"The [Cunningham v. Cornell] ruling is badly mistaken. Because the definition of 'party in interest' includes every plan fiduciary, the Court's decision allows lawsuits for all transactions involving a plan's receipt of services, even the services mandated by ERISA. On the Court's reading of the statute, ERISA both requires that fiduciaries perform specific acts and simultaneously prohibits fiduciaries from performing those same acts." [Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., No. 23-1007 (S.Ct. Apr. 17, 2025)]  MORE >>