United States prohibited transactionspleading standardsfiduciary duty

Cunningham v. Cornell Univ.

Cunningham v. Cornell University, 604 U.S. 693 (2025)

JurisdictionUnited States

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

Year2025

StatusBinding authority

Key Principle

To state a prohibited-transaction claim under ERISA § 406(a) (29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)), a plaintiff need only plausibly allege the elements of § 406(a); the statutory exemptions in § 408 (29 U.S.C. § 1108) are affirmative defenses that the defendant fiduciary must plead and prove, not elements the plaintiff must negate.

Area of Law

General

Related Cases

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

Ellingburg v. United States 607 U.S. ___ (2026)

Inc. v. Palmquist 607 U.S. 421 (2026)

Ask CommonBench about this case

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

Explain Cunningham v. Cornell Univ.