Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, No. 25-498, which asks whether a plaintiff alleging that an ERISA plan acted imprudently in selecting an underperforming retirement plan must plead a "meaningful benchmark" against which the fund's performance can be compared. Based on the Justices' questions during the October 6 hearing, the Court appears inclined to endorse a meaningful benchmark requirement and to give lower courts guidance on what makes a benchmark "meaningful."
The Upshot
Several Justices expressed skepticism about petitioners' claim that the Ninth Circuit required a comparator that is identical to the challenged fund, and petitioners' counsel conceded that "there is inherent comparison that needs to occur."
Respondents and the United States agreed a comparator need not be identical, with the Solicitor General urging a test requiring only that the comparator share the challenged fund's… Read the complete article here...
Copyright © by Ballard Spahr LLP