As has been discussed and written about extensively, the U.S. Supreme Court lowered the pleading standard for claims alleging violations of ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules. Cunningham v. Cornell University, 604 U.S. 693 (2025). A recent decision addressing a motion to dismiss prohibited transaction claims serves as a good reminder to plan sponsors and
Standing
District Court Denies Employer’s “Injury-In-Fact” Challenge to Withdrawal Liability
By Neil V. Shah & Daniel Wesson on
In Holland v. Murray, No. 21-cv-567, 2023 WL 2645708 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2023), the court held that financial support provided by Congress to a multiemployer pension plan under the Bipartisan American Miners Act (“BAMA”) did not divest the plan of Article III standing to pursue the withdrawal liability it was owed.
District Court Partially Dismisses ERISA 401(k) Fee and Performance Claims for Lack of Standing
By Myron Rumeld & Kyle Hansen on
A federal district court in New York recently granted Omnicom Group Inc.’s (“Omnicom’s”) motion to dismiss, for lack of Article III standing, claims challenging the offering of investment options in Omnicom’s 401(k) plan in which the plaintiff participants did not invest. The court denied Omnicom’s motion to dismiss, however, with respect to the remainder of…
U.S. Supreme Court Holds ERISA Defined Benefit Plan Participants Without Monetary Losses Lack Article III Standing to Assert Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
By Russell Hirschhorn & Tulio Chirinos on
Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the Eighth Circuit holding that ERISA plan participants lack Article III standing to sue for breach of fiduciary duty to recover investment losses in a defined benefit fund that was not underfunded. The Court concluded that the participants lacked a concrete stake in the dispute…