Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007, 2025 WL 1128943 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2025), that clarified the pleading standards for allegations of prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The Supreme Court held that in order to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs need only plead the elements of a prohibited transaction, and that there is no need to affirmatively argue that statutory exceptions do not apply. As the Supreme Court acknowledged, this ruling has the potential to unleash a floodgate of litigation over transactions that technically meet the definition of a prohibited transaction, but that are ultimately legal under one or more of the ERISA's exceptions. However, the Justices provided a number of recommendations for responding to meritless claims. ERISA plan sponsors and administrators should carefully study these recommendations to avoid the expense of litigating threadbare accusations of violations.
Background
Section 1106 of the ERISA supplements the well-established common-law fiduciary duties binding plan administrators by defining a number of "prohibited transactions" that are deemed "likely to injure the ... plan." Commissioner v. Keystone Consol. Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 152, 160 (1993). Under Section 1106, a plan is prohibited from engaging in certain transactions with a "party in interest," a category that includes not only plan administrators, sponsors, and officers, but also entities "providing services to [the] plan. ' 1002(14).
The issue with Section 1106 is that it prohibits, on its face, a number of transactions that are necessary for the operation of a modern retirement or benefits plan. For example, Subsection 1106(a)(1), which was at issue in Cunningham, prohibits a fiduciary from transferring or furnishing any assets, goods, services, or facilities to a party in interest. Because plan sponsors frequently transfer assets to administrators, who are parties in interest, they are technically engaged in prohibited transactions. However, a separate section of the statute ' Section 1108 ' provides 21 exceptions to this prohibition, including one common-sense one exempting transactions that involve "[c]ontracting or making reasonable arrangements with a party in interest for office space, or legal, accounting, or other services necessary for the establishment or operation of the plan, if no more than reasonable compensation is paid therefor." ' 1108(b)(2)(A).
At issue in Cunningham were the pleading standards for claims under Section 1106. Defendant Cornell University retained TIAA and Fidelity to provide investment options and recordkeeping services to participants in defined-contribution 403(b) plans. In exchange, Cornell compensated these...
