U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Denies BlackRock’s Motion to Dismiss Saba Capital’s Entrenchment Bylaw Lawsuit
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied BlackRock's motion to dismiss Saba Capital's lawsuit concerning the ECAT's voting bylaws. The court concluded that Saba adequately alleged that ECAT's bylaws could deprive shareholders of their right to elect trustees, violating the Investment Company Act (ICA). Judge Margaret M. Garnett found that BlackRock’s belief that ECAT could have ongoing failed elections was implausible. She emphasized that the fund's bylaws were designed to circumvent shareholder rights. The ruling also dismissed BlackRock's claims that Saba was merely an activist investor, affirming Saba's rights as a shareholder. The decision enables Saba to proceed to trial to contest ECAT’s governance practices.
- The court ruling allows Saba Capital to sue BlackRock and ECAT trustees for their voting bylaws.
- The court recognized Saba's allegations that ECAT's bylaws prevent shareholders from selecting trustees.
- Judge Garnett's ruling deemed the possibility of perpetual failed elections under ECAT's bylaws as implausible.
- BlackRock's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied, potentially leading to further legal and financial complications.
- The court ruled that ECAT’s bylaws could deprive shareholders of their fundamental rights, indicating governance issues.
Insights
Judge Margaret M. Garnett’s ruling against BlackRock in favor of Saba Capital highlights significant legal principles that investors should consider. The ruling emphasizes the importance of shareholder rights, particularly under the Investment Company Act (ICA). By rejecting BlackRock’s motion to dismiss, the Court has upheld the notion that voting bylaws should not undermine the electoral rights of shareholders. This case underscores potential compliance risks for other closed-end funds with similar governance structures.
Legally, this ruling could set a precedent. If Saba prevails in the trial, it could lead to changes in governance practices across the industry to ensure compliance with the ICA. This may result in increased scrutiny of voting bylaws and potentially more shareholder litigation. Retail investors should be mindful of the legal frameworks governing the funds they invest in, as non-compliance can lead to significant legal battles and potential changes in fund management.
The Court’s rejection of BlackRock’s characterization of Saba as an 'activist investor' reiterates the Court’s emphasis on the legal rights of shareholders. This could embolden other shareholders to challenge bylaws they perceive as unfair.
The denial of BlackRock's motion to dismiss the entrenchment bylaw lawsuit brought by Saba Capital might have broader market implications. Firstly, BlackRock's reputation as a fiduciary could be scrutinized, affecting investor sentiment. Negative press around governance practices can influence stock prices, particularly in the short term, as investors react to perceived risks.
From a broader perspective, this ruling may prompt other investment funds to review their governance practices and voting bylaws to avoid similar legal challenges. This could lead to a wave of reforms aimed at increasing transparency and shareholder power, positively impacting long-term investor confidence. For retail investors, it is essential to understand that such governance issues can impact fund performance and that proactive management of these issues is beneficial.
Additionally, the case may cause short-term volatility in ECAT’s stock price as the market digests the implications of the ongoing legal battle. Investors should monitor further developments in the case and be prepared for potential fluctuations.
Court Concludes BlackRock’s View That ECAT Can Continually Have Failed Elections Is “Simply Not Plausible”
Court Concludes Saba Has Sufficiently Alleged That There Is a Point Where ECAT’s Voting Bylaws “Operate to Deprive Shareholders of Their Right to Select the Trustees of The Fund”
Key points from U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett’s ruling include the following:
- The Court agreed that Saba is allowed to sue ECAT and its trustees for ECAT’s majority vote standard. Judge Garnett wrote that “Saba has sufficiently alleged that there is a point where the voting bylaws of ECAT operate to deprive shareholders of their right to select the trustees of the fund, and to circumvent the ICA’s requirement that trustees be ‘elected’ at shareholder ‘meetings’ and that a certain number of directors be resubmitted for shareholder approval each year.”
- The Court stated that it is not permissible for ECAT to perpetually have failed elections and hold over its incumbent trustees as a result of its voting standard. The Court wrote: “The alternative proposed by Defendants is simply not plausible: that even where a fund fails to have successful elections for years and where a fund’s board is composed primarily or entirely of holdovers selected by the sole initial shareholder who is affiliated with the investment advisor, even in perpetuity, there is no circumstance where such a fund could be found to be in violation of the ICA’s requirements for shareholder elections and board composition [...]”
- The Court rejected BlackRock’s attempts to smear Saba as an “activist investor.” The Court stated, “The Court gives no weight to those characterizations; for purposes of the relevant sections of the ICA, Saba’s primary identity is that of ‘shareholder,’ entitled to no fewer rights than any other shareholder.”
Michael D’Angelo, Partner and General Counsel of Saba, said:
“In rejecting BlackRock’s motion to dismiss, the Court has paved a clear path for Saba to win at trial. There, we will show why this entrenched manager and its trustees cannot continue to act as if federal law does not apply to their closed-end funds. Failed elections and holdover trustees cannot exist in perpetuity at any closed-end fund.”
About Saba Capital
Saba Capital Management, L.P. is a global alternative asset management firm that seeks to deliver superior risk-adjusted returns for a diverse group of clients. Founded in 2009 by Boaz Weinstein, Saba is a pioneer of credit relative value strategies and capital structure arbitrage. Saba is headquartered in
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240625326221/en/
Longacre Square Partners
Charlotte Kiaie / Kate Sylvester, 646-386-0091
ckiaie@longacresquare.com / ksylvester@longacresquare.com
Source: Saba Capital Management, L.P.
FAQ
What was the outcome of BlackRock’s motion to dismiss Saba Capital’s lawsuit?
What did the court conclude about ECAT’s voting bylaws?
What impact does the court’s ruling have on Saba Capital?
What did the court say about BlackRock’s characterization of Saba as an activist investor?
What is the significance of Judge Garnett’s ruling on ECAT's governance?
