The Supreme Court heard Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee on October 6, but it has not ruled. The case asks whether participants alleging imprudent underperformance must identify a meaningful benchmark for the challenged investments. It does not ask the Court to decide whether hedge funds or private equity are categorically allowed in 401(k) plans.
The legal distinction matters
Lower courts rejected the complaint because underperformance alone did not show that Intel’s alternatives were imprudent compared with funds pursuing similar objectives. During argument, several justices pressed the participants’ lawyer on the need to compare like with like. Questions can indicate concern, but they are not votes and should not be reported as a decision.
The Supreme Court’s docket identifies case 25-498 and confirms the October 6 argument. The official transcript is available the same day and remains subject to final review. That primary record is stronger evidence than commentary about which side “won.”
Why employers may still move slowly
A ruling for Intel could reduce one litigation theory, but plan fiduciaries would still have to evaluate fees, liquidity, valuation, diversification and participant suitability. Private assets can offer different return sources, yet their infrequent marks and higher costs make performance comparisons difficult.
What investors should watch
The next events are the Court’s written opinion and the Labor Department’s final action on its proposed alternative-investment framework. A March proposal and June 1 comment deadline are process milestones, not a final rule.
BTI's bottom line
The case may clarify pleading standards and litigation risk, but it neither approves private funds for every plan nor eliminates fiduciary scrutiny of fees, liquidity and process.