Whether Twombly's pleading standard governs breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 557 (2007), the Court held that allegations that are “merely consistent with” antitrust violations—but “just as much in line with” lawful behavior—fail to state a claim for relief. It reaffirmed that principle in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 684 (2009), stressing that Twombly provides “the pleading standard for ‘all civil actions.” And in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409, 426 (2014), it held that “the pleading standard as discussed in Twombly and Iqbal” governs breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. But here a divided Third Circuit panel “decline[d] to extend Twombly’s antitrust pleading rule to such claims.” App., infra, 9a. Then it reversed the dismissal of respondents’ claims based on allegations that other courts of appeals have found insufficient as a matter of law. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Twombly’s pleading standard governs breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA. 2. Whether a complaint states a plausible claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA if it alleges that a retirement plan’s investment options charged excessive fees and underperformed, but does not allege any fiduciary conduct inconsistent with lawful management of the plan.