Chill et al v. Calamos Advisors LLC et al
| Saul Chill and Sylvia Chill |
| Calamos Advisors LLC and Calamos Financial Services LLC |
| 1:2015cv01014 |
| February 11, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Queens |
| Edgardo Ramos |
| Stockholders Suits |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 80 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
235
OPINION AND ORDER: Of the six factors articulated in Gartenberg and reaffirmed in Jones, only one - the quality of services Calamos provided to the fund- even marginally tends to support Plaintiffs' claim. The other five factors weigh decisivel y in Calamos' favor. Therefore the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to prove that - at any time during the relevant period Calamos received from the Fund an advisory fee so disproportionately large that it bore no reasonable relations hip to the services rendered and did not reflect the product of arm's-length bargaining. Put simply, Plaintiffs have failed to prove that Calamos breached its fiduciary duty under § 36(b). Plaintiffs' complaint is therefore DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/27/2019) (kv)
|
|
Filing
169
OPINION AND ORDER: In sum, the Court concludes that genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding the Gartenberg factors related to comparative fee structures, profitability, the nature and quality of services provided to the Fund, and the conscientiousness and care of the Trustees' evaluation of the Advisory Fees. Consequently, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that Plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine dispute as to whether Calamos "charge[d] a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm's length bargaining." Jones, 559 U.S. at 346. For the foregoing reasons, Calamos' moti on for summary judgment is GRANTED insofar as Calamos seeks to establish that Plaintiffs have failed to raise triable issues of fact related to economies of scale and fall-out benefits, and DENIED insofar as Calamos seeks judgment as a matter of law on the other Gartenberg factors and Section 36(b) liability generally. Moreover, the parties' Daubert motions are DENIED, as set forth above. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the summary judgment motion, Doc. 65, and the Daubert motions, Docs. 88, 106, 109, 112, 115, 118. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/30/2018) (mro)
|
|
Filing
168
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 65 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 88 Motion; denying 106 Motion; denying 109 Motion; denying 112 Motion; denying 115 Motion; denying 118 Motion: Before the Court are several mot ions. Defendant Calamos Advisors LLC moves for summary judgment against Plaintiffs Saul and Sylvia Chill. Doc. 65. In connection with the motion, both parties have moved, pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to exclud e certain expert testimony. Docs. 88, 106, 109, 112, 115, 118. The Court has provided the parties with a copy of its Opinion. The Opinion has not been posted publicly. The parties have until the end of business Wednesday, October 3, 2018, to provide the Court with their recommendations, on consent, of the matters that ought to be redacted in accordance with the Protective Order entered herein, Doc. 32. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion, Calamos' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED insofar as Calamos seeks to establish that Plaintiffs have failed to raise triable issues of fact related to economies of scale and fall-out benefits, and DENIED insofar as Calamos seeks judgment as a matter of law on the other Gartenberg factors an d Section 36(b) liability generally. Moreover, the parties' Daubert motions are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the summary judgment motion, Doc. 65, and the Daubert motions, Docs. 88, 106, 109, 112, 115, 118. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/30/2018) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Calamos Advisors LLC, Calamos Financial Services LLC. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. The parties are directed to appear for an initial pretrial c onference on May 6, 2016, at 11:45 AM. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion (Doc. 14). It is SO ORDERED. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Initial Conference set for 5/6/2016 at 11:45 AM before Judge Edgardo Ramos.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/28/2016) (kko)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
