A recent Third Circuit decision reinforced the need for ERISA plaintiffs to plead injury-in-fact to establish Article III standing.  In Krauter v. Siemens Corp., No. 17-1662, 2018 WL 921542 (3d Cir. Feb. 16, 2018), the plaintiff was a beneficiary of four pension plans that had been sponsored by Siemens.  After the Plaintiff’s retirement, Siemens sold a division and transferred responsibility for Plaintiff’s benefit obligations to the buyer.  Plaintiff filed suit claiming that the transfer of his benefit obligation increased his risk of loss, although the Plaintiff never alleged that he was not paid the benefits he was owed. The Third Circuit held that the Plaintiff lacked standing:  (i) to pursue claims based on his participation in the defined benefit plans because allegations of a risk of future adverse effects on benefits were not sufficient to confer Article III standing; and (ii) to pursue claims based on his participation in the deferred compensation plan because allegations that fees increased and investment options changed did not sufficiently allege actual harm.  However, the Plaintiff did have standing to pursue a claim based on his participation in the 401(k) plan because he alleged that fees increased at the same time investment gains decreased, which, according to the Court, sufficiently alleged actual harm.  Nonetheless, the Court affirmed dismissal of the claim because plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead facts to sustain his claims.

[View source.]