This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns the interpretation of ERISA sections 502(a)(2) and 409 regarding restoration of any losses to a plan.
Petitioner argues that the phrase “any losses to the plan” includes any diminution in value of defined contribution plan assets, regardless of how many participants are affected.
According to Mr. Gies, respondent argues that section (a)(2) does not permit an individual claim.
According to Mr. Gies, respondent argues that recovery of assets such as diamonds and any associated profits would be available under section (a)(3).
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Souter, the legal issue is whether a loss to the plan that originates from an individual participant’s account qualifies as a loss to the plan under ERISA section (a)(2).
Amicus United States argues that ERISA allows a participant to sue to recover losses to the plan caused by a fiduciary breach even when the losses are attributable to the participant’s individual account.
What each side argues
Petitioner
Petitioner argues that the phrase “any losses to the plan” includes any diminution in value of defined contribution plan assets, regardless of how many participants are affected.
According to Petitioner, petitioner states that the loss is documented in the complaint filed in this case.
Respondent
According to Mr. Gies, respondent argues that section (a)(2) does not permit an individual claim.
According to Mr. Gies, respondent argues that recovery of assets such as diamonds and any associated profits would be available under section (a)(3).
What happened at oral argument
Justice Scalia asked for the code numbers of the ERISA sections referenced.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the government's position on the (a)(1)(B) argument was that it is available, but (a)(2) is also available.
According to Justice Scalia, section (a)(2) refers to 1109 and does not specify who may be sued.
Justice Breyer asked why relief is not available under (a)(2).
Justice Souter asked how to determine whether a loss from an individual account suffices as a loss to the plan for pleading purposes.
According to Justice Ginsburg, the case was dismissed on the pleadings.
- [1] f89aab1a103f0797d01d-r1-e84af8b76a3f99ec.pdf, p. 3
- [2] f89aab1a103f0797d01d-r1-e84af8b76a3f99ec.pdf, p. 27
- [3] f89aab1a103f0797d01d-r1-e84af8b76a3f99ec.pdf, p. 23
- [4] f89aab1a103f0797d01d-r1-e84af8b76a3f99ec.pdf, p. 39
- [5] f89aab1a103f0797d01d-r1-e84af8b76a3f99ec.pdf, p. 41
- [6] f89aab1a103f0797d01d-r1-e84af8b76a3f99ec.pdf, p. 53
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- f89aab1a103f0797d01d-r1-e84af8b76a3f99ec.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.