Intel Supreme Court case puts DOL’s alternatives rule on a ‘sticky wicket’ - Pensions & Investments

Pensions & Investments reports that a pending U.S. Supreme Court decision in Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee could complicate the Department of Labor's forthcoming final rule on alternative investments in 401(k) plans. The case, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in January 2026, centers on what constitutes a "meaningful benchmark" for evaluating fiduciary prudence when plans offer alternative assets.

The litigation originated in 2019, when Anderson filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to represent a class of Intel retirement plan participants. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's ruling in Intel's favor in May 2025, finding that plaintiffs failed to prove the company breached its fiduciary duty of prudence by incorporating alternative assets, particularly hedge funds and private equity, into its plan lineup.

The Supreme Court's forthcoming decision could therefore shape the legal framework in which the DOL's proposed rule operates. Commentary cited by the publisher suggests that a ruling defining the benchmark standard could either reduce litigation risk for plan sponsors or leave the DOL's rule exposed to challenges, depending on the outcome. The DOL has filed a brief supporting plan fiduciaries in the case, consistent with its broader effort to curb what it describes as the overuse of litigation against plan sponsors.

The article also references a prior Supreme Court decision in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, in which a unanimous court held that a plaintiff does not necessarily have "actual knowledge" of information contained in required disclosures. Market participants and fiduciaries will be watching the Anderson ruling closely for its implications on alternatives allocations in defined contribution plans.