Law Center Search Results

On July 9, 2026, the NAM filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court pushing back against yet another dubious ERISA class action. In Anderson v. Intel, the plaintiffs allege “imprudence” by their employer as plan fiduciary by asserting that their retirement plans' investments “underperformed” without comparing the plan’s performance to plans that are similarly structured and pursue similar investment goals. Instead, they claim their employer did not manage their plans’ investment profile adequately because the investments of other plans with entirely different risks, objectives and timelines yielded more returns. In effect, they attempt to make an "apples-to-oranges" comparison that does not satisfy ERISA pleading standards for imprudence claims. Our amicus brief argues that such claims require plaintiffs to plead a "meaningful benchmark" to which plaintiffs’ plans can be compared. Without robust pleading standards, employers will be forced to defend against sprawling and resource-intensive class actions based on retrospective performance metrics despite prudent plan strategy and decision making.