← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee

SCOTUS · Active Active SCOTUS
Cert Granted: Jan 16, 2026

Case Overview

A case in which the Court will decide whether a complaint alleging a fiduciary breach in ERISA underperformance cases must include allegations of a "meaningful benchmark" to survive the pleading stage.


The Application

History

Anderson alleges that Intel's Investment Policy Committee breached its fiduciary duty by selecting underperforming investments. The central question is whether the complaint adequately alleges imprudence without explicitly identifying the benchmark used to measure that underperformance.

The Conclusion

The case is active and pending. The Court will determine whether meaningful-benchmark allegations are a pleading requirement for ERISA underperformance claims to survive dismissal.

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
Filed -
CL Status -

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert GrantedJan 16, 2026
Status -
Filed (CL) -
SCOTUS TMR-a8a8c912 Jun 17, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

A case in which the Court will decide whether a complaint alleging a fiduciary breach in ERISA underperformance cases must include allegations of a "meaningful benchmark" to survive the pleading stage.

Issue

Whether a complaint alleging ERISA fiduciary breach based on investment underperformance must include specific allegations of a 'meaningful benchmark' to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

Rule

Under ERISA, fiduciaries owe a duty of prudence in managing plan assets. Complaints challenging fiduciary decisions must allege facts that, if true, establish a plausible breach, meeting the pleading standards of Twombly and Iqbal.

Analysis

Anderson alleges that Intel's Investment Policy Committee breached its fiduciary duty by selecting underperforming investments. The central question is whether the complaint adequately alleges imprudence without explicitly identifying the benchmark used to measure that underperformance.

Conclusion

The case is active and pending. The Court will determine whether meaningful-benchmark allegations are a pleading requirement for ERISA underperformance claims to survive dismissal.

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support