A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed breach of fiduciary duty claims against UnitedHealth Group, holding that participants in ERISA-governed, employer-sponsored health plans lack standing to challenge UnitedHealth Group’s practice of cross-plan offsetting because they have not been denied any benefits and have not been individually injured. The decision underscores the Supreme Court’s ruling that plaintiffs must demonstrate individual injury in order to assert breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA.
On April 19, 2021, in Wilson v. Craver, No. 18-56139, 2021 WL 1523253 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an ERISA stock-drop lawsuit brought against fiduciaries of Edison International’s employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), holding that the plaintiff failed to meet the “more harm than good” pleading standard set forth in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409, 428 (2014).
Ever since the Supreme Court’s decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014), plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trying to crack the code for pleading an ERISA duty-of-prudence claim against fiduciaries of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) following a drop in the company’s stock price. Those attempts have been largely unsuccessful, with the notable exception of Jander v. Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, 910 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2018), vacated and remanded, 140 S. Ct. 592, reinstated, 962 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2020). When the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jander, many ERISA lawyers expected the Court to clarify how a plaintiff could satisfy the Dudenhoeffer standard while still preventing meritless stock-drop claims. But as it often does, the Supreme Court ducked the issue and remanded the case without addressing the merits.