Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 26, 2020 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- February 26, 2020
- Term
- October Term 2019
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Alito
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) requires plaintiffs with "actual knowledge" of an alleged fiduciary breach to file suit within three years of gaining that knowledge rather than within the 6-year period that would otherwise apply. § 413(a)(2)(A), 88 Stat. 889, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1113. The question here is whether a plaintiff necessarily has "actual knowledge" of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading. We hold that he does not and therefore affirm. I A Retirement plans governed by ERISA must have at least one named fiduciary, § 1102(a)(1), who must manage the plan prudently and solely in the interests of participants and their beneficiaries, § 1104(a). Fiduciaries who breach these duties are personally liable to the plan for any resulting losses. § 1109(a). ERISA authorizes participants and their beneficiaries, as well as co-fiduciaries and the Secretary of Labor, to sue for that relief. § 1132(a)(2). Such suits must be filed within one of three time periods, each with different triggering events. The first begins when the breach occurs. Specifically, under § 1113(1), suit must be filed within six years of "the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation" or, in cases of breach by omission, "the latest…
Excerpt of a 21,574-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.