"Although plaintiffs allege comparisons of the Intel funds performance to 'peer' and 'comparable' funds, plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient allegations to support their claim that these other funds are adequate benchmarks against which to compare the Intel funds," wrote U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh in her January 2021 opinion dismissing the original complaint.
Among the arguments added in the amended complaint by the plaintiffs was that it was sufficient to compare to compare the Intel plans' performance to similarly sized DC plans, but Ms. Koh in her Jan. 8 opinion that "the argument that all plans with similarly sized contributions are meaningful benchmarks is again too conclusory to survive motion to dismiss." Also added was a plaintiff's argument that an appropriate benchmark cannot be properly resolved in the motion to dismiss stage.
Ms. Koh in her Jan. 8 opinion said a complaint cannot simply make an allegation that costs are too high and returns are too low, saying "an allegation that a fund is mismanaged must be fact-specific because 'there is no one-size-fits-all' approach to investment."
The original suit was filed in October 2015 by plan participant Christopher Sulyma. A U.S. magistrate judge granted Intel summary judgment in March 2017, saying Mr. Sulyma waited too long to sue.
After the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that lower court decision, Intel appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the appeals court decision in February 2020, meaning the original trial court would have to rule on the merits of Mr. Sulyma's complaint. In May 2020, his case was consolidated with another complaint filed by plan participant Wilson R. Anderson in August 2019, and the suit was ultimately dismissed in January 2021.
