Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of Winston R. Anderson and Christopher M. Sulyma in Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee

If the Supreme Court, in Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, rules an ERISA plaintiff alleging imprudent investment based on fund underperformance need not plead a “meaningful benchmark", then the market resolves to Yes. The Payout Criterion for the Contract encompasses the Expiration Values that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that, for claims predicated on fund underperformance, a plaintiff alleging that an ERISA fiduciary breached the duty of prudence when investing plan assets is not required to allege a “meaningful benchmark,” after Issuance and before August 1, 2028. The market resolves to No if the Court holds that such a claim requires alleging a meaningful benchmark. A remand resolves to Yes only if accompanied by the foregoing merits holding; dismissal, dismissal as improvidently granted, or remand without deciding the benchmark question resolves to No.