Supreme Court to Hear Argument in Anderson v. Intel on ERISA Benchmarks
The Court takes up on October 6 whether ERISA prudence claims based on fund underperformance must plead a "meaningful benchmark," a standard now governing a fast-growing wave of 401(k) and plan-fee suits.
On October 6, 2026 the Supreme Court hears argument in Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee (No. 25-498), which asks whether ERISA prudence claims based on alleged fund underperformance must plead a "meaningful benchmark." The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of participants' challenge to certain Intel 401(k) plan investments; petitioners argue the judicially created benchmark requirement has no basis in ERISA and that the underlying hedge fund and private equity holdings were categorically imprudent. Intel's fiduciaries defend the requirement as necessary to plausibly connect underperformance to an imprudent process; the Solicitor General supports them and will argue. Amicus coalitions span the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and major retirement and asset-management trade groups on one side, and AARP, Americans for Financial Reform and consumer advocates on the other.
Why it matters: a ruling could reset pleading and dismissal thresholds nationwide for ERISA fiduciary litigation, including stable-value, recordkeeping-fee and annuity-fee claims. Goodwin's summary of three September decisions runs the same way: the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Quest Diagnostics on process-based prudence and investment-policy-statement grounds, and courts in Gallagher (N.D. Ill., GIC comparators) and Ameritas (D. Neb., survey fee benchmarks) dismissed claims for lack of comparator specificity and nonconclusory pleading. Committees should document adviser retention, data review and fund monitoring, and watch for the ruling this term.