The U.S. Supreme Court case Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma centered around the interpretation of a three-year limitation period for breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Christopher Sulyma, an ex-Intel employee, sued Intel's investment committee claiming they had invested his retirement funds in risky assets leading to significant losses. However, Intel argued that since it had disclosed its investment decisions more than three years before Sulyma filed suit, the claim was time-barred by ERISA’s statute of limitations which states that such suits must be brought within three years after “the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge” of the alleged violation. In 2020, The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Sulyma stating that "actual knowledge" means what it says - plaintiffs must become aware of information and not just have access to it for this limitation period to start running.

In the case of Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, there was no dissenting opinion recorded as the judgement was unanimous. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Christopher Sulyma, a former Intel employee who sued the company's retirement plan committee over its investment strategy which he claimed violated fiduciary duties under ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). The court held that a plaintiff does not necessarily have "actual knowledge" of information contained in disclosures they received but did not read or cannot recall reading, and therefore, the three-year limitation period for filing suit only begins once they gain actual knowledge of an alleged breach or violation.