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…
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…