Anderson v. Intel: Breaking Down the Supreme Court Argument on ERISA’s Duty of Prudence and the “Meaningful Benchmark” Requirement

Following the Supreme Court’s October 6 oral argument in Anderson v. Intel, Alison Douglass, Jordan Bock, and Isabel Marin discussed the case and its potential implications. The case addresses what plaintiffs must allege to state an ERISA breach-of-prudence claim based on investment underperformance — specifically, whether they must identify a “meaningful benchmark” for comparison. Watch as Goodwin’s ERISA and Supreme Court Litigation lawyers for analyzed the oral argument and what the case may mean for ERISA fiduciaries, plan sponsors, investment committees, and future litigation challenging plan investments.