ICI has a long history of seeking to strengthen the foundation of the asset management industry for the ultimate benefit of the long-term individual investor. ICI does this in part through advocacy directed at ensuring a sound legal and regulatory framework. At times, this includes filing amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs in litigation affecting funds, advisers, or investors. We highlight ICI amicus briefs filed in recent years below.
- FS Credit Opportunities Corp., et al v Saba Capital Master Fund (September 2025)
-
FS Credit Opportunities Corp., et al v Saba Capital Master Fund et al.
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (Second Circuit)
Issue: Whether an implied private right of action should be recognized under Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. - State of Texas et al. v. BlackRock, Inc. et al. (March 2025)
-
State of Texas et al. v. BlackRock, Inc. et al.
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Issue: Whether plaintiffs’ claim that defendants violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act is va - FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund (October 2024)
-
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund
Court: US Supreme Court
Issue: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 provides for a private right of action. - Antio LLC v. Washington State Department of Revenue (April 2024)
-
Antio LLC v. Washington State Department of Revenue
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Washington
Issue: Whether the meaning of “investment” within Washington State tax law was expanded such that investment companies can deduct investment income from their taxable income. - American Securities Association v. SEC (February 2024)
-
American Securities Association v. SEC
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (Eleventh Circuit)
Issue: Whether the SEC’s order approving the funding model for the Consolidated Audit Trial is contrary to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and arbitrary and capricious because of costs it imposed on broker dealers and investors without affording them any genuine role in establishing the CAT’s budget. - Matney v. Barrick Gold (November 2022)
-
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (Tenth Circuit)
Issue: Whether participants in a defined contribution retirement plan can meet the burden of pleading for breach of the duty of prudence absent allegations about suitable benchmark funds and recordkeeping fees of suitable benchmark plans. - Saba Capital v. Nuveen Floating Rate Income Fund (June 2022)
-
Saba Capital v. Nuveen Floating Rate Income Fund
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (Second Circuit)
Issue: Whether a control share amendment in the bylaws of a closed end fund violates Section 18(i) of the ICA which requires common stock shares of registered investment companies to have equal voting rights. - NASDAQ Stock Market v. SEC (January 2022)
-
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit)
Issue: Whether the SEC overstepped its authority under Section 11A of the Exchange Act by issuing an Order to change the governance structure for equity market data feeds. - Hughes v. Northwestern University (October 2021)
-
Hughes v. Northwestern University
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether a defined-contribution retirement plan participant has stated a claim for breach of the duty of prudence by alleging that the plan fiduciary paid or charged fees greater than those of alternative available investments. - NYSE v. SEC (August 2019)
-
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit)
Issue: Whether the SEC overstepped its authority under the Exchange Act by implementing the Rule 610T Pilot Program to gather data on the current market transaction pricing schemes. - Putnam Investments v. Brotherston (February 2019)
-
Putnam Investments v. Brotherston
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether the defendant or the plaintiff has the burden of proof in an action under ERISA seeking monetary relief for breach of fiduciary duty. - Twin Rivers Paper Company v. SEC (January 2019)
-
Twin Rivers Paper Company v. SEC
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit)
Issue: Whether SEC Rule 30e-3, which allows investment funds to satisfy shareholder reporting obligations electronically, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Exchange Act, the Securities Act, or the Investment Company Act of 1940. - Brotherston v. Putnam Investments (January 2018)
-
Brotherston v. Putnam Investments
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (First Circuit)
Issue: Whether showing that particular investment options did not perform as well as a set of index funds is sufficient to establish “losses to the plan.” - Metlife v. Financial Stability Oversight Council (August 2016)
-
Metlife v. Financial Stability Oversight Council
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit)
Issue: Whether the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s classification of a large insurance company as a nonbank systemically important financial institution was arbitrary and capricious. - Northstar Financial Advisors v. Schwab Investments (April 2015)
-
Northstar Financial Advisors v. Schwab Investments
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit)
Issue: Whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (“SLUSA”) precludes class action claims brought under state law where the complaint alleges conduct specified in SLUSA and the alleged conduct is required to prove the state law cause of action. - Lawson v. FMR LLC (October 2013)
-
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act applies to employees of private companies that contract with public companies. - Tibble v. Edison Int’l (August 2011)
-
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit)
Issue: Whether it would be inherently imprudent for fiduciaries of large 401(k) plans to make (i) retail mutual funds and (ii) money market funds available to plan participants. - Business Roundtable v. SEC (December 2010)
-
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit)
Issue: Whether the SEC’s application of Rule 14a-11 to investment companies without adequate consideration of the economic effects was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. - Renfro v. Unisys Corp. (November 2010)
-
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (Third Circuit)
Issue: What, if any, conduct and level of services provided to a 401(k) plan by a broker-dealer is sufficient for the broker-dealer to be held to a fiduciary standard by the plan participants? - Loomis v. Exelon Corp. (August 2010)
-
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit)
Issue: Whether administrators violate their fiduciary duty under ERISA by offering retail mutual funds and by requiring participants, rather than the plan, to cover those expenses. - In re Charles Schwab Corp. Securities Litigation (March 2010)
-
In re Charles Schwab Corp. Securities Litigation
Court: U.S District Court, N. D. of California
Issue: Whether section 13(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act requires a mutual fund to obtain shareholder approval before changing a previously disclosed industry classification. - Jones v. Harris Associates (September 2009)
-
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether courts should review an investment adviser’s fee in light of a variety of factors and give considerable weight to independent directors’ approval of the fee as the proper way to assess claims that the adviser has breached its fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation in violation of Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. - Merrill Lynch v. Shadi Dabit (November 2005)
-
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: Whether class actions brought under state law by non-transacting “holders” of securities are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”). - Lanco Inc., v. Director, Division of Taxation (September 2005)
-
Lanco Inc., v. Director, Division of Taxation
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Issue: Whether class actions brought under state law by non-transacting “holders” of securities are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”).