On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on the requirements for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss regarding an allegation that plan fiduciaries engaged in a prohibited transaction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  Cunningham v. Cornell University, 23-1007 (U.S. 2025).Continue Reading Cunningham v. Cornell University

Previously, we discussed the Seventh Circuit’s August 2022 decision applying the context-specific language in the Supreme Court’s Hughes v. Northwestern decision to affirm the dismissal of an excessive fee case brought against the Oshkosh Corporation. On September 22, 2022, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a similar excessive fee case brought against the Exelon Corporation.  In Baumeister, et al. v. Exelon Corp., plaintiffs claimed breach of fiduciary duty by Exelon’s 401(k) plan fiduciaries based on the failure to monitor recordkeeping, investment advisory, and investment management costs under Exelon’s 401(k) plan. The district court dismissed the case, stating that, similar to Albert v. Oshkosh, the plaintiffs’ pleadings did not include sufficient context-specific facts to rise to the level of plausibility required to survive a motion to dismiss.Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Applies Seventh Circuit’s Albert v. Oshkosh Decision to Dismiss ERISA Excess Fee Case