The U.S. Supreme Court’s April 17 2025 ruling in *Cunningham v. Cornell University* reshaped the legal landscape for retirement‑plan fiduciaries by confirming that plaintiffs need only plead the bare elements of an ERISA § 406(a) prohibited‑transaction claim, leaving the plan sponsor to raise statutory exemptions as affirmative defenses.  While the case name dominates headlines, the real question for practitioners is how the decision affects day‑to‑day operations—particularly around conducting vendor rfps under the cornell standard. This post breaks down what the decision means, why it matters, and what you can do now to stay ahead of escalating litigation risk.

Why It Matters to Employees

Employees rely on employer‑sponsored retirement plans as their primary wealth‑building vehicle.  Excessive fees or conflicted transactions erode long‑term savings and may delay retirement readiness.  After *Cunningham*, employees have a clearer pathway to challenge questionable conducting vendor rfps under the cornell standard practices without first disproving complex statutory exemptions.  That means plan participants are more likely to survive motions to dismiss and push cases into costly discovery—raising the stakes for employers who fall short.

What It Means for Companies

For employers, the decision eliminates a procedural shield that often short‑circuited litigation in the early stages.  Fiduciaries must now assume that any transaction touching plan assets could be scrutinized under the heightened lens of § 406(a).  As a result, governance models, documentation standards, and vendor oversight related to conducting vendor rfps under the cornell standard must be fortified to withstand discovery or Department of Labor (DOL) review.

A Quick Recap of the Cunningham Decision

*Cunningham* arose from allegations that Cornell University caused its two 403(b) plans to pay unreasonable recordkeeping fees.  The district court dismissed the § 406(a) claim, and the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiffs had to plead that no § 408 exemption applied.  The Supreme Court reversed, clarifying that the burden to prove an exemption lies squarely with the defendant.  Justice Sotomayor’s opinion resolves a circuit split, aligns the pleading standard with the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, and is expected to embolden plaintiffs’ firms nationwide.

Five Action Items to Strengthen Your Conducting Vendor RFPs Under the Cornell Standard Program

1. **Map Transactions to § 406(a) Categories** – Catalog every service and payment flow that could implicate plan assets.
2. **Benchmark Fees Quarterly** – Use independent data to confirm that compensation to providers is ‘reasonable’ under § 408(b)(2).
3. **Update Fiduciary Committee Charters** – Expand responsibilities to expressly cover the risk area addressed by this post’s focus on conducting vendor rfps under the cornell standard.
4. **Enhance Documentation** – Record the analytical process behind each decision, including alternatives considered and expert advice received.
5. **Re‑train HR and Finance Teams** – Ensure all stakeholders understand the post‑*Cunningham* landscape and the company’s new controls.

Best Practices and Governance Tips

* Establish a standing ‘Fee & Transaction Review’ calendar item—monthly for large plans, quarterly for smaller ones.
* Deploy data‑analytics dashboards to flag fee drift in real time.
* Require vendors to certify fee reasonableness annually and provide detailed breakouts of indirect compensation.

Key Takeaway

The Supreme Court has effectively shifted more procedural leverage to plaintiffs.  Employers who treat conducting vendor rfps under the Cornell standard as a compliance afterthought invite litigation that is far costlier than proactive governance.  By hard‑wiring rigorous processes today, plan sponsors can protect participants’ retirement security while reducing corporate legal exposure.