds’ investment adviser, Blackrock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. (BRC), the Funds’ securities lending agent, and the directors of the Funds. The plaintiffs, two pension funds invested in the Funds, brought the suit seeking relief under various sections of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act), including Section 36(b), in connection with the Funds’ securities lending transactions. Section 36(b) provides a right of action for excessive fund compensation to the investment adviser or any of its affiliates. The plaintiffs alleged that BFA and BTC received an excessive amount of compensation from securities lending revenue earned on the Funds’ securities lending transactions. 

Funds that engage in securities lending typically contract with a lending agent to facilitate lending transactions with borrowers. The lending agent usually receives compensation by retaining a portion of the revenue generated from the securities lending transactions. Under the Funds’ securities lending agreement, BFA and BTC retained approximately 40 percent of the revenue created from the transactions, with the Funds receiving the remaining 60 percent. The plaintiffs argued that this compensation was grossly excessive and that more of the profit should have been returned to the Funds’ shareholders. The original complaint cited a 2012 Finadium survey showing that a majority of mutual funds using a non-affiliated lending agent had retained 90 percent of revenue. The complaint also stated that the securities lending arrangement among Vanguard Group, Inc. and the Vanguard Funds allowed those funds to retain 100 percent of securities lending revenue after costs. 

The Court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims, holding that the Section 36(b) claim was precluded by an exception within the statute. That exception, Section 36(b)(4), provides that transactions between entities that have obtained an exemptive order under Section 17 from the SEC are excepted from a Section 36(b) action. The Court pointed out that predecessors of BFA and BTC had received an exemptive order from the SEC under Section 17 of the 1940 Act permitting them to conduct the joint securities lending transactions among them and the Funds, and this exemption therefore removed the plaintiffs’ securities lending claim from the scope of Section 36(b). The Court gave the plaintiffs until September 17, 2013, to either amend the complaint or ask for a deadline extension. 

A copy of the court’s opinion is available here.

A copy of the pension funds’ complaint is available here

©2014 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

About the Author

The Investment Management Practice Group of Drinker Biddle brings a comprehensive array of proficiencies to the high-stakes and evolving investment management industry. The group’s seasoned professionals cover every aspect of the industry and are devoted to client service.

The group has a national reputation for the delivery of forward-looking, sophisticated solutions to complex and novel issues, and leadership in getting ahead of, and responding to, the regulatory impact on the industry. 

(215) 988-2978

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.