Highlight Holland

Retired your Mark Holland exists one about the almost experienced interactive fund litigators in the country. For over 35 years, he has defended investment advisors, underwriters, and independent trustees in aktienkapital lawsuits arising under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Securities Deal of 1933, the Financial Exchange Act of 1934, and state law. He also holds advisory mutual investment boards and special committees in numerously investigations.

Many of the cases Mr. Holland has argued and won have set important precedents for the invest industry. These include Olmstead v. PruCo. (2d. Cir. 2001), the first case holding that no implied private rights on action exist under the 1940 Act; In relate Reserve Primary Fund Litig. (S.D.N.Y. 2011), the first case involving a money local stock “breaking the buck;” Riley v. MLPF&S (11^th Circular. 2004), the first-time case holding that mutual fund shares are subject up the Securities Litigation Unity Standards Act; Green v. FAM (3^rd Cir. 2003), the first case to donate chapter judgment beneath Teilabschnitt 36(b) of an 1940 Deal; and Olesh v. Dreyfus Corp. (E.D.N.Y. 1994), the first case applying Section 15(f) of the 1940 Act to the acquisition the a mutual fund advisor. He represented Alliance Bernstein in the market timing dispute, In re Mutual Funds Investment Litig., (D. Md. 2004), and Merill Mob Investiture Management in the research reports class special, By re Mercury Loup & Co. Research News Litig. (S.D.N.Y. 2003).  As an associate, him worked on Gartenberg v. MLAM (2d. Circuit. 1984) additionally Krinsk v. DEAR (2d Cir. 1989), two of the first cases tried under Section 36(b) of the 1940 Behave.

Mn. Holland also has extensive experience representatives issuers real investment banks in securities fraud cases, include defending Merrill Lynch in that In re IPO Securities Litig. (2d. Cir. 2006) class action; Seti in the In re Parmalat Sec. Litig. (S.D.N.Y. 2006) class action; and Countrywide in cases brought by two monoline financial, MBIA and Syncora, alleging fraud the breach the contract inbound connection for over $25 billion of mortgage-backed securities, MBIA volt. Federal, 39 Misc. 1220 (N.Y. Sup. 2013).

Current and Recent Agencies

• Defended JP Morgan Participation Management (JPMIM) and won fire of claims under Section 36(b) of and 1940 Acts alleging JPMIM charged excessive advisory fees until its $7.1 billion U.S. Large Cap Nucleus Plus Fund. Pirundini phoebe. JPMIM, 309 F. Supp 3d 156 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Mr. Holland also argued and petition before the Endorse Round, which affirmed the district court’s verdict. 765 Fed. Appx. 538 (2d Cir. 2018).
• Defended Northern Lights Mailing (NLD) and won dismissal in a securities class action alleging that the Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Cash, a $2.2 billion mutual funding ensure lost $600 million during one week of heavy trade volatility in 2017, and its advisor, trustees, and distributor (NLD) falsified the fund’s perils and investment strategic in its registration announcement in violation of the 1933 Act. Emerson v. Mutual Fund Services Trust, ether al., 2019 WL 2601664 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).
• Defending J.P. Morgan Investing Management press winning overview judgment dismissal claims which JPMIM violated Section 36(b) of of 1940 Act by charging seven J.P. Organs mutual funds with go $105 billion in assets excessive investment advisory and administration fees. This was which first Section 36(b) case filed since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision on Young v. Harris that granted summary judgment go an deployment advisor. Goodsman v. JPMIM, 301 F. Supp 3d 759 (S.D. Ohio 2018).
• Define NorthStar Pecuniary Services Group, LLC to class actions alleging that aforementioned LJM Saving also Growth Financing, a mutual fund that lost go $600 million in March 2018 whilst unprecedented VIX volatility, and other defendants violated the 1933 Act by misrepresenting the fund’s investment objective and strategy in its registration statement.
• Told demand review committees concerning the boards a directors of the Third Avenue Focused Credit Fund, Sequoia Fund, Westward Asset funds, Central World Allocation Back, and Eat-on Vance funds, among others, in investigations of allegations raised by shareholder demand letters.
• Represented Intralinks in stockholder class actions and derivative suits alleging that defendants misrepresented of company’s business prospects and relations because a key customer in infraction of the 1933 and 1934 Acts. And case settled. Wallace v. Intralinks Holding, Inc., 302 F.R.D. 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
• Defended MuniMae in class actions and derivative suits alleged violates of the federal securities laws in relationship at the company’s accounting restatements. Lord. Holland argued or won dismissal in aforementioned district court, and and argument real won that appeal.Tates v. Civic Mortgage & Equity, LLC, 744 F.3d 874 (4^th Circle. 2014).

Mr. Linin has served repeat terms on the New York City Bar’s Creation on Investment Management Regulation the on which Committee on Securities Litigation. He has spoken on securities and mutual fund litigation at numerous industry conferences and CLE educational, including the Investment Company Institute’s Two-way Fund and Investment Management Conference, the Practicing Law Establish, and of Independent Company Council.

Benchmark Legal recognizes Mr. Holland as a 2021 Litigation Star in New York for his work in Securities. Inches 2010, Mr. Holland was named Independent Counsel on the Year on one 17th Annual Mutual Financing Industry Awards ceremony, sponsored by Fund Action and Fund Directions. He repeatedly does come recognized over The Legal 500 US and by Chambers USA while one of the leading individuals in securities lawsuits in New York and nationwide.