Tag Archives: Standing

Supreme Court Closes Door to Participant Challenges to Defined Benefit Plan Investments

The extent to which a participant in a tax-qualified defined benefit plan has standing to sue the plan’s fiduciaries for mismanagement of plan assets has long been unclear. The argument against standing is that the participant has not suffered any injury because the participant would receive the same benefit from the plan regardless of the … Continue Reading

District Court Opens Door to Suits by Defined Benefit Plan Participants

In the wake of investment losses from the 2008 market downturn, many fiduciaries of employee benefit plans faced lawsuits brought by plan participants.  Most cases involved defined contribution plans, in which participants sought to recover investment losses that had directly reduced their individual benefits.  In contrast, fewer cases were brought against fiduciaries of defined benefit … Continue Reading

Verizon Prevails (Again) on Motion to Dismiss Challenge to $7.5 Billion Pension Settlement

Seems like we’ve written this before, but this time we (actually a federal district court) really means it:  the court in Lee v. Verizon granted last Friday Verizon’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit challenging its transfer in late 2012 of $7.5 billion of pension liabilities to Prudential (Lee v. Verizon, N.D. Tex.).  The … Continue Reading

Verizon Prevails on Motion To Dismiss Challenge to $7.5 Billion Pension Settlement

Earlier today, a federal district court granted Verizon’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit challenging its recent transfer of $7.5 billion of pension liabilities to Prudential (Lee v. Verizon, N.D. Tex.).  The court concluded that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim that the transaction violated ERISA’s disclosure and fiduciary obligations.  The court granted … Continue Reading

Participants Lack Standing to Challenge Defined Benefit Plan Investment Decisions

The Fourth Circuit recently held that participants in a defined benefit plan lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge investment decisions made by the plan’s fiduciaries.  David v. Alphin, No. 11-2181 (4th Cir. Jan. 14, 2013).  The plan at issue was overfunded and the participants had not failed to receive … Continue Reading
LexBlog