Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee
Docket number: 25-498
Term: 2025
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Pending
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee is a case scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court of the United States during the court's October 2026-2027 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether, for claims predicated on fund underperformance, pleading that an ERISA fiduciary failed to use the requisite ‘care, skill, prudence, or diligence’ under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA's duty of prudence when investing plan assets requires alleging a ‘meaningful benchmark.’"[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[2]

    • Petitioner: Winston R. Anderson, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Matthew W.H. Wessler (Gupta Wessler LLP)
    • Respondent: Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Lisa S. Blatt (Williams & Connolly LLP)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[3]

    “

    From 2000 to 2015, Winston R. Anderson was a participant in two Intel Corporation retirement plans: the Intel 401(k) Savings Plan and the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Intel changed the structure of its proprietary investment funds—used within these plans—to include allocations to hedge funds and private equity, in addition to traditional assets like stocks and bonds. According to Intel, this strategy aimed to reduce volatility and protect against downturns, though it acknowledged the funds might underperform in bull markets. Anderson claims that these changes led to persistently poor returns due to allegedly excessive risk, high fees, and deviation from industry standards. He also alleges disloyalty by Intel fiduciaries, asserting they invested plan assets in ways that provided indirect benefits to Intel Capital, a venture capital arm of the company, rather than prioritizing participants' financial interests.

    In 2019, Anderson filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to represent a class of Intel retirement plan participants whose assets were invested in Intel’s target-date or global diversified funds since 2009. His complaint alleged breaches of ERISA’s duties of prudence and loyalty. After multiple amended pleadings and dismissals, the district court held that Anderson failed to identify any “meaningful benchmark” against which to measure the imprudence of the Intel funds’ strategy and failed to plausibly allege a conflict of interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Anderson’s underperformance theory and emphasizing that ERISA requires pleading a plausible inference of flawed investment process—not merely suboptimal results—and, where appropriate, comparison to suitably similar investment alternatives.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • January 16, 2026: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • October 20, 2025: Winston R. Anderson, et al. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • May 22, 2025: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether, for claims predicated on fund underperformance, pleading that an ERISA fiduciary failed to use the requisite ‘care, skill, prudence, or diligence’ under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA's duty of prudence when investing plan assets requires alleging a ‘meaningful benchmark.’[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Transcript

    A transcript of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    October term 2026-2027

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2026-2027

    The Supreme Court will begin hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2026. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[5]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "25-498 ANDERSON V. INTEL CORPORATION INVESTMENT POLICY COMMITTEE QP", January 16, 2026
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 25-498 Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee" accessed March 24, 2026
    3. ↑ Oyez, "Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee", accessed March 24, 2026
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Anderson_v._Intel_Corporation_Investment_Policy_Committee&oldid=11147746"