Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma | |
---|---|
Argued December 4, 2019 Decided February 26, 2020 | |
Full case name | Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al., Petitioners v. Christopher M. Sulyma, Respondent |
Docket no. | 18-1116 |
Citations | 589 U.S. ___ (more) 140 S. Ct. 768; 206 L. Ed. 2d 103 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior |
|
Holding | |
Under the requirement in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that plaintiffs with “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach must file suit within three years of gaining that knowledge, a plaintiff does not necessarily have “actual knowledge” of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading. Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Affirmed.[1] | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Alito, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case. It decided that, for purposes of the requirement in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that plaintiffs with “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach file suit within three years of gaining that knowledge, a plaintiff does not necessarily have “actual knowledge” of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading.[1] This affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.