In Cunningham vs. Cornell University, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the pleading requirements for a prohibited transaction claim under ERISA section 406(a)(1)(C). The Court held that a plaintiff must allege only the facts necessary to establish that a fiduciary caused an employee benefit plan to receive services from a party in interest; the plaintiff is not required, the Court said, to allege facts establishing the inapplicability of ERISA section 408(b)(2)(A), which exempts a plan’s receipt of necessary services if it pays no more than reasonable compensation. The ruling is badly mistaken. Because the definition of “party in interest” includes every plan fiduciary, the Court’s decision allows lawsuits for all transactions involving a plan’s receipt of services, even the services mandated by ERISA. On the Court’s reading of the statute, ERISA both requires that fiduciaries perform specific acts and simultaneously prohibits fiduciaries from performing those same acts.