"[T]he court noted that for the first time [defendant Southern California Edison] argues that they had a right to invest in the retail-class shares to take advantage of revenue sharing, but found several problems with this argument, notably that it could have been made eight years ago.... Applying guidance from the Supreme Court in Tibble I, the court held that the defendants were liable for breaching the duty to monitor from August 16, 2001, onward.... 'Thus, even if Defendants successfully showed it would take months to make the switch, they are nonetheless liable for losses on each mutual fund at issue either beginning on August 16, 2001, or on the day after 2001 that institutional funds became available,' [Judge Wilson] wrote." [Tibble v. Edison Int'l, No. 7-5359 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017)]

MORE >>