ERISA Litigation Update

Key Takeaway: The U.S. Supreme Court will consider two pending ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) certiorari petitions addressing the pleading standard for imprudent-performance claims at its upcoming January 9, 2026, conference. The solicitor general has filed a brief in once case advocating for the Court to take up the issue and rule in favor of the defendant-employer. The Court previously had a third petition on the docket addressing which party bears the burden of proof on loss causation, but the parties filed a joint request to dismiss the case on January 7, 2026.

A pair of ERISA cert petitions are on the docket for the Supreme Court’s first conference of 2026. The petitions, Parker-Hannifin v. Johnson (No. 24-1030) and Anderson v. Intel Corp. (No. 25-498), present different sides of a circuit split on the allegations required to plead a claim predicated on an imprudent investment. In Parker-Hannifin, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of claims that Parker-Hannifin Corporation breached its fiduciary duties by retaining a particular target-date fund. The majority first concluded that a meaningful benchmark is not required for a claim of imprudence to survive the pleading stage. It then explained that, either way, the plaintiffs had identified a meaningful benchmark in the form of the S&P target-date fund benchmark. In Anderson, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of underperformance claims (which Goodwin previously described in our July 2025 ERISA Litigation Update), holding in particular that “when a plaintiff alleges imprudence based on a fiduciary’s decision to make one investment rather than an alternative,” the plaintiff must provide “a meaningful benchmark” supporting that comparison. On the Court’s invitation, the solicitor general filed a brief in Parker-Hannifin taking the position that the Court should grant the petition and reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

The Court was also slated to discuss Pizarro v. The Home Depot (No. 24-620), which presented the question of which party bears the burden on loss causation — or, put slightly differently, whether burden-shifting applies to the element of causation under 29 U.S. Code section 1109(a). The petition raised a well-established circuit split between the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, which require the defendant to disprove loss causation after the plaintiff has established a breach of fiduciary duty and a related loss, and the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, which require the plaintiffs to establish the causal link between breach and loss, including in the underlying Pizarro decision. Again, on the Court’s invitation, the solicitor general filed a brief arguing that the Court should grant the petition and reject the burden-shifting framework. Notably, the solicitor general’s brief acknowledges that the United States previously “took the position that ERISA fiduciaries bear the burden of disproving causation” and, further, that the “Secretary of Labor has taken the same position in the lower courts, including in an amicus brief in the court of appeals in this case.” The brief then explains, however, that “following the change in Administration and this Court’s invitation, the government has reviewed its position and concluded that the relevant authorities are better understood as leaving the burden of proving causation on ERISA plaintiffs.” On January 7, 2026, the parties filed a joint request to dismiss the case, which the Court will presumably grant.

The Supreme Court will most likely take action on Parker-Hannifin and Anderson before the end of January, and grants in these cases could come as early as January 9.

Key Takeaway: The majority of courts that considered claims based on the selection of a pension risk transfer (PRT) annuity provider have granted motions to dismiss those claims.

Four Motions to Dismiss Have Been Granted

PRTs are transactions in which a defined benefit (pension) plan sponsor transfers assets needed to fund future pension liability to an insurance company under an annuity contract. Under such transactions, the annuity provider assumes full responsibility for making all future benefits payments to all effected retirees and beneficiaries. Since early 2024, 10 lawsuits have been filed challenging PRTs involving large public companies. The suits challenge plan fiduciaries’ selection of the annuity provider on the basis that the providers were not sufficiently creditworthy and might someday stop paying the monthly payments that retirees were promised. No plaintiffs alleged that they have missed any of their pension payments. To date, there have been six decisions on motions to dismiss in these cases.

Two courts (the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Camire v. Alcoa USA Corp. and the District Court for the Northern District of New York in Bueno v. General Electric Company ) have dismissed complaints for lack of standing because the plaintiffs failed to establish an injury that gives rise to Article III standing. These courts held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that there was any actual present loss of value of their benefits as a result of the PRTs or the selections of the annuity provider. They also found that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the transactions substantially increased their risk of future injury (i.e., substantially increased the risk that they will not receive the full amount of their guaranteed pension benefits in the future). Dismissal has been recommended in a third case (Schoen v. ATI, Inc. in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania) on the same bases, but there has not been a final decision.

A fourth case (Piercy v. AT&T Inc. in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts) was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). There, the court found that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged their standing but the allegations did not plausibly support an inference of fiduciary breach. The Piercy plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidated complaint; the parties’ motion to dismiss briefing regarding that complaint closed on January 5, 2026.

Two Motions to Dismiss Have Been Denied and Interlocutory Appeals Have Been Filed

Two courts (the District Court for the District of Maryland in Konya v. Lockheed Martin Corporation and the District Court for the Southern District of New York in Doherty v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. ) denied motions to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that there were substantial risks that the annuity providers would default and the plaintiffs would not receive their full promised pension benefits. Lockheed Martin has appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the briefing is expected to close on January 26, 2026. The Doherty decision has been certified for appeal by the district court but has not been accepted by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals yet.

Goodwin represents General Electric Company in the Bueno matter and State Street Global Advisors Trust Co., which served as the independent fiduciary, in the Piercy, Schoen, and Doherty matters.

Key Takeaway: A plan sponsor prevailed due to its successful motion to exclude opinions from the plaintiffs’ expert witness.

On November 25, 2025, in Whipple v. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc. (No. 23-4583), the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to the defendant. The plaintiffs had alleged that Southeastern Freight lines had violated its ERISA duties by failing to monitor recordkeeping costs for its 401(k) plan. In support of their claim, the plaintiffs retained an expert witness who opined that a reasonable recordkeeping fee for the plan would have been $25 per participant, in contrast to the up to $66.55 per participant the plan had actually paid, and then calculated damages based on the difference between the supposedly reasonable recordkeeping fee and the actual plan recordkeeping fee. The defendant moved both for the exclusion of the opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert and summary judgment.

The District Court granted both motions. With respect to the motion to exclude, the court ruled that the expert’s opinions were flawed and should be excluded for three primary reasons. First, the expert had relied on a discovery stipulation applied to another case about recordkeeping fees that pertained to fees over a different time period than the one at issue in this case. Second, they relied on a subsequent recordkeeping fee obtained by the plan in which there was no evidence that this fee could have been obtained earlier in the class period. Third, they decided on a reasonable recordkeeping fee before analyzing fees obtained by similar plans, then excluded plans that had obtained higher fees from their analysis. Then, with respect to the motion for summary judgment, the court found in favor of the defendant because the plaintiffs had no evidence of loss without the expert’s opinions.

Key Takeaway: The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has dismissed amended claims challenging prescription drug costs, ruling that the second amended complaint failed to cure standing deficiencies.

On November 26, 2025, in Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson (No. 24-671) the District Court for the District of New Jersey largely dismissed a second amended complaint filed against Johnson & Johnson challenging the cost of prescription drugs in its health plan. The court had previously dismissed the first amended complaint for lack of standing because the plaintiff’s theory of injury in the form of higher premiums was speculative and hypothetical and injury in the form of higher out-of-pocket costs was not redressable because the plaintiff had reached their prescription drug cap for each plan year in the putative class period. Goodwin previously covered this decision in our April 2025 ERISA Litigation Update. The second amended complaint added one additional plaintiff who had not reached their prescription drug cap and further allegations that participant contributions in the form of premiums increase when plans overspend on prescription drugs.

The court held again that the plaintiffs lacked standing because it was “too speculative” that the fees the plan paid to the pharmacy benefit manager “had any effect at all” on the plaintiffs’ contributions and out-of-pocket costs. The court also held that the plaintiffs’ selective comparisons between the prices for generic drugs under the plan and the acquisition cost or the cost an uninsured person would pay at the pharmacy for the same drugs were insufficient given the multitude of factors that affect pricing. Finally, the court found that any injury would not be redressable because the plaintiffs were unable to explain how the court could amend plan terms to require that the defendants reduce or maintain the participants’ contribution rates.

The court granted leave to file a third amended complaint, but, on December 19, 2025, the plaintiffs notified the court that they do not intend to amend and requested that the court enter final judgment instead, presumably so the plaintiffs could appeal the decision.

Speaking Engagement: 2026 NAPA 401(k) Summit (April 19–21, 2026)

On Monday, April 20, 2026, Jamie Fleckner will speak on a panel, “Lawyers, Funds & Money: ERISA Litigation Applied to Your Practice,” that will cover trends in ERISA litigation, explain what the courts are saying (and where the circuits differ), scrutinize regulatory shifts and implications, and translate those rulings into actionable insights for plan advisers.

Speaking Engagement: 2025 PLANADVISER 360 (November 2–5, 2025)

During an interactive fireside chat on November 4, 2025, Jamie Fleckner spoke about retirement policy, plan governance, and the interplay of litigation and policy.

Speaking Engagement: 2025 Defined Contribution West Conference (October 26–28, 2025)

Jamie Fleckner spoke on the “How to Reduce the Risk of Being Sued and Increase the Chances of Winning the Case: Legal Landmines in DC Plan Management” panel. The panel unpacked key cases, addressed lawsuit patterns and ways to protect plans, and provided insight on how to assess investment lineups, documentation, and plan operations through a legal lens to avoid missteps.

Speaking Engagement: RILA Retail Law Conference 2025 (October 9, 2025)

Jaime Santos and Jamie Fleckner spoke on a panel, “Health Plan Apocalypse? What Retirement Plan Litigation Can Tell Us About the Coming Wave of Health Plan Class Actions” at the RILA Retail Law Conference, which discussed lawsuits challenging employer-sponsored health plan costs.

Goodwin Insight: “The Global Push to Open Private Markets to Mainstream Investors,” Forces of Law (December 10, 2025)

Jamie Fleckner, Brynn Peltz, Jeremy Senderowicz, and Paul Verbesey co-authored this Goodwin insight discussing how the widening of access to private credit, equity, and real assets is reshaping long-term savings.

In the Press: “Anticipating the Next Wave of ERISA Lawsuits (Plan Adviser)” (November 10, 2025)

Jamie Fleckner authored a Plan Adviser article discussing what the next main target of litigation related to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act will be, predicting that pooled employer plans have grown to the point of inviting legal scrutiny.

Best Law Firms named Goodwin Law Firm of the Year in the United States for ERISA Litigation and recognized the firm across 50 practice areas in the 2026 edition of the annual guide.

Law360: Congratulations to Jamie Fleckner for being named a Law360 MVP for 2025 in the Benefits category. This marks the second time he has received this recognition.