Cunningham v. Cornell Univ.
View Official PDFSummary
A short, plain-English overview of Cunningham v. Cornell Univ..
In Cunningham v. Cornell University, the Supreme Court addressed whether plaintiffs must plead that ERISA's § 1108 exemptions do not apply to alleged prohibited transactions under § 1106. The Court reversed the Second Circuit, ruling that plaintiffs need only allege the elements of § 1106(a)(1)(C) itself, without addressing § 1108 exemptions, which are affirmative defenses for defendants to prove.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Cunningham v. Cornell Univ..
The Court held that to state a claim under § 1106(a)(1)(C), a plaintiff need only plausibly allege the elements contained in that provision itself, without addressing potential § 1108 exemptions.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Cunningham v. Cornell Univ. that support the summary and concepts above.
The exemptions in § 1108 do not impose additional pleading requirements for § 1106(a)(1) claims.
The headings of the sections, 'Prohibited transactions' for § 1106 and 'Exemptions from prohibited transactions' for § 1108, confirm this understanding.
Respondents' practical concerns about meritless litigation cannot overcome the statutory text and structure.
