Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 4, 2019 Decided February 26, 2020
Full case name	Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al., Petitioners v. Christopher M. Sulyma, Respondent
Docket no.	18-1116
Citations	589 U.S. ___ (more) 140 S. Ct. 768; 206 L. Ed. 2d 103
Argument	Oral argument
Opinion announcement	Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior	Summary judgement granted in favor of Intel, Sulyma v. Intel Corp. Inv. Policy Comm., No. 5:15-cv-04977, 2017 WL 1217185 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) Reversed and remanded, 909 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2018) Cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 2692 (2019)
Holding
Under the requirement in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that plaintiffs with “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach must file suit within three years of gaining that knowledge, a plaintiff does not necessarily have “actual knowledge” of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading. Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Affirmed.[1]
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinion
Majority	Alito, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case. It decided that, for purposes of the requirement in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that plaintiffs with “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach file suit within three years of gaining that knowledge, a plaintiff does not necessarily have “actual knowledge” of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading.^[1] This affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Intel argued that “actual knowledge” meant that the person just got the information and didn't have to actually do anything to qualify under “actual knowledge” clause for the 3-year protection instead of the 6-year protection. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument, arguing that “actual knowledge” meant that the person read and could recall the document.

Sulyma argued that “actual knowledge” under the 6-year plan qualified because he didn't read the document until after the 3-year protection had ended, and because he got less information than the Department of Labor, it would fully qualify for 6-year protection.^[2]

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Sulyma, ruling that “actual knowledge” meant that the person read and was able to recall the facts. The court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.^[1]

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of Intel, the Court argued that “actual knowledge” meant that the person got the information and didn't have to read or know about it for the 3-year protection to begin.

Sulyma filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who reversed the decision and remanded the case. The court argued that “actual knowledge” meant that the person read and could successfully recall the information presented to them and that the information was including all necessary information.

• Text of Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, No. 18-1116, 589 U.S. ___ (2020) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)