Supreme Court likely to reject Intel workers' challenge over risky retirement fund allocations
The Supreme Court appeared ready to uphold a lower-court ruling that dismissed Intel employees' claims that fiduciaries mismanaged their retirement fund by shifting into hedge funds and private-equity assets.
Two Intel employees sued the company’s retirement-plan fiduciaries, alleging they violated ERISA by classifying a fund as balanced while allocating more money to hedge funds and private-equity investments, which they said caused underperformance. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs failed to identify a suitable benchmark for comparison. At the Supreme Court, justices including Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito expressed skepticism that a meaningful benchmark could be defined without preset standards.
They emphasized that performance-based claims require a comparable reference point, likening the issue to comparing apples and oranges. The employees’ counsel warned against the court pre-defining what counts as a relevant comparator. The court’s apparent unanimity suggests the high court will leave the lower-court decision intact.
Why it matters
The ruling may set precedent on how retirement-plan fiduciaries must justify alternative-asset investments.
How the sides frame it
LOW AGREEMENTLeft-leaning coverage stresses the case’s potential to reshape workers’ savings, while centrist coverage focuses on the Court’s likely rejection and judges’ skepticism about defining a benchmark.
LEFT
Frames the case as a pivotal Supreme Court review that could reshape workers’ savings
CENTER
Frames the case as likely to be rejected, highlighting judicial skepticism over benchmark standards
The left emphasises
- could reshape workers' savings
- Supreme Court reviews Intel retirement plan dispute
- potentially reshape workers' savings
Possibly left out
- Centrist coverage reports justices expressing skepticism about defining a benchmark, absent from one outlet
In this story
