A group of current and former Cornell University employees asked the U.S. Supreme Court March 11 to clarify what plaintiffs must show to claim that a retirement plan fiduciary engaged in prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The case, Cunningham v. Cornell University, involves an alleged circuit split. The 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 10th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have found that ERISA requires plaintiffs to “plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained” in the law’s text, according to the employees, who said that the 8th and 9th Circuits have not found that the law makes such requirements. The 2nd Circuit held that ERISA plaintiffs must show that an alleged prohibited transaction “was unnecessary or involved unreasonable compensation” and that the Cornell employees had not met this requirement in alleging that the university engaged in prohibited transactions. A response to the writ of certiorari from Cornell is due April 12.