The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2026, in a case concerning the standards for suing retirement plan fiduciaries over investment performance. The justices focused on whether plaintiffs must identify a "meaningful benchmark"—a comparable investment with similar risks and strategies—to maintain a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Several justices signaled skepticism toward the complaint filed by former Intel employees.
The case, *Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee*, involves allegations that Intel fiduciaries allocated significant portions of employee retirement funds to hedge funds and private equity. Plaintiffs Christopher M. Sulyma and Winston R. Anderson alleged that these asset classes resulted in lackluster returns. Intel countered that the strategy was designed to reduce volatility following the 2008 financial crisis and that the funds performed as intended by posting better returns than equity-heavy funds during down-market years, even if they lagged during the subsequent bull market.
During the hearing, Justice Clarence Thomas used a metaphor to describe the lower court's reasoning, stating, "you can't compare apples and oranges." He noted that a fund designed for high, risky returns cannot be easily compared to one meant to protect against losses. Matthew Wessler, representing the employees, argued for a "holistic analysis" that considers both performance and the alleged imprudence of the investment strategy itself. However, Justices Elena Kagan, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch each pressed Wessler on the necessity of a meaningful benchmark.
The case affects workers enrolled in retirement plans governed by ERISA. If the Supreme Court affirms the lower court's ruling, plaintiffs would need to show that a plan investment underperformed relative to a comparable investment with similar aims, risks, and strategies to survive a motion to dismiss.
The scale of the dispute is highlighted by the assets involved; in one Intel fund, up to 36.71% of holdings were in alternative assets like private equity, hedge funds, and commodities by the end of 2013. The U.S. Department of Labor supported the Intel fiduciaries, arguing in an amicus brief that ERISA regulates the process of decision-making rather than guaranteeing specific financial results. The department has also proposed a rule that would require plan fiduciaries to select a meaningful benchmark for plan investments.
A final decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the spring of 2027. If the court affirms the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s decision, the dismissal of the lawsuit against Intel will stand. Plan sponsors and fiduciaries may subsequently consider how they designate benchmarks in light of the court's guidance and the Department of Labor’s proposed rules.