Key Takeaways Michigan federal court dismisses ERISA fee claims against Kellogg with prejudice. The court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege fiduciary breaches tied to 401(k) recordkeeping fees, ending the multi-year litigation effort. Generalized fee comparisons remain insufficient to plead imprudence. The decision reinforces that ERISA plaintiffs must allege specific, like‑for‑like comparisons to survive a motion to dismiss. Documented oversight remains key to early dismissal. For plan sponsors, the ruling underscores that well‑documented, routine recordkeeping arrangements and monitoring processes can help defeat speculative ERISA fee litigation at the pleading stage. A recent federal court dismissal reaffirms the Sixth Circuit’s strict standards for pleading fiduciary breach. For plan sponsors, the case is a reminder that strong fiduciary documentation can help prevent weak claims

On Thursday, April 17, a unanimous Supreme Court held that a less demanding pleading standard is applicable when plaintiffs bring an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class action under ERISA Section 406, despite concerns that this might lead to a flood of meritless claims. This recent decision affects nearly all employers. The underlying question in Cunningham v. Cornell University, et al.—whether pleading a prohibited transaction claim under ERISA Section 406 involving a plan and a party in interest also required pleading elements of ERISA Section 408, which lays out exemptions to that prohibition—has been answered unanimously by the Supreme Court on Thursday, April 17. Succinctly, the Court held that “[t]o state a claim under §1106(a)(1)(C), a plaintiff need