WASHINGTON—AARP, AARP Foundation, Better Markets, and the Pension Rights Center filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, a closely watched Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) case that could shape how workers challenge imprudent investment decisions in 401(k) plans.
At the heart of Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee is the Supreme Court’s opportunity to strengthen protections for 401(k) savers by allowing them to hold plan fiduciaries accountable for imprudent, risky investment decisions. This comes at a critical time as workers rely increasingly on careful plan stewardship to meet retirement needs.
Plaintiffs say administrators poured unprecedented amounts of plan assets into private equity and hedge funds despite high fees and risk, and failed to reduce those allocations during a decade of sharp underperformance.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the case, finding that plaintiffs failed to identify a near-identical “meaningful benchmark” to show underperformance. The brief acknowledges that some comparison may be necessary, but argues the court’s standard is unfair and unworkable, especially given the lack of any real precedent for Intel’s unusually high allocations of these investments in its 401(k) plans.
This joint brief urges the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision, warning that the ruling would shield the most novel and imprudent decisions and weaken ERISA’s core purpose and private enforcement mechanism intended to protect workers’ pensions.
“This is a critical case at a critical time for America’s retirement savers,” said Dominick Freda, Legal Director, Better Markets. “American workers overwhelmingly rely on 401(k) plans to provide for retirement. The workers in this case allege that their plan administrators made imprudent decisions with their savings by investing heavily in private equity and hedge funds knowing full well how risky and expensive those high allocations were and then failed to reverse course when the plans predictably underperformed. We are confident that the Supreme Court will find those allegations to be sufficient to make out a plausible ERISA claim so that workers can protect themselves from administrators rolling the dice with their retirements.”
“The Ninth Circuit’s decision stacks the deck against workers,” said William Alvarado Rivera, Senior Vice President of Litigation, AARP Foundation. “Requiring a nearly identical benchmark sets an unreal bar, shields reckless behavior, and puts hard‑earned retirement savings—especially for older workers—at real risk. ERISA was meant to protect workers, not trap them in technical hurdles.”
“Protecting and promoting retirement security of American workers, retirees, and their families means preserving the key protections provided by ERISA,” said Karen Friedman, Executive Director of the Pension Rights Center. “American workers who entrust their hard-earned savings to their plan fiduciaries should be able to question whether their savings are being managed prudently, as ERISA requires.”
###
About AARP Foundation