contractually agreed to waive receipt of a portion of its management fee in the amount of .15% of the value of the fund’s average daily net assets from January 1, 2020 until May 31, 2021. Additionally, the Adviser has contractually agreed, from June 1, 2020 until November 30, 2020, to waive receipt of a portion of its management fee in the amount of .25% of the value of the fund’s average daily net assets. On or after November 30, 2020, the Adviser may terminate this waiver agreement at any time. The reduction in expenses, pursuant to the undertaking, amounted to $314,229 during the period ended June 30, 2020.
During the period ended June 30, 2020, the Distributor retained $736 from commissions earned on sales of the fund’s Class A shares and $15 from CDSC fees on redemptions of the fund’s Class C shares.
The fund has an arrangement with the transfer agent whereby the fund may receive earnings credits when positive cash balances are maintained, which are used to offset transfer agency fees. For financial reporting purposes, the fund includes net earnings credits, if any, as an expense offset in the Statement of Operations.
The fund has an arrangement with the custodian whereby the fund will receive interest income or be charged an overdraft fees when cash balances are maintained. For financial reporting purposes, the fund includes this interest income and overdraft fees, if any, as interest income in the Statements of Operations.
The fund compensates BNY Mellon Transfer, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Adviser, under a transfer agency agreement for providing transfer agency and cash management services for the fund. The majority of transfer agency fees are comprised of amounts paid on a per account basis, while cash management fees are related to fund subscriptions and redemptions. During the period ended June 30, 2020, the fund was charged $82,666 for transfer agency services. These fees are included in Shareholder servicing costs in the Statement of Operations.
The fund compensates The Bank of New York Mellon under a custody agreement for providing custodial services for the fund. These fees are determined based on net assets, geographic region and transaction activity. During the period ended June 30, 2020, the fund was charged $5,266 pursuant to the custody agreement.
During the period ended June 30, 2020, the fund was charged $8,595 for services performed by the Chief Compliance Officer and his staff. These fees are included in Chief Compliance Officer fees in the Statement of Operations.
The components of “Due to BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. and affiliates” in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities consist of: management fees of $230,396, Distribution Plan fees of $1,266, Shareholder Services Plan fees of $72,835, custodian fees of $3,400, Chief Compliance Officer fees of $4,695 and transfer agency fees of $27,610, which are offset against an expense reimbursement currently in effect in the amount of $79,796.
(d) Each Board member also serves as a Board member of other funds in the BNY Mellon Family of Funds complex. Annual retainer fees and attendance fees are allocated to each fund based on net assets.
NOTE 4—Securities Transactions:
The aggregate amount of purchases and sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, during the period ended June 30, 2020, amounted to $200,524,921 and $223,390,889, respectively.
At June 30, 2020, accumulated net unrealized appreciation on investments was $2,908,142, consisting of $46,253,386 gross unrealized appreciation and $43,345,244 gross unrealized depreciation.
At June 30, 2020, the cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was substantially the same as the cost for financial reporting purposes (see the Statement of Investments).
31
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) (continued)
NOTE 5—Pending Legal Matters:
The fund and many other entities have been named as defendants in numerous pending litigations as a result of their participation in the leveraged buyout transaction (“LBO”) of the Tribune Company (“Tribune”).
The State Law Cases: In 2008, approximately one year after the Tribune LBO concluded, Tribune filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”). Beginning in June 2011, Tribune creditors filed complaints in various courts, alleging that the payments made to shareholders in the LBO were “fraudulent conveyances” under state and/or federal law, and that the shareholders must return the payments they received for their shares (collectively, “the state law cases”). The state law cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation (S.D.N.Y. Nos. 11-md-2296 and 12-mc-2296 (RJS) (“Tribune MDL”)). On September 23, 2013, the Court dismissed 50 cases, including at least one case in which the fund was a defendant. On September 30, 2013, plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by section 546(e) of the Code, which exempts qualified transfers that were made “by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution.” The fund is a registered investment company, which the Code defines as a “financial institution.”
On September 9, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the pendency of the plaintiffs’ cert. petition, the Supreme Court ruled in another case, Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. (“Merit Management”), that Section 546(e) does not exempt qualified transfers from avoidance that merely passed through “financial institutions,” though it does exempt “financial institutions” themselves, like the fund.
On May 15, 2018, in response to the Merit Management decision, the Second Circuit issued an Order in the State Law Cases that “the mandate in this case is recalled in anticipation of further panel review.”
On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit issued an Amended and Corrected Opinion affirming dismissal of the constructive fraudulent transfer claims notwithstanding Merit Mgmt., because there is an alternate basis for finding that the payments are safe-harbored under Section 546(e); namely, that, with respect to LBO payments, the Tribune Company is itself
32
a “financial institution” because it was the customer of Computershare – a trust company and bank that acted as Tribune’s agent – and because all payments were made in connection with a securities contract.
On January 2, 2020, plaintiffs petitioned the Second Circuit for rehearing by the same panel of judges and/or rehearing en banc by all judges on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiffs sought this relief on numerous grounds, including that the panel rendered its decision using an incorrect construction of Section 546(e), improperly considered evidence, and an insufficiently developed factual record. Second Circuit rules state that parties opposing a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc are not permitted to file a response unless requested by the Court. The Second Circuit did not request any oppositions to plaintiffs’ motion, instead issuing an order on February 6, 2020, denying plaintiffs’-appellants’ petition for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc.
In July 2020, plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit’s Amended and Corrected Opinion affirming the dismissal of the constructive fraudulent transfer claims. Plaintiffs’ cert. petition identifies three purported errors allegedly justifying Supreme Court review; namely, that the Second Circuit erred in its application of the “presumption against preemption” in the context of the Bankruptcy Code, in its conclusion that the 546(e) safe harbor pre-empts claims brought by creditors, and in its conclusion that the Tribune Company was a “financial institution.” Plaintiffs also formally abandoned their claims against certain defendants believed to have created a financial conflict that precluded a quorum among the Supreme Court justices.
The FitzSimons Litigation: On November 1, 2010, a case now styled, Mark S. Kirchner, as Litigation Trustee for the Tribune Litigation Trust v. FitzSimons, et al., S.D.N.Y. No. 12-cv-2652 (RJS) was filed (“the FitzSimons Litigation”). Among other things, the complaint sought recovery of alleged “fraudulent conveyances” from more than 5,000 Tribune shareholders (“Shareholder Defendants”), including the fund, that participated in the Tribune LBO. On May 23, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on January 9, 2017. The plaintiff then sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal. On February 23, 2017, the Court entered an order stating that it would permit the plaintiff to file an interlocutory appeal after the Court decided other pending motions.
Effective November 1, 2018, Judge Denise Cote was assigned to the case when Judge Richard Sullivan was elevated to the Second Circuit.
33
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) (continued)
On November 30, 2018, the Court issued an Opinion and Order resolving the remaining motions by dismissing most, but not all, of the claims asserted against the individual defendants.
In January 2019, various state law claims asserted against certain individual defendants were dismissed.
Between February and early April 2019, plaintiffs and certain defendants attempted to resolve the dispute through mediation, but ultimately decided to await the Second Circuit’s review of its May 29, 2016 decision before attempting to negotiate a settlement.
On April 4, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the FitzSimons complaint to add a claim for constructive fraudulent transfer from defendants subject to clawback under the Bankruptcy Code. On April 10, 2019, the affected defendants opposed the motion.
On April 23, 2019, Judge Cote denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a new constructive fraudulent transfer claim because such amendment would be futile and would result in substantial prejudice to the shareholder defendants given that the only claim against the shareholder defendants in FitzSimons has been dismissed for over two years, subject to appeal. Judge Cote considered the amendment futile on the ground that constructive fraudulent transfer claims are barred by the safe harbor provision of Section 546(e), which defines “financial institution” to include, in certain circumstances, the customers of traditional financial institutions, including Tribune.
On July 12, 2019, the Trustee filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit from the April 23, 2019, decision denying leave to amend the complaint to add constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On July 15, 2019, the Trustee filed a corrected notice of appeal to remedy technical errors with the notice filed on July 12, 2019. Briefing on these matters began in January 2020, and was completed and fully submitted to the Second Circuit by June 2020. Oral argument is anticipated to occur in 2020, with a decision expected in 2021.
At this stage in the proceedings, management does not believe that a loss is probable and, in any event, is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss that may result.
34
INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited)
At a meeting of the fund’s Board of Directors held on May 11, 2020, the Board considered the renewal of the fund’s Management Agreement pursuant to which the Adviser provides the fund with investment advisory and administrative services (the “Agreement”). The Board members, a majority of whom are not “interested persons” (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended) of the fund, were assisted in their review by independent legal counsel and met with counsel in executive session separate from representatives of the Adviser. In considering the renewal of the Agreement, the Board considered several factors that it believed to be relevant, including those discussed below. The Board did not identify any one factor as dispositive, and each Board member may have attributed different weights to the factors considered.
Analysis of Nature, Extent, and Quality of Services Provided to the Fund. The Board considered information provided to it at the meeting and in previous presentations from representatives of the Adviser regarding the nature, extent, and quality of the services provided to funds in the BNY Mellon fund complex, including the fund. The Adviser provided the number of open accounts in the fund, the fund’s asset size and the allocation of fund assets among distribution channels. The Adviser also had previously provided information regarding the diverse intermediary relationships and distribution channels of funds in the BNY Mellon fund complex (such as retail direct or intermediary, in which intermediaries typically are paid by the fund and/or the Adviser) and the Adviser’s corresponding need for broad, deep, and diverse resources to be able to provide ongoing shareholder services to each intermediary or distribution channel, as applicable to the fund.
The Board also considered research support available to, and portfolio management capabilities of, the fund’s portfolio management personnel and that the Adviser also provides oversight of day-to-day fund operations, including fund accounting and administration and assistance in meeting legal and regulatory requirements. The Board also considered the Adviser’s extensive administrative, accounting and compliance infrastructures. The Board also considered portfolio management’s brokerage policies and practices (including policies and practices regarding soft dollars) and the standards applied in seeking best execution.
Comparative Analysis of the Fund’s Performance and Management Fee and Expense Ratio. The Board reviewed reports prepared by Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”), an independent provider of investment company data, which included information comparing (1) the performance of the fund’s Class I shares with the performance of a group of institutional funds consisting of a mid-cap growth fund, a multi-cap core fund and mid-cap core funds (the “Performance Group”) and with a broader group of funds consisting of all retail and institutional mid-cap growth funds (the “Performance Universe”), all for various periods ended March 31, 2020, and (2) the fund’s actual and contractual management fees and total expenses with those of the same group of funds in the Performance Group (the “Expense Group”) and with a
35
INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)
broader group of funds consisting of all institutional mid-cap growth, multi-cap core and mid-cap core funds, excluding outliers (the “Expense Universe”), the information for which was derived in part from fund financial statements available to Broadridge as of the date of its analysis. The Adviser previously had furnished the Board with a description of the methodology Broadridge used to select the Performance Group and Performance Universe and the Expense Group and Expense Universe.
Representatives of the Adviser stated that the usefulness of performance comparisons may be affected by a number of factors, including different investment limitations and policies that may be applicable to the fund and comparison funds, noting that the funds included in the Performance Group and Performance Universe were not limited to funds that use quantitative models as part of their investment process like the fund, and the end date selected. The Board discussed with representatives of the Adviser the results of the comparisons and considered that the fund’s total return performance was below the Performance Group and Performance Universe medians for all periods except the six-month period when performance was above the Performance Group median. The Adviser also provided a comparison of the fund’s calendar year total returns to the returns of the fund’s benchmark index, and it was noted that the fund’s returns were above the returns of the index in four of the ten calendar years shown. The Board discussed with representatives of the Adviser the reasons for the fund’s underperformance versus the Performance Group and Performance Universe during periods under review and noted that the Adviser had recently added members to the portfolio management team responsible for the management of the fund and implemented enhancements to the investment process.
The Board reviewed and considered the contractual management fee rate payable by the fund to the Adviser in light of the nature, extent and quality of the management services provided by the Adviser. In addition, the Board reviewed and considered the actual management fee rate paid by the fund over the fund’s last fiscal year which reflected reductions for a fee waiver arrangement in place that reduced the investment advisory fee paid to the Adviser. The Board also reviewed the range of actual and contractual management fees and total expenses as a percentage of average net assets of the Expense Group and Expense Universe funds and discussed the results of the comparisons. The Board considered that the fund’s contractual management fee was lower than the Expense Group median contractual management fee, the fund’s actual management fee was lower than the Expense Group median and slightly higher than the Expense Universe median actual management fee and the fund’s total expenses were slightly higher than the Expense Group median and equal to the Expense Universe median total expenses.
Representatives of the Adviser stated that the Adviser has contractually agreed, from December 1, 2019 until May 31, 2021, to waive receipt of a portion of its management fee in the amount of .15% of the fund’s average daily net assets. Additionally, the Adviser has contractually agreed, from June 1, 2020 until November 30, 2020, to waive receipt of a portion of its management fee in the amount of .25% of the fund’s average daily net assets. After November 30, 2020, the Adviser may terminate this additional
36
waiver at any time. The Board noted that the fee waiver arrangements were not fully reflected in the Broadridge data for an annual period.
Representatives of the Adviser reviewed with the Board the management or investment advisory fees paid by funds advised or administered by the Adviser that are in the same Lipper category as the fund (the “Similar Funds”), and explained the nature of the Similar Funds. They discussed differences in fees paid and the relationship of the fees paid in light of any differences in the services provided and other relevant factors. The Board considered the relevance of the fee information provided for the Similar Funds to evaluate the appropriateness of the fund’s management fee. Representatives of the Adviser noted that there were no separate accounts and/or other types of client portfolios advised by the Adviser that are considered to have similar investment strategies and policies as the fund.
Analysis of Profitability and Economies of Scale. Representatives of the Adviser reviewed the expenses allocated and profit received by the Adviser and its affiliates and the resulting profitability percentage for managing the fund and the aggregate profitability percentage to the Adviser and its affiliates for managing the funds in the BNY Mellon fund complex, and the method used to determine the expenses and profit. The Board concluded that the profitability results were not excessive, given the services rendered and service levels provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. The Board also considered the fee waiver arrangement and its effect on the profitability of the Adviser and its affiliates. The Board also had been provided with information prepared by an independent consulting firm regarding the Adviser’s approach to allocating costs to, and determining the profitability of, individual funds and the entire BNY Mellon fund complex. The consulting firm also had analyzed where any economies of scale might emerge in connection with the management of a fund.
The Board considered, on the advice of its counsel, the profitability analysis (1) as part of its evaluation of whether the fees under the Agreement, considered in relation to the mix of services provided by the Adviser, including the nature, extent and quality of such services, supported the renewal of the Agreement and (2) in light of the relevant circumstances for the fund and the extent to which economies of scale would be realized if the fund grows and whether fee levels reflect these economies of scale for the benefit of fund shareholders. Representatives of the Adviser stated that a discussion of economies of scale is predicated on a fund having achieved a substantial size with increasing assets and that, if a fund’s assets had been stable or decreasing, the possibility that the Adviser may have realized any economies of scale would be less. Representatives of the Adviser also stated that, as a result of shared and allocated costs among funds in the BNY Mellon fund complex, the extent of economies of scale could depend substantially on the level of assets in the complex as a whole, so that increases and decreases in complex-wide assets can affect potential economies of scale in a manner that is disproportionate to, or even in the opposite direction from, changes in the fund’s asset level. The Board also considered potential benefits to the Adviser from acting as investment adviser and took into consideration the soft dollar arrangements in effect for trading the fund’s investments.
37
INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)
At the conclusion of these discussions, the Board agreed that it had been furnished with sufficient information to make an informed business decision with respect to the renewal of the Agreement. Based on the discussions and considerations as described above, the Board concluded and determined as follows.
· The Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser are adequate and appropriate.
· The Board determined to continue to evaluate the fund’s performance in light of the Adviser’s recent additions to the portfolio management team and enhancements to the investment process.
· The Board concluded that the fee paid to the Adviser continued to be appropriate under the circumstances and in light of the factors and the totality of the services provided as discussed above, subject to review no later than the next renewal consideration.
· The Board determined that the economies of scale which may accrue to the Adviser and its affiliates in connection with the management of the fund had been adequately considered by the Adviser in connection with the fee rate charged to the fund pursuant to the Agreement and that, to the extent in the future it were determined that material economies of scale had not been shared with the fund, the Board would seek to have those economies of scale shared with the fund.
In evaluating the Agreement, the Board considered these conclusions and determinations and also relied on its previous knowledge, gained through meetings and other interactions with the Adviser and its affiliates, of the Adviser and the services provided to the fund by the Adviser. The Board also relied on information received on a routine and regular basis throughout the year relating to the operations of the fund and the investment management and other services provided under the Agreement, including information on the investment performance of the fund in comparison to similar mutual funds and benchmark performance indices; general market outlook as applicable to the fund; and compliance reports. In addition, the Board’s consideration of the contractual fee arrangements for the fund had the benefit of a number of years of reviews of the Agreement for the fund, or substantially similar agreements for other BNY Mellon funds that the Board oversees, during which lengthy discussions took place between the Board and representatives of the Adviser. Certain aspects of the arrangements may receive greater scrutiny in some years than in others, and the Board’s conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of the fund’s arrangements, or substantially similar arrangements for other BNY Mellon funds that the Board oversees, in prior years. The Board determined to renew the Agreement for the remainder of the one-year term.
38
LIQUIDITY RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (Unaudited)
Effective June 1, 2019, the fund adopted a liquidity risk management program (the “Liquidity Risk Management Program”) pursuant to the requirements of Rule 22e-4 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. Rule 22e-4 requires registered open-end funds, including mutual funds and exchange-traded funds but not money market funds, to establish liquidity risk management programs in order to effectively manage fund liquidity and shareholder redemptions. The rule is designed to mitigate the risk that a fund could not meet redemption requests without significantly diluting the interests of remaining investors.
The rule requires the funds to assess, manage and review their liquidity risk at least annually considering applicable factors such as investment strategy and liquidity during normal and foreseeable stressed conditions, including whether the strategy is appropriate for an open-end fund and whether the fund has a relatively concentrated portfolio or large positions in particular issuers. The fund must also assess its use of borrowings and derivatives, short-term and long-term cash flow projections in normal and stressed conditions, holdings of cash and cash equivalents, and borrowing arrangements and other funding sources.
The rule also requires the fund to classify its investments as highly liquid, moderately liquid, less liquid or illiquid based on the number of days the fund expects it would take to liquidate the investment, and to review these classifications at least monthly or more often under certain conditions. The periods range from three or fewer business days for a highly liquid investment to greater than seven calendar days for settlement of a less liquid investment. Illiquid investments are those a fund does not expect to be able to sell or dispose of within seven calendar days without significantly changing the market value. The fund is prohibited from acquiring an investment if, after the acquisition, its holdings of illiquid assets will exceed 15% of its net assets. In addition, if a fund permits redemptions in-kind, the rule requires the fund to establish redemption in-kind policies and procedures governing how and when it will engage in such redemptions.
Pursuant to the rule’s requirements, the Liquidity Risk Management Program has been reviewed and approved by the fund’s board. Furthermore, the board has received a written report prepared by the Program’s Administrator that addresses the operation of the Program, assesses its adequacy and effectiveness and describes any material changes made to the Program.
Assessment of Program
In the opinion of the Program Administrator, the Program approved by the fund board continues to be adequate for the fund and the Program has been implemented effectively. The Program Administrator has monitored the fund’s liquidity risk and the liquidity classification of the securities held by the fund and has determined that the Program is operating effectively.
During the period from June 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020, there were no material changes to the Program and no material liquidity events that impacted the fund. During the period, the fund held sufficient highly liquid assets to meet fund redemptions.
39
LIQUIDITY RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (Unaudited) (continued)
Under normal expected foreseeable fund redemption forecasts and foreseeable stressed fund redemption forecasts, the Program Administrator believes that the fund maintains sufficient highly liquid assets to meet expected fund redemptions.
40
NOTES
41
BNY Mellon Active MidCap Fund
240 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10286
Adviser
BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc.
240 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10286
Custodian
The Bank of New York Mellon
240 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10286
Transfer Agent &
Dividend Disbursing Agent
BNY Mellon Transfer, Inc.
240 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10286
Distributor
BNY Mellon Securities Corporation
240 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10286
| | |
Ticker Symbols: | Class A: DNLDX Class C:DNLCX Class I: DNLRX Class Y: DNLYX |
Telephone Call your financial representative or 1-800-373-9387
Mail The BNY Mellon Family of Funds, 144 Glenn Curtiss Boulevard, Uniondale, NY 11556-0144
E-mail Send your request to info@bnymellon.com
Internet Information can be viewed online or downloaded at www.bnymellonim.com/us
The fund files its complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-PORT. The fund’s Forms N-PORT are available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.
A description of the policies and procedures that the fund uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities and information regarding how the fund voted these proxies for the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available at www.bnymellonim.com/us and on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and without charge, upon request, by calling 1-800-373-9387.
| | |
© 2020 BNY Mellon Securities Corporation
0085SA0620 | 
|
