Allegations
(i) the Fund’s investment strategy was neither to identify companies whose stock price may not reflect the company’s value, nor to purchase the stocks of these undervalued companies and hold each stock until the price has increased to, or is higher than, a level the managers believe more accurately reflects the fair value of the company; (ii) Defendants were not actively managing the Fund (which allegedly included researching and selecting investments for the Fund); (iii) Defendants employed an investment strategy designed to closely track the performance of the Fund’s stated benchmark index, the Russell 1000 Value index, known as “closet indexing”; (iv) Defendants had no reason to charge substantial fees to the Fund for this purportedly active management while engaging in closet indexing; (v) the excessive fees virtually ensured that the Fund could not match its benchmark over time, let alone outperform it; and (vi) as a result, the Fund would consistently fail to meet or outperform its benchmark index.