On Monday, June 10th, the Supreme Court granted review of Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma. In that case, the Supreme Court will examine a Ninth Circuit ruling that revived a putative class action brought by a former Intel employee alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The district court dismissed the case on statute of limitations grounds, and the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court is expected to resolve a circuit split over whether ERISA’s “actual knowledge” statute of limitations bars a claim when a plaintiff has received plan disclosures containing all information relevant to the alleged violation more than three years before filing suit, but the plaintiff chooses not to read those materials or cannot recall having read them.
Intel is represented by John J. Buckley Jr., Daniel F. Katz, Vidya Atre Mirmira, David S. Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Juli Ann Lund, Tanya M. Abrams, Ava V. Baker, and Jyoti Jindal, together with Proskauer Rose in the Northern District of California and Ninth Circuit, and together with Don Verrilli, Ginger Anders, Dahlia Mignouna and Jordan Segall of Munger Tolles in the Supreme Court.