The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Anderson v. Intel Corp. regarding whether 401(k) plan underperformance claims require a meaningful benchmark to assess fiduciary duty. Justices across ideological lines expressed skepticism about allowing employees to sue plan sponsors based on low returns without comparative standards, using an apples-to-oranges metaphor to discuss investment strategy comparisons.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Anderson v. Intel Corp., a case questioning whether employees can sue over 401(k) underperformance without establishing a meaningful benchmark for comparison. Multiple justices across ideological lines expressed skepticism about allowing such claims without proper comparative standards, using apple-versus-oranges analogies to illustrate the need for appropriate benchmarks.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Anderson v. Intel Corp., a case examining whether employees can sue over 401(k) underperformance without a meaningful benchmark for comparison. During arguments, justices across ideological lines expressed skepticism about allowing easy litigation based solely on underperformance claims, using apple-to-orange comparisons to illustrate the need for comparable benchmarks.