ARTICLE
29 April 2025

Split Decisions On Standing: Courts Diverge On Pension Risk Transfer Class Actions

SS
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Contributor

With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
Two courts. Two opposite rulings. One critical question: Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge pension risk transfers under ERISA?
United States Employment and HR

Two courts. Two opposite rulings. One critical question: Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge pension risk transfers under ERISA?

In the first two decisions to address Article III standing in this rising wave of class actions, federal courts in Maryland and D.C. have landed on opposing sides. One case will head to discovery; the other was dismissed outright. At stake is whether moving pension obligations from plans to insurers — a common de-risking strategy — gives rise to real legal injury.

The outcomes hint at what could become a growing divide in how courts assess harm, risk, and fiduciary duties in the pension risk transfer space. And with many more motions pending, these early rulings set the tone for what's to come.

Click here to read our Legal Update and dive into the details of these pivotal cases and what they mean for plan sponsors, fiduciaries, and the future of de-risking litigation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More