This list is not exhaustive, and in particular, if a fund manager has decided to outsource some of these tasks to an external company, some or all of the fund`s management activities may or may not be referred to as “fund management”. The specific activities that certainly do not fall under fund management are those that are directly related to the marketing and development of a collective investment scheme: fund managers often choose to outsource all or part of these activities to external professional companies, such as . B the custodian bank of a fund. These companies are often referred to as fund administrators. The case of Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich (SDNY) is the main case related to the liability of fund managers for the incorrect performance of their net asset value obligations. [3] [4] The case was a consolidated case against defendants who provided audit and hedge fund management services to plaintiff investors whose investments had been lost in the Ponzi scheme Bernard Madoff. The defendants were legal and natural persons associated with, among others, Fairfield Greenwich Group, Citco Group Ltd (“Citco”) and GlobeOp Financial Services. [3] [4] The investors accused the defendants of collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in fees for their services while ignoring the warning signs that should have alerted them to the existence of Madoff`s fraud. The plaintiffs claimed they lost $7.5 billion. [3] [4] Fund management is the name given to all activities carried out to support the process of operating a collective investment scheme, whether it is a traditional investment fund, a hedge fund, a pension fund, an investment fund or another intermediary entity.

The Undersigned hereby acknowledges that he is an authorized signatory of the IndexIQ Active ETF Trust (the “Trust”) and that the following Funds are contained in the Fund`s Management and Accounting Agreement dated November 18, 2013 by and between the Trust and bank of New York Mellon. The “credit crunch” in the early 2010s had a significant impact on fund management service providers. The net asset value, which had to be independently calculated and reported by [the directors], was fundamental to the applicants` initial investment decisions, decisions to invest additional funds, and decisions to maintain investments over time. The number of shares the plaintiffs received in exchange for their investment amounts depended on [the administrator`s] net asset value calculations. The benefits of the later-declared plaintiffs also revolved around [the administrators`] calculations. Consequently, the applicants necessarily relied on [the administrator`s] net asset value calculations. [5] According to some fund managers, any task required for fund maintenance that does not fall into one of the two categories mentioned above could be classified as fund management and potentially be a candidate for outsourcing. Before the case was settled, the court noted that, although the administrative arrangements did not explicitly designate the plaintiff investors as third-party beneficiaries, the plaintiffs satisfactorily claimed the intention to allow third-party enforcement, since the administrative arrangements require Citco`s defendants to provide certain specific services directly to the plaintiffs. [5] The Court also found that the applicants sufficiently asserted that there was a separate group of potential investors known to the managers and that the directors intended those investors to rely on net asset value to invest in the funds.

[5] In addition, the Court held that the administrator`s submission of NET ASSET value statements to interested investors was sufficient to invoke a “link requirement”. [5] These management activities may include the following management functions, which may include “fund accounting functions”. Some of these elements may be specific to fund transactions in the United States, and others relate only to whether the fund is a fund registered with the SEC: the court ruled that the case was parallel to Pension Comm. of the University of the Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., 592 F. Supp.2d 608, 641 (SDNY 2009), in which the defendants settled in 2016 by paying Anwar plaintiffs $235 million. [3] [4] WHEREAS the World Gold Trust (the “Trust”), a statutory trust organized in series in Delaware (each a “Fund” and collectively the “Funds”), and the Bank of New York Mellon, a New York corporation licensed to carry on banking activities (“BNY Mellon”), have so far signed a Fund Management and Accounting Agreement (“Agreement”) dated 5. End of January 2017, as amended on 6 June 2018; and the AMENDMENT has made this ___ date of ____ 2019 the September 24, 2014 fund management and accounting agreement between ARK ETF Trust (“Trust”), a Delaware Statutory Trust, and Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY Mellon”), a New York corporation licensed to carry on banking activities (“Agreement”). The Court further noted that “as in the Pension Committee, […] It is reasonable to infer from the plaintiffs` allegations that the directors knew that the plaintiffs would rely on their statements on the NIVs of the funds sent to investors. Therefore, the Court notes that the plaintiffs assert a relationship between investors and directors that establishes a duty of care.

[5] This second amendment (the “Amendment”) will be completed at the time of the last signature below and with the compliance period for each of the new regulatory requirements set out in this Amendment. established by and between DBX ETF Trust (the “Trust”) (on behalf of each “Fund” listed in Appendix A of the Agreement) and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (“BNY Mellon”) (the Trust and BNY Mellon together, “the Parties”). This amendment dated July 8, 2020 has been dated by and between DBX ETF Trust (the “Trust”) and Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”), which are parties to the January 31, 2011 Fund Management and Accounting Agreement (the “Agreement”). . This amendment by the investment firm Reporting Modernization Services (the “Amendment”) was made on September 17. May 2018 on the fund management and accounting agreement between PENN SERIES FUNDS, INC. (the “Company”) on behalf of each investment portfolio referred to in Appendix A of the Agreement and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (“BNY Mellon”) dated January 1. 2016, as amended on July 21, 2017 (the “Agreement”).

.