Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma

Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma
Supreme Court of the United States
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	Summary judgement granted in favor of Intel, Sulyma v. Intel Corp. Inv. Policy Comm., No. 5:15-cv-04977, 2017 WL 1217185 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) Reversed and remanded, 909 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2018) Cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 2692 (2019)
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
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
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.