Intel 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan Litigation

Summary of Lawsuit

This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the participants of the Intel 401(k) Savings Plan and Retirement Plan.

  • The Complaint alleges that, during the class period, the Investment Committee’s allocation decisions strayed from usual asset allocation models and also exposed the Plans and their participants to unnecessary expenses and poor performing investments in hedge and private equity funds. The Complaint alleges that these imprudent investments caused the Plans and their participants to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. The Complaint also alleges that the Administrative Committee, which was responsible for keeping participants in the Plans informed, failed to adequately notify participants of the risks, fees, and expenses associated with investment in hedge funds and private equity.

  • This lawsuit is brought on behalf of the following Class:

    All participants in the Intel Retirement Contribution Plan and the Intel 401(k) Savings Plan, whose accounts were invested in any one of the Intel Target Date Funds, the Intel Global Diversified Fund, or the Intel 401K Global Diversified Fund at any time on or after October 29, 2009.

    Excluded from the Class are the following persons: (a) Defendants, (b) any fiduciaries of the Plans; (c) any officers or directors of Intel; and (d) any member of the immediate family of and any heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded party.

  • The Complaint was filed with the District Court on October 29, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Complaint on April 26, 2016. On May 26, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the Court denied, on August 18, 2016, but converted one portion of the Motion into a summary judgment motion and ordered targeted discovery on whether Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. After the parties completed discovery on that issue, on March 31, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim.

    Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 24, 2017. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on November 28, 2018, reversing the District Court’s summary judgment decision. On February 26, 2019, Defendants petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. After the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari on June 10, 2019 and held oral argument on December 4, 2019, the Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the Ninth Circuit’s decision on February 26, 2020.

    After the case was remanded to the District Court, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on June 24, 2020. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 22, 2020. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss on January 21, 2021 without prejudice and allowed Plaintiffs to file an Amended Consolidated Complaint.

    Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 22, 2021. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint on May 5, 2021.

    After resolving the remaining individual claim of Plaintiff Anderson, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on August 17, 2022, appealing the January 21, 2021 and January 8, 2022 decisions on the motions to dismiss. The case is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on February 7, 2023.

  • After an all-day meeting with a mediator on January 11, 2023, the parties reached a settlement in principle on January 31, 2023 just with respect to the class claims and exclusive of any claims for attorneys’ fees and expenses. A formal settlement agreement was executed on March 1, 2023.

    Under the terms of the Settlement, FedEx has agreed to pay $1.5 million into a Settlement Fund. Class Counsel will not be seeking attorneys’ fees or reimbursement of litigation expenses from the Settlement Fund. After subtracting court-approved litigation expenses such as costs for Class Notice, settlement administration and any court-approved service award to Plaintiff, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to class members.

    On April 17, 2023, Class Counsel executed a separate agreement with FedEx to resolve any claims for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses, which will be paid out of a separate fund and will not reduce the amount paid to the Class. Under the terms of this agreement, FedEx has agreed to pay $910,000 consisting of $850,000 in attorneys’ fees and $60,000 in litigation expenses and costs.

    Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement on March 1, 2023. The settlement needs to be approved by the Court, which consists of a three part process: (1) the Court granting preliminary approval of the settlement, (2) formal notice mailed to class members providing class members the ability to comment on the Settlement, and (3) the Court granting final approval of the settlement.

    The Court granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval on March 30, 2023. The Court also set June 28, 2023 as the deadline to file the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Motion for Service Award and July 14, 2023 as the deadline to file the Motion for Final Approval.

    Class members have until July 10, 2023 to file any objection to the Settlement or to Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

    The Court has scheduled a final fairness hearing on July 31, 2023 at 12pm ET at United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Courtroom 6B, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.

Whom to Contact for More Information

If you are a member of the proposed class or you have information which might assist us in the prosecution of these allegations, please contact one of the following persons:

R. Joseph Barton, Esq. jbarton@bartondownes.com

Ming Siegel, Paralegal ming@bartondownes.com

Barton & Downes LLP

1633 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 200

Washington, DC 20009

(202) 734-7046

Barton & Downes is co-counsel in this litigation with Bailey & Glasser LLP, Major Khan LLC and Creitz & Serebin LLP.