United States section 406pleading standardsaffirmative defenses

Cunningham v. Cornell

604 U.S. 693 (2025)

JurisdictionUnited States

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

Year2025

StatusBinding authority

Key Principle

A plaintiff states a claim under ERISA's prohibited transaction provisions by alleging that a fiduciary caused a plan to pay more than reasonable compensation for services, without needing to plead an additional 'large enough' threshold.

Area of Law

commercial, equity

Related Cases

Jones v. Harris Assocs. L.P. 559 U.S. 335 (2010)

Klein v. Martin 607 U. S. 213 (2026)

Glossip v Oklahoma 604 U.S. 226 (2025)

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Cunningham v. Cornell and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Cunningham v. Cornell