SCOTUS Weighs 'Meaningful Benchmark' Test in Intel ERISA Prudence Case
The Supreme Court heard argument in Anderson v. Intel, asking whether a plaintiff must plead an ERISA plan underperformed a meaningful benchmark to state an unwise-investment-prudence claim.
In Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee (No. 25-498), the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument on whether a participant or beneficiary alleging that an ERISA plan was imprudent in choosing an underperforming investment must plead failure to meet a "meaningful benchmark" standard. The question matters because it goes to the plausibility threshold for excessive-prudence-style claims built on comparative investment performance rather than a process-based theory; one firm reports the Court appeared receptive to a more demanding pleading standard, but argument is not a holding and no reasoning is yet operative.
Sophisticated counsel should care because defined-contribution plan sponsors, 401(k) committees, recordkeepers, and plan advisers face a shifting exposure map. If a heightened benchmark requirement is confirmed, a substantial volume of performance-based ERISA actions could face earlier dismissal, affecting reserve decisions, recordkeeper fee leverage, and the value of plan-governance documentation.
What to watch: the decision's holding, its treatment of any heightened pleading standard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any accompanying remand instructions. Sponsors should keep documenting periodic investment review, benchmarking, and committee process, and should not treat the argument as a safe harbor.