Summary of the Lawsuit
This lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the participants of the Intel 401(k) Savings Plan and Retirement Plan.
Summary of the Claims
The Complaint alleges that, during the class period, the Investment Committee’s allocation decisions strayed from usual asset allocation models and also exposed the Plans and their participants to unnecessary expenses and poor performing investments in hedge and private equity funds. The Complaint alleges that these imprudent investments caused the Plans and their participants to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. The Complaint also alleges that the Administrative Committee, which was responsible for keeping participants in the Plans informed, failed to adequately notify participants of the risks, fees, and expenses associated with investment in hedge funds and private equity.
This lawsuit is brought on behalf of the following Class:
All participants in the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan and the Intel 401(k) Savings Plan, whose accounts were invested in any one of the Intel Target Date Funds, the Intel Global Diversified Fund, or the Intel 401K Global Diversified Fund at any time on or after October 29, 2009.
Excluded from the Class are the following persons: (a) Defendants, (b) any fiduciaries of the Plans; (c) any officers or directors of Intel; and (d) any member of the immediate family of and any heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded party.
Status of Litigation
The Complaint was filed with the District Court on October 29, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Complaint on April 26, 2016. On May 26, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss on August 18, 2016, but converted one portion of the Complaint into one on summary judgment and ordered targeted discovery on whether Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The parties completed discovery on that issue and the Court heard argument on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on December 14, 2016. On March 31, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 24, 2017. Plaintiff’s Opening Brief was filed on December 29, 2017. Defendants’ Respondent Brief was filed on February 28, 2018. Plaintiff’s Reply Brief was filed on April 20, 2018. Oral argument was held on October 18, 2018.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on November 28, 2018. The opinion reversed the District Court’s summary judgment and remanded the case to District Court for further proceedings.
On February 26, 2019, Defendants petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari on June 10, 2019 and held oral argument on December 4, 2019. On February 26, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
After the case was remanded to the District Court, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on June 24, 2020. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 22, 2020. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss on January 21, 2021 without prejudice and allowed Plaintiffs to file an Amended Consolidated Complaint.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 22, 2021. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on May 5, 2021.
Whom to Contact for More Information
If you are a member of the proposed class or you have information which might assist us in the prosecution of these allegations, please contact one of the following persons:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq. (email@example.com)
Vincent Cheng, Esq. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Ming Siegel, Paralegal (email@example.com)
Block & Leviton LLP
1735 20th Street NW
Washington DC 20009