Winston Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee
Opinion
Opinion
MILLER, J.
facts alleged—comparative or not—lead to the plausible inference that the actual process used by the defendant fiduciary was flawed. With appropriate evidence, Anderson could have stated a claim by pleading a true benchmark comparison, by providing other circumstantial allegations that plausibly suggested imprudence, or by directly showing that the specific investments the Intel fiduciaries selected or the general methodologies they used were imprudent.
COUNSEL
Matthew W.H. Wessler (argued), Gupta Wessler LLP, Washington, D.C.; Neil K. Sawhney and Jessica Garland, Gupta Wessler LLP, San Francisco, California; R. Joseph Barton, The Barton Firm LLP, Washington, D.C.; Joseph Creitz, Creitz & Serebin LLP, San Francisco, California; Michael L. Murphy and Gregory Y. Porter, Bailey & Glasser LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Juli A. Lund (argued), Daniel F. Katz, and David S. Kurtzer- Ellenbogen, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C.; Scott P. Cooper and Jennifer L. Roche, Proskauer Rose LLP, Los Angeles, California; Myron D. Rumeld, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, New York; for Defendants-Appellees. Jaime Santos, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, D.C.;