Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee

The case, in plain English.

Participants challenge how Intel’s retirement-plan fiduciaries invested their savings, including allocations to alternative investments. Their complaint was dismissed. The appeal concerns what they must allege at the outset to pursue an imprudence claim—not a finding that Intel’s fiduciaries mismanaged the funds.

Why it matters

The pleading threshold determines which fund-management claims reach evidence gathering. Our reading: a rigid comparator requirement could make unusual investment strategies harder to challenge, while a looser test could expose prudent managers to litigation based on hindsight.

Will the Supreme Court reverse or vacate the lower-court judgment, wholly or in part?

From bet to decision

Place a simulated betCloses 6 Oct 2026, 11:00 AEDT (Sydney)

Your odds are locked when your simulated bet is accepted.

Oral argument6 October 2026

Argument scheduled

Court decisionDate not announced

The betting deadline is not the Court’s decision date.

Bet settlementAfter outcome review

The official outcome is checked against the rules. Winning bets pay out; void bets return your stake.

Read the settlement rules

What informs the forecast?

The model estimates the chance of a petitioner win at 29.6%, based on information recorded before oral argument. A win means the Court reverses or vacates the lower-court judgment, wholly or in part, under the rules below. This does not predict which legal arguments will succeed. Historical model tests do not establish live forecasting accuracy.

Forecast provenance

Model: scotus-m2-logit-audit-corrected. Generated: 2026-09-27T01:50:16Z. Target: petitioner win. Feature snapshot SHA-256: a5ef07d82b046643fff349169112c9f67639ae68b5d6a6c901a42ea51e45300b.

What could change the view

The Court could reject a rigid rule yet find this complaint insufficient. Watch for the distinction between the pleading standard and the fate of the particular lawsuit.

Model-derived probabilities are uncertain, not guarantees. Historical backtests do not establish live accuracy. Prices use reciprocal probabilities with no added margin; two-decimal rounding may slightly affect implied totals.

Outcome & resolution rules

YES (petitioner win) means the Supreme Court reverses or vacates the lower-court judgment, wholly or in part, including a grant-vacate-remand or mootness vacatur. NO means affirmance (including an equally divided Court), dismissal as improvidently granted, or other writ dismissal leaving the judgment standing. Settlement or dismissal by agreement, removal from the calendar or vacatur of certiorari is VOID and returns the stake. Modified or unclassified judgments require manual review. This predicts judgment disposition, not whether a particular legal argument succeeds. Resolution follows forecast rules version 2.

The first issued Supreme Court judgment on the lead docket controls; later rehearing changes are ignored. The slip-opinion judgment and official docket are checked independently. Conflicts, modified judgments and unmatched dispositions require manual review, not an assumed result. The selection deadline closes new positions; it is not a deadline for a Court judgment.

Deadline: 6 Oct 2026, 11:00 AEDT (Sydney). Market rule revision 1. Accepted bets retain this version. Only a reviewed official outcome can settle this market.