Stock Markets March 25, 2026

Judge Tosses Suit Over Fee Structure in $439 Billion Fidelity Money Market Fund

Manhattan federal court finds disclosures adequate and rejects claims of unjust enrichment and fiduciary breach

By Sofia Navarro
Judge Tosses Suit Over Fee Structure in $439 Billion Fidelity Money Market Fund

A federal judge in Manhattan dismissed a lawsuit accusing Fidelity of keeping investors in higher-cost retail share classes of its $439.1 billion Fidelity Government Money Market Fund instead of converting them to lower-cost premium shares when account balances reached certain thresholds. The court found Fidelity had adequately disclosed the economics of conversions and that investors could convert their holdings on their own.

Key Points

  • A federal judge in Manhattan dismissed claims that Fidelity unjustly enriched itself and breached fiduciary duties by not automatically converting retail shares to premium shares in its $439.1 billion money market fund.
  • The litigation centered on conversion thresholds of $100,000 for non-retirement accounts and $10,000 for retirement accounts, and fee differences of up to 0.42% for retail shares versus up to 0.32% for premium shares.
  • Judge Margaret Garnett found that Fidelity had adequately disclosed the consequences of converting or not converting shares and that investors could convert holdings on their own; she contrasted the case with a separate, 'unexpected' share-class switch involving another manager that led to a roughly $158 million settlement.

NEW YORK, March 25 - A federal judge in Manhattan on Wednesday dismissed litigation that alleged Fidelity Management & Research Co. and the board of the Fidelity Government Money Market Fund deprived investors by not automatically converting certain accounts into lower-cost share classes.

U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett rejected claims that Fidelity unjustly enriched itself and that the fund's directors and investment managers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to implement an automatic conversion from "retail class" shares to "premium class" shares once account balances reached specified thresholds. The thresholds at issue were $100,000 for non-retirement accounts and $10,000 for retirement accounts, according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs had contended that by leaving investors in retail shares, the fund charged higher fees and expenses - up to 0.42% for retail shares versus up to 0.32% for premium class shares - and thereby shortchanged retail investors by millions of dollars. The pooled fund at the center of the dispute held $439.1 billion in assets, of which $406.4 billion as of February 28 were in the retail share class.

In her opinion, Garnett said Fidelity had fully disclosed the economic consequences of converting shares or of choosing not to convert, and that investors had not demonstrated that those disclosures were misleading. The judge also noted that investors were able to convert their shares voluntarily, and did not dispute that fact.

Quoting a legal standard used to evaluate gross negligence, Garnett wrote that "it was not 'outside the bounds of reason' for defendants to design the fund without an automatic conversion feature." That reasoning underpinned her rejection of the plaintiffs' claims of unjust enrichment and breaches of fiduciary duty.

Lawyers representing the investors did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Fidelity and its attorneys likewise did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Garnett distinguished this case from earlier litigation involving another asset manager, in which retail investors alleged they bore large tax consequences after that manager shifted institutional investors into lower-cost shares without prior notice or an option for retail holders. The judge referred to that prior switch as "unexpected," adding that retail investors in that instance had no say or notice. Those cases involving that other manager were settled last year for an estimated $158 million, according to lawyers for the investors in those suits.

The opinion leaves intact the fund's current structure and its disclosure framework. Fidelity reported that it had $7.1 trillion of assets under management at the end of 2025.


Context and implications - the ruling centers on whether a management company and fund board are required to include an automatic conversion mechanism in a money market fund’s share-class design, or whether robust disclosure and the availability of voluntary conversion satisfy fiduciary obligations. In this case, the court found the latter sufficient.

Risks

  • Investors who did not actively convert their holdings may have paid higher fees than they would have in a lower-cost share class - a risk borne by retail holders in money market and mutual fund structures.
  • The ruling leaves open legal uncertainty about the requirement for automatic conversion features in fund design, which could affect future disputes over fund governance and fee allocation in the mutual fund industry.
  • Retail investors relying on disclosures rather than automated processes face execution and behavioral risks - they must take action to realize the lower fee structure, which could impact returns for individual savers.

More from Stock Markets

After-Hours Movers: Jefferies, Driven Brands, Noodles & Company, Navan See Varied Gains Mar 25, 2026 After the Verdicts: How Recent Jury Rulings Could Shape Legal Battles Over Social Media Design Mar 25, 2026 Bovespa Climbs 1.60% as Real Estate, Consumer and Utilities Stocks Lead Gains Mar 25, 2026 Toronto market closes higher as clean tech, materials and industrials lead gains Mar 25, 2026 U.S. Equities Close Higher as Basic Materials, Consumer Services and Healthcare Lead Gains Mar 25, 2026