About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (February 12, 2026)

handle is hein.crs/govetqe0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Supreme Court to Examine ERISA Pleading Standards February 12, 2026 In January 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, a case about what retirement plan participants and other plaintiffs must allege in a complaint to sue plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), particularly as part of claims that fiduciaries imprudently selected or retained underperforming plan investments. The case involves whether such complaints must include a meaningful benchmark, an appropriate comparator investment that allows the court to determine whether plaintiffs have alleged plausible claims to survive a motion to dismiss. The case may capture the attention of congressional court watchers, as it could impact the ability of plaintiffs to bring these types of fiduciary duty claims and carry out enforcement related to their retirement benefits. This Legal Sidebar provides background on ERISA's fiduciary duty requirements and federal civil pleading standards, discusses the Anderson case, and concludes with select considerations for Congress. Background ERISA Fiduciary Responsibility Requirements ERISA is a key federal statute that establishes a comprehensive federal regulatory regime for private- sector employee benefit plans. The Act governs roughly 837,000 retirement plans that contain more than $12 trillion in plan assets. ERISA does not require employers to offer retirement benefits, but those that do must comply with the Act's requirements. One of ERISA's central goals is to protect . . . the interests of participants and . . . beneficiaries of employee benefit plans. To this end, ERISA imposes certain obligations on plan fiduciaries-persons who generally have discretionary authority or control over the management and operation of employee benefit plans. Among these obligations, ERISA imposes a so-called duty of prudence, which requires fiduciaries to act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man ... would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims. The Supreme Court has declared that [b]ecause the content of the duty of prudence turns on the circumstances ... prevailing at the time the fiduciary acts, the appropriate inquiry will necessarily be context specific. Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB11396 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress