BG Files Petition for Cert to the U.S. Supreme Court in Intel ERISA Case
Bailey & Glasser, LLP has filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of client Winston Anderson in his ongoing case against the Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, seeking damages for the alleged mismanagement of Intel employees’ retirement funds. The petition asks the Court to review and overturn the Ninth Circuit’s categorical application of the “meaningful benchmark” requirement, which required the plaintiff’s pleadings to compare the challenged fund to others that are “meaningfully similar.”
Gregory Porter, BG’s ERISA Practice Group Leader and leading co-counsel in this case, said, “This case presents a critical opportunity to clarify how courts evaluate fiduciary decision-making in complex retirement-plan investments, particularly as plans increasingly incorporate alternative and nontraditional assets.”
In addition to Greg Porter, the petition was filed by Bailey Glasser’s nationally recognized ERISA litigation team, which includes partners Mark Boyko and Ryan Jenny, as well as co-counsel from Gupta Wessler LLP and The Barton Firm LLP.
Mr. Anderson, a long-time Intel employee and participant in the company’s retirement plans, alleges that Intel’s plan fiduciaries violated their duties of prudence and loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The complaint contends that the fiduciaries invested billions of dollars of plan assets in unproven, high-risk, and illiquid alternative investments, such as hedge funds and private equity, through custom target-date and multi-asset funds, exposing participants to unnecessary risk and underperformance relative to traditional retirement investment options.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case, holding that the complaint did not plausibly allege imprudence or disloyalty because it failed to identify “meaningful benchmarks” for comparing the Intel funds’ performance. In May 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that ERISA plaintiffs must identify comparator funds with similar objectives, risks, and rewards to support claims of imprudent investment. The court emphasized that fiduciary conduct must be judged based on process rather than outcomes and that conclusory allegations of risk or underperformance are insufficient.
Mr. Anderson’s petition asks the Supreme Court to address an important question under ERISA’s “prudent person standard of care,” which requires fiduciaries to manage retirement plan assets with the same care, skill, and diligence that a prudent expert would use in similar circumstances. Specifically, the petition challenges the Ninth Circuit’s “meaningful benchmark” rule, requiring plaintiffs to compare a plan’s investments to a nearly identical alternative fund to show mismanagement, even if no such comparable fund exists. The petition argues that this rigid rule conflicts with ERISA’s plain language and the Supreme Court’s prior rulings in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer and Hughes v. Northwestern University, which make clear that fiduciary prudence must be evaluated based on context and circumstances, not categorical pleading requirements.
The lower case is Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee et al. (Case No. 5:19-cv-04618, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).
Read the full cert petition in the attachment below.