-
Opinion Summary: Cunningham v. Cornell University | Opinion Date: 4/17/25 | Case No. 23-1007
- 2025/04/17
- 再生時間: 11 分
- ポッドキャスト
-
サマリー
あらすじ・解説
The question presented is: Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision's text.
The Supreme Court held: To state a claim under §1106(a)(1)(C), a plaintiff need only plausibly allege the elements contained in that provision itself, without addressing potential §1108 exemptions.