Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Anderson v. Intel—A Test Case Regarding the Prudence of Adding Alternative Investments to Defined Contribution Plan Menus

By Amy Roy & Aneisha Worrell on April 15, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In this third episode in a series of Ropes & Gray podcasts addressing emerging issues for fiduciaries of 401(k) and 403(b) plans to consider as part of their litigation risk management strategy, litigation & enforcement partner Amy Roy and benefits consultant Aneisha Worrell discuss some key takeaways from Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, the first case to date to address the prudence question under ERISA of including private equity and hedge fund investments on a defined contribution plan menu.

Photo of Amy Roy Amy Roy
Read more about Amy RoyEmail
Photo of Aneisha Worrell Aneisha Worrell
Read more about Aneisha WorrellEmail
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Disputing Tax
  • Organization:
    Ropes & Gray
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo