Search results

To analyze the August 2016 court decision in Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. and its implications for cases concerning mutual fund advisory fees under Section 36(b) of the of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Discusses Section 36(b), the plaintiffs’ arguments and the judge’s decision in favor of the mutual fund adviser. Provides insights from the judge’s analysis of the advisory fees at issue, including the independence of the mutual fund board and quality of the annual advisory contract renewal process, whether the language of the advisory and subadvisory agreements fully reflects the nature and extent of services provided, the board’s reliance on outside experts and advisers when considering the advisers’ fees and services, and continuous improvements in the boards’ annual advisory contract renewal process.

AXA was a decisive victory for the adviser, and serves as a reminder to boards and advisers alike that a diligent focus on board process and independence can pay twofold after litigation is filed.

Boards and advisers should consider AXA’s implications, and whether the decision raises issues that should be reviewed by independent counsel with experience advising funds and advisers with respect to the Investment Company Act.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

IT WAS KNOWN as the Legation Bungalow. It was single storeyed, white, and buitt to a Colonial style. It had shady verandas, it was set in pleasant grounds, and, in the circumstances, it was very agreeable.

This paper aims to explore the relationship between the concept of the learning organization and that of the co-creation of value.

The paper is conceptual in nature and draws on data from a case study of a small highly innovative Australian company.

The authors show that, from a value co-creation perspective, the learning organization can be viewed as an open, collaborative, social/economic actor engaged in social/economic activities with other interdependent actors (organizations or stakeholders) in a network or ecosystem of actors to serve its mission/purpose and the well-being of the ecosystem.

As a conceptual paper, the authors rely primarily on previous research as the basis for the argument. The implications of the findings are that, as value co-creation practices are founded upon the generation and leveraging of specific intangible capital resources, more research located in alternative research paradigms is required.

There are important implications for organizational leadership in that the practices that underpin value co-creation require the leadership to be able to work constructively with multiple forms of systemic and agentic power.

In increasingly turbulent and hyper-competitive global operational contexts, sustainable value creation is becoming recognized as a collective achievement within a broad eco-system of collaborators. This has implications for the relational capabilities of all collaborators.

The authors introduce a new perspective on the role of power management in the facilitation of the co-creation of value. Arguing that value creation is becoming recognized as a “collective achievement”, they focus on the collaborative practices that enable such an achievement.