Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee (25-498)
- Term
- OT 2026
- Certiorari granted
- 2026-01-16
- Court below
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Argued
- 2026-10-06
The case in brief
Facts
Former Intel employees Winston Anderson and Christopher Sulyma sued the committee that manages Intel's retirement plans under ERISA, a federal law that sets strict duties for people who manage employee retirement savings. They allege that the plan managers imprudently, or carelessly, put retirement money into hedge funds, private equity, and other alternative investments. They claim these Intel funds charged higher fees and did worse than comparable funds, costing workers retirement savings. After the cases were combined, a federal trial court in California dismissed the claims, finding the employees had not pointed to adequate "benchmarks," meaning similar funds to compare against. The Ninth Circuit appeals court affirmed, ruling that such claims require a "meaningful benchmark" and that the employees' comparison funds were not similar enough, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Question
When employees claim their retirement plan managers acted carelessly because plan investments did poorly, must they point to a "meaningful benchmark" (a similar investment that did better) to keep their case from being dismissed at the start?
Question Presented
Whether, for claims predicated on fund underperformance, pleading that an ERISA fiduciary failed to use the requisite "care, skill, prudence, or diligence" under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA's duty of prudence when investing plan assets requires alleging a "meaningful benchmark."
Model prediction
Intel 9-0 (65% confidence, raw). Calibrated to the historical base rate: the other side 55%.
Case preview
Whether ERISA plan participants who claim a fiduciary acted imprudently because plan investments underperformed must, to survive a motion to dismiss, identify a "meaningful benchmark" — a comparable investment with similar aims and risks that performed better.
Anderson
- The petitioner argues that this Court's precedents reject bright-line pleading rules for ERISA prudence claims and require courts to evaluate a complaint's allegations as a whole under the ordinary Twombly/Iqbal standard.
- The petitioner argues that the duty of prudence is a context-sensitive inquiry, and that employees often lack inside information, so the significance of any performance-based or comparative allegation depends on the theory of breach and the other allegations.
- The petitioner argues that the Ninth Circuit's meaningful-benchmark requirement is a categorical rule that bars consideration of performance allegations, however detailed, unless a similar comparator is identified, contrary to ERISA's text, the Federal Rules, and precedent.
- The petitioner argues the requirement is illogical because it effectively shields fiduciaries pursuing reckless, novel strategies that no other fiduciary follows.
- The petitioner argues the requirement is unworkable because courts must decide at the pleading stage how close a comparator must be, and unnecessary because ordinary plausibility rules already filter out weak complaints.
Intel
- The respondent argues that ERISA and the common law permit fiduciaries to pursue varied goals and risk levels, and that fiduciaries are judged prospectively on their process rather than on how investments turned out in hindsight.
- The respondent argues that underperformance relative to a dissimilar fund does not plausibly suggest an imprudent process, because differing aims and risk tolerances are an obvious alternative explanation, and that the statute's "like capacity" and "like aims" language demands similarly situated comparators.
- The respondent argues that the meaningful-benchmark requirement is not a heightened pleading standard but an application of Twombly/Iqbal, comparable to the categorical rules the Court itself crafted in Dudenhoeffer.
- The respondent argues that petitioners' approach would penalize risk-mitigation strategies, raise plan costs, reduce employee choice, and make it trivially easy to survive dismissal and force settlements.
- The respondent argues that the requirement is workable and regularly satisfied in meritorious cases, that ERISA disclosures give plaintiffs the needed information, and that petitioners' comparators—mostly passive, equity-heavy retail funds—had different aims and risk profiles.
The United States: The United States, supporting the respondent, argues that because prudence turns on process rather than results, an allegation of underperformance relative to a fund that is not meaningfully similar does not by itself support an inference of imprudence; it contends this is an application of ordinary pleading rules and that the Ninth Circuit correctly dismissed petitioners' complaint.
How the case got here
Former Intel employee Christopher Sulyma sued Intel's plan fiduciaries in 2015 under ERISA, alleging imprudent investment of 401(k) and retirement plan assets in hedge funds, private equity, and other alternative assets; after the district court's summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds was reversed by the Supreme Court in Intel Corp. Inv. Pol'y Comm. v. Sulyma (2020), his case was consolidated with a similar 2019 suit by Winston Anderson. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the imprudence claims, finding among other things that the plaintiffs had not alleged adequate benchmarks against which to compare the Intel funds, and Count VII was later dismissed by stipulation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that such claims require a 'meaningful benchmark' and that the plaintiffs' comparators were not sufficiently similar. The petitioner contends that ERISA imposes no such pleading requirement and asks the Court to hold the petition for Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Johnson or grant plenary review.
- 2015 — United States District Court: Christopher Sulyma filed suit challenging Intel fiduciaries' management of the plans and alleging breaches of ERISA fiduciary duties
- Date not stated — United States District Court: Summary judgment granted to plan fiduciaries in Sulyma's case on statute-of-limitations (actual knowledge) grounds. Plan fiduciaries
- 2019 — United States District Court: Winston Anderson filed suit raising similar claims; case stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in Sulyma
- Date not stated — United States District Court for the Northern District of California: After remand in Sulyma, the Sulyma and Anderson cases consolidated
- 2021 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Motion to dismiss consolidated complaint granted (2021 WL 229235 (N.D. Cal. 2021)). Intel fiduciaries
- 2022 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I–VI (579 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2022)). Intel fiduciaries
- Date not stated — United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Order granting parties' stipulation to dismiss Count VII of Amended Consolidated Complaint
- 2025-05-22 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Affirmed dismissal, holding imprudent-investment claims require a meaningful benchmark and plaintiffs' comparators were insufficient (137 F.4th 1015 (9th Cir. 2025)). Intel fiduciaries
- 2025-10-20 — Supreme Court of the United States: Petition for certiorari filed
- 2025-12-09 — Supreme Court of the United States: Brief in opposition filed
- 2026-01-16 — Supreme Court of the United States: Certiorari granted
- 2026-07-09 — Supreme Court of the United States: United States files amicus brief
- 2026-08-04 — Supreme Court of the United States: Set for argument on Tuesday, October 6, 2026.
- 2026-10-06 — Supreme Court of the United States: Argued
In the news
Interactive oral-argument transcript · Supreme Court docket · All tracked cases
This static summary is shown when JavaScript is disabled. The full interactive analysis loads above.