Case Explained: ANN JOHNSON as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and v. RUSSELL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY f.k.a. Russell Trust Company ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD USCA11 Case: 25-10692 Document: 76-1 Date Filed: 08/17/2026 Page: 1 of 14 2

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-17 Docket: 1:22-cv-21735-RNS The eleventh-circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The court held that an ERISA plaintiff is not required to identify an “apples-to-apples” comparator fund to establish loss causation in a breach of fiduciary duty claim regarding investment selection. The court applied the standard of review de novo and relied on its recent decision in *Pizarro v. Home Depot, Inc.*, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024), which requires a plaintiff to prove that an investment was “objectively imprudent.” Under this standard, an investment is imprudent if it falls outside the “range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make,” such that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary with like aims would not have made the same choice. While comparator evidence can be relevant to demonstrate objective imprudence, particularly when used for quantitative analysis to control for differences in risk profiles and strategies, the court ruled that it is not always necessary. The determination of prudence is context-specific and may rely on qualitative evidence, such as a fund’s widespread unpopularity or negative industry ratings, or quantitative evidence relative to appropriate benchmarks, without mandating a direct comparison to an identical alternative investment. The practical consequence is that the case returns to the district court, which must consider the full record regarding the objective imprudence of the Russell Target Date Funds. The lower court is instructed to evaluate whether the unique features of those funds made them an objectively bad investment for the plan’s specific objectives, rather than dismissing the claim solely because the plaintiff failed to provide a direct “apples-to-apples” comparison with another target date fund. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.