IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10553

WILLIAM LEE, Individually, and as Representatives of plan participants 

and plan beneficiaries of the Verizon Management Pension Plan; JOANNE 

MCPARTLIN, Individually, and as Representatives of plan participants and 

plan beneficiaries of the Verizon Management Pension Plan; EDWARD 

PUNDT, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED; VERIZON 

CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP, INCORPORATED; VERIZON 

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; VERIZON INVESTMENT 

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; VERIZON MANAGEMENT PENSION 

PLAN, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CV-4834

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
Before the court is a retirement-plan dispute brought by current and 

former participants and beneficiaries of Verizon’s pension plan (“the Plan”). 

Plaintiffs, representing two certified classes, allege violations under the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 

(“ERISA”), by the pension plan sponsors and administrators as a result of a 

plan amendment and subsequent annuity purchase in December of 2012. The 

certified classes are distinguished by the annuity transaction, which 

transferred benefit obligations for some Plan beneficiaries to a group insurance 

annuity, resulting in the following classes: the Transferee Class, represented 

by Plaintiffs William Lee and Joanne McPartlin (collectively, “Transferee 

Class representatives”), comprising Plan participants whose retirementbenefit obligations were transferred to the annuity; and the Non-Transferee 

Class, represented by Plaintiff Edward Pundt (“Pundt”), comprising Plan 

participants whose retirement-benefit obligations remained with the Plan. 

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of the claims of the Transferee 

Class for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 

as well as the dismissal of the sole claim of the Non-Transferee Class under 

Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of constitutional standing.

We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual History

Unless otherwise noted, the following factual history is based on 

Appellants’ allegations in the second amended complaint (“SAC”), the live 

pleading at the time of the district court’s dismissal order.

In August of 2012, Verizon Investment Management Corp. (“VIMCO”), a 

wholly-owned subsidiary of Verizon Communications Inc. (“Verizon”), retained 

Fiduciary Counselors, Inc. (“FCI or Independent Fiduciary”) as an independent 

fiduciary to “represent the participants and beneficiaries in connection with 

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

3

the selection of the insurance company (or insurance companies) to provide an 

annuity” and to negotiate “the terms of the annuity contract or contracts.” On 

or about September 8, 2012, over a month prior to the date of the amendment,

the Independent Fiduciary provided a written determination of the 

transaction’s compliance with ERISA.

In October of 2012, Verizon’s board of directors amended the Plan terms 

to provide for an annuity transaction, effective December 7, 2012. The 

amendment applied to Plan participants who were already receiving benefit 

payments as of January 1, 2010; this effectively divided the Plan participants 

into the 41,000 members of the Transferee Class, and the roughly 50,000 

members of the Non-Transferee Class. Regarding payments to those retirees, 

the amendment directed the Plan to purchase an annuity meeting the 

following requirements: (1) guaranteeing payment of pension benefits for all 

transferred Plan participants; (2) maintaining benefit payments in the same 

form that was in effect at the time of the annuity transaction; and (3) relieving 

the Plan of any benefit obligation for any transferred Plan participants.1

Also in October of 2012, Verizon entered into a definitive purchase 

agreement with Prudential, VIMCO, and FCI. Under the terms of the 

agreement, Verizon would purchase a single-premium, group annuity contract 

 

1 The relevant provisions of the Amendment are as follows: 

(i) The annuity contract shall fully guarantee and pay each pension 

benefit earned by a “Designated Participant.”

(ii) The annuity contract shall provide for the continued payment of the 

Designated Participant’s pension benefit . . . in the same form that 

was in effect under the Plan immediately before the annuity 

purchase . . . .

. . . .

(iv) After the annuity purchase . . . , the Plan shall have no further 

obligation to make any payment with respect to any pension benefit of 

a Designated Participant . . . . ROA.119–20.

The term “Designated Participant” generally describes members of the Transferee 

Class, as it includes Plan participants who were receiving benefits at the time of the 

annuity transaction, and who had retired before January 1, 2010.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

4

from Prudential for $8.4 billion, in settlement of $7.4 billion in Plan benefit 

obligations. Plan fiduciaries notified members of the Transferee Class about 

the annuity transaction.

Shortly after Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction against the 

annuity transaction was denied, the annuity parties consummated the annuity 

transaction on December 10, 2012.

B. Procedural History

The Transferee Class representatives filed their original complaint on 

November 27, 2012; the complaint was immediately followed by their 

application for a temporary restraining order.2 In an order dated December 7, 

2012 (“Lee I”), the district court denied the application.3 On January 25, 2013, 

the Transferee Class representatives filed their first amended complaint, to 

which Plaintiff Pundt joined, and the district court certified the classes on 

March 28, 2013.

In an order dated June 24, 2013 (“Lee II”), the district court granted 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Transferee Class’s claims for failure to state 

a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and the Non-Transferee Class’s claim under Rule 

12(b)(1) for lack of constitutional standing.4 The court also granted Plaintiffs 

leave to amend.5

Plaintiffs filed the SAC on July 12, 2013.6 In an order dated April 11, 

2014 (“Lee III”), the district court dismissed the SAC in its entirety for failing 

 

2 At the request of the Transferee Class representatives, the application for temporary 

restraining order was converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction.

3 Lee v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc., 2012 WL 6089041, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2012) (“Lee 

I”).

4 Lee v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc., 954 F.Supp.2d 486, 499 (N.D. Tex. June 24, 2013) (“Lee 

II”).

5 Id. 6 ROA.1372-1422 (“SAC”).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

5

to cure the deficiencies identified in Lee II.7 Specifically, the district court 

reasoned that, as amended, the first and third claims of the Transferee Class, 

as well as the claim of the Non-Transferee Class, warranted dismissal for the 

reasons stated in Lee II;8 the district court then more fully addressed the 

amended allegations regarding the Transferee Class’s second claim before 

dismissing that claim as well.9

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state 

a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).10 In doing so, the court 

applies the familiar Twombly-plausibility standard, according to which “we 

must accept as true all well-pleaded facts.”11 “To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion 

to dismiss, a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but must 

provide the plaintiff’s grounds for entitlement to relief—including factual 

allegations that when assumed to be true raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.”12

The court similarly evaluates the Rule-12(b)(1) dismissal of the claim by 

the Non-Transferee Class for lack of standing. As with a 12(b)(6) dismissal, 

this court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal under 12(b)(1).13 As a 

 

7 Lee v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc., 2014 WL 1407416, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2014) (“Lee 

III”).

8 See id. at *2.

9 See id. at *2–9. 10 See Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Houston, 607 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2010) 

(citing Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007)).

11 Id. (citing Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996)).

12 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

13 See Ballew v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 668 F.3d 777, 781 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing 

Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001)).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

6

matter of subject matter jurisdiction,14 standing under ERISA § 502(a) is 

subject to challenge through Rule 12(b)(1).15 Where, as here, the movant 

mounts a “facial attack” on jurisdiction based only on the allegations in the 

complaint, the court simply considers “the sufficiency of the allegations in the 

complaint because they are presumed to be true.”16

B. Duty to Disclose under ERISA § 102(b), 29 U.S.C. § 1022(b) 

The Transferee Class first asserts that that the Plan fiduciaries breached 

their fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to disclose the annuity 

transaction’s effect on payor responsibilities and participant enrollment in the 

Plan. At the outset, the following is undisputed: (1) the Plan provided 

Summary Plan Descriptions (“SPDs”); (2) the Plan fiduciaries promptly 

disclosed the amendment shortly after its adoption; and (3) the annuity 

transaction did not change the form or amount of benefits. However, Plaintiffs 

argue that the pre-amendment SPDs were insufficient because they did not 

give notice of the annuity transaction. 

ERISA § 102(b) requires an SPD to describe “circumstances which may 

result in disqualification, ineligibility, or denial or loss of benefits.”17 In turn, 

the pertinent regulation promulgated by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) 

requires an SPD to describe “circumstances which may result in . . . loss[] . . . 

of any benefits that a participant or beneficiary might otherwise reasonably 

expect the plan to provide.”18 Appellants first argue that the Verizon Employee 

Benefits Committee (“VEBC”), a Verizon plan fiduciary, failed to provide 

 

14 See Cobb v. Cent. States, 461 F.3d 632, 635 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Hermann Hosp. 

v. MEBA Med. & Benefits Plan, 845 F.2d 1286, 1288–89 (5th Cir.1988) (considering ERISA 

standing as a question of subject matter jurisdiction).

15 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

16 Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981).

17 29 U.S.C. § 1022(b) (2012). 18 29 C.F.R. § 2520.102-3(l) (2015).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

7

compliant SPDs by not disclosing the possibility that benefit obligations could 

be transferred to an insurance-company annuity absent a plan termination or 

spin-off/merger. As explained below, this argument lacks merit in light of this 

court’s precedent, which holds that ERISA does not require SPDs to describe 

future terms, and statutory language requiring only retrospective notice of 

plan amendments. 

First, as Appellees note, we have previously interpreted ERISA 

disclosure requirements as only extending to current aspects of the plan, and 

to the exclusion of potential changes which are contingent upon a plan 

amendment. In Wise v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.,19 this court held that “Section 

1022(b) relates to an individual employee's eligibility under then existing, 

current terms of the Plan and not to the possibility that those terms might 

later be changed, as ERISA undeniably permits.”20 The decisions cited by 

Appellants do not vitiate this principle, as both decisions addressed the 

disclosure of existing plan terms, not potential, amendment-contingent 

terms.21 In this case, prior to the October-2012 amendment directing the 

annuity purchase, the Plan only allowed for the transfer of benefit obligations 

through the Plan’s termination or merger into another pension plan; SPDs 

issued prior to the amendment were only required to address those 

circumstances. 

Further, it is undisputed that the Plan fiduciaries provided notice 

shortly after the amendment’s adoption, well within the time limits imposed 

for notice of plan amendment. ERISA only requires that administrators 

provide a summary description of any material modification or change “not 

 

19 986 F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1993).

20 Id. at 935.

21 See Koehler v. Aetna Health Inc., 683 F.3d 182, 189 (5th Cir. 2012); Layaou v. Xerox 

Corp. 238 F.3d 205, 211 (2d Cir. 2001)).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

8

later than 210 days after the end of the plan year in which the change is 

adopted.”22 In keeping with this language, we previously held in Martinez v. 

Schlumberger, Ltd.23 that, within the context of ERISA disclosure 

requirements, there is no employer duty “to affirmatively disclose whether it 

is considering amending its benefit plan.”24 Appellees also correctly note that 

the pre-amendment SPDs advised participants of Verizon’s reservation of the 

right to amend the Plan, and the possibility that an amendment might affect 

their rights under the Plan.

As a second basis for violation, the Transferee Class alleges that the preamendment SPDs failed to advise of the possible “loss of benefits.” The district 

court rejected this claim because the Transferee Class failed to allege a change 

in the amount of benefits they would receive. On appeal, the Transferee Class 

acknowledges that the amount of benefits remains unchanged under the terms 

of the annuity contract. However, the Transferee Class also asserts that the 

phrase “loss of benefits” encompasses federal protections under ERISA and the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”).25 Appellants, however, 

provide no authority supporting the inclusion of ERISA and PBGC protections 

as “benefits” within the meaning of § 102. Countenancing against Appellants’ 

argument, this interpretation of “benefits” is more expansive than the ERISA 

regulation governing the purchase of annuities by plan fiduciaries 

(“Annuitization Regulation”), which requires that such transactions guarantee 

a participant’s “entire benefit rights.”26 As discussed further below, the annuity 

agreement does not guarantee ERISA and PBGC protections, but Appellants 

 

22 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(1)(B).

23 338 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2003).

24 Id. at 428.

25 Id. 26 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-3(d)(2)(ii) (2015).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

9

do not dispute that the transaction complies with the Annuitization

Regulation’s guarantee requirement.

Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of the 

Transferee Class’s claim under ERISA § 102.

C. Fiduciary Duties under ERISA § 404(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1104

The Transferee Class asserts several breaches of fiduciary duties under 

ERISA § 404(a)(1)(A), which requires that plan fiduciaries use plan assets “for 

the exclusive purpose of[] . . . providing benefits” and “defraying reasonable 

expenses of administering the plan.”27 In doing so, a fiduciary must act “solely 

in the interest of [plan] participants,”28 and employ the “care, skill, prudence,

and diligence” of a “prudent man” acting in like circumstances.29 Section 8.5 of 

the Plan mirrors that of § 404, requiring that assets of the Plan be used “for 

the exclusive benefit of [participants and beneficiaries] and shall be used to 

provide benefits under the Plan and to pay the reasonable expenses of 

administering the Plan and the Pension Fund, except to the extent that such 

expenses are paid by [Verizon].”30

Fiduciary vs. Non-Fiduciary Functions. First, it behooves the analysis to 

distinguish between fiduciary and non-fiduciary roles, a function-centric 

consideration “that is aided by the common law of trusts which serves as 

ERISA’s backdrop.”31 Further, though an employer may, at different times, 

wear “hats” as both a sponsor and administrator,32 “fiduciary duties under 

ERISA are implicated only when it acts in the latter capacity.”33 Thus, where 

 

27 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A) (2012). 28 Id. § 1104(a)(1).

29 Id. § 1104(a)(1)(B).

30 ROA.83.

31 Beck v. PACE Intern. Union, 551 U.S. 96, 101 (2007). 32 See Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 225–26 (2000).

33 Beck, 551 U.S. at 101.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

10

a claim alleges breach of an ERISA fiduciary duty, the threshold question is 

whether the “person employed to provide services under a plan . . . was acting 

as a fiduciary (that is, was performing a fiduciary function) when taking the 

action subject to complaint.”34 In making this threshold evaluation, “[a] person 

is a fiduciary only to the extent he has or exercises specified authority, 

discretion, or control over a plan or its assets.”35

In contrast, we have previously held that actions by a plan sponsor “to 

modify, amend or terminate the plan” are outside the scope of fiduciary duties; 

“such decisions are those of a trust settlor, not a fiduciary.”36 In Hughes 

Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, the Supreme Court noted that, “[i]n general, an 

employer’s decision to amend a pension plan concerns the composition or 

design of the plan itself and does not implicate the employer’s fiduciary duties 

which consist of such actions as the administration of the plan’s assets,” as well 

as decisions “regarding the form or structure of the Plan . . . .”37 The Jacobson

Court emphatically concluded that “without exception, plan sponsors who alter 

the terms of a plan do not fall into the category of fiduciaries.”38

Courts have drawn a distinction between decisions to alter a plan, and 

the implementation of those decisions. For example, in Beck v. PACE Intern. 

Union, the Court noted the distinction between whether to terminate a plan 

through an annuity purchase, and the fiduciary obligation in its selection of an 

 

34 Pegram, 530 U.S. at 226.

35 Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 526 F.3d 243, 251 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); see also 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A) (2012) (providing that “[a] person 

is a fiduciary with respect to a plan to the extent (i) he exercises any discretionary authority 

or discretionary control respecting management of such plan or exercises any authority or 

control respecting management or disposition of its assets[] . . . or (iii) he has any 

discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of such plan.”).

36 Id. at 251. 37 Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 444 (1999).

38 Id. at 444-45.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

11

annuity provider.39 Appellees rely in part upon Beck to support two sponsorfiduciary distinctions, distinctions which are disputed by Appellants but which 

affect multiple issues.

Beck involved an employer’s filling dual roles as plan sponsor and 

administrator, and the Court considered the question of whether a plan 

sponsor’s choice of plan termination through the purchase an annuity, rather 

than merger with another pension plan, constituted a decision as a plan 

sponsor or fiduciary.40 The Beck Court first noted the general principle that an 

employer’s decisions regarding the form or structure of a plan are immune from 

ERISA’s fiduciary obligations, and that these decisions include termination 

and (in most cases) merger.41 Recognizing that ERISA imposed fiduciary 

obligations on the method of termination, e.g. the fiduciary obligation on 

selecting an annuity provider, the Beck Court acknowledged that the choice 

between possible methods of termination, i.e. annuitization or merger, created 

a plausible basis to consider merger as a fiduciary action within that context.42

Ultimately, Beck did not reach ERISA’s fiduciary application to merger, as the 

Court determined merger was not a permissible method of termination under 

ERISA.43

Appellees first cite Beck in support of the proposition that the decision to 

enter into an annuity is a sponsor decision immune from ERISA’s fiduciary 

obligations. In turn, Appellants argue that Beck is inapposite as it analyzed a 

plan termination, rather than an ongoing plan. This distinction does not vitiate 

Beck’s application to the instant circumstances. The Beck Court broadly 

described decisions regarding the form and structure of a plan as those of a 

 

39 551 U.S. 96, 101–02 (2007).

40 See id.

41 See id. 42 See id. at 102.

43 Id. at 110.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

12

plan sponsor, and its primary focus on one type of sponsor decision does not 

undercut the application to other sponsor decisions regarding a plan’s form and 

structure. Accordingly, we hold the annuity amendment was a sponsor 

function of plan design, authorized under ERISA through the Annuitization 

Regulation.

Appellees also cite Beck for the principle that an employer’s decision to 

maintain or remove pension liabilities is a design decision and settlor function. 

In deciding that merger was not a permissible form of termination, the Beck

Court compared the effect of annuity purchases and merger, emphasizing that 

the latter “represents a continuation rather than a cessation of the ERISA 

regime.”44 Despite discussing the annuity purchase’s effect of “formally 

sever[ing] the applicability of ERISA to plan assets and employer obligations” 

(including the employer’s release from ERISA’s requirement to make PBGC 

premium payments), the Beck Court did not impute fiduciary aspects to the 

sponsor’s decision to sever ERISA’s applicability.45 Consistent with Beck, 

therefore, we consider the decision to transfer pension assets outside ERISA 

coverage as a sponsor decision immune from fiduciary obligations.

Also relating to the sponsor-fiduciary distinction, Appellants assert that 

the district court mischaracterized some of their claims as asserted against 

Verizon and the Plan fiduciaries, VIMCO and VEBC. In Appellants’ view, the 

claim was asserted only against the Plan fiduciaries, and the district court’s 

considering the claim as asserted against Verizon was questionable. However, 

regarding some of the alleged bases for fiduciary breach, the allegations in the 

SAC implicate the act of amending the Plan to direct the annuity purchase, an 

act by Verizon as settlor, as well as the acts involved in implementing the 

 

44 Id. at 106 (emphasis in original).

45 Id.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

13

annuity purchase, which involve functions of the Plan fiduciaries. As a result, 

we hold the district court properly addressed Verizon’s role as sponsor, before 

addressing the implementation of the transaction involving VIMCO and 

VEBC. We separately consider these alleged breaches below.

1. Alleged Breach by Plan Sponsor

Appellants first assert that Verizon breached its fiduciary duty by 

entering into the annuity transaction, which resulted in the partial transfer of 

pension obligation from an ongoing Plan. Because such a transfer during an 

ongoing plan is not expressly authorized by an ERISA provision or regulation, 

Appellants posit that Verizon’s decision was subject to ERISA’s fiduciary duty 

provisions. This argument lacks merit for several reasons: (1) precedent 

suggests that the amendment was a settlor function; (2) ERISA and related 

regulations authorize annuity purchases, and do not prohibit such purchases 

during an ongoing plan; and (3) even assuming ERISA prohibits annuity 

purchases during an ongoing plan, Appellants cite no authority that the 

prohibition’s violation would subject an otherwise settlor function to fiduciary 

requirements. 

First, the precedent cited above describes the decision to amend a 

pension plan concerning the composition or design of the plan as a settlor 

function, immune from fiduciary strictures. Accordingly, the decision to amend 

the Plan and transfer assets into an annuity was made solely by Verizon in its 

settlor capacity. Appellants’ argument against this principle, broadly that any 

action which disposes of plan assets creates fiduciary obligations, is not 

supported by any authority. The Beck Court tangentially addressed 

Appellants’ argument, noting that “[t]he purchase of an annuity is akin to a 

transfer of assets and liability (to an insurance company)” yet maintaining its 

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

14

position that a decision to enter into an annuity (albeit during a plan 

termination) was a settlor function.46

Secondly, Appellants do not proffer any authority that would prohibit 

the transfer from an ongoing plan via an annuity transaction. At the same 

time, Appellees respond with ERISA provisions and regulations which suggest 

such transactions are authorized, and at least are not foreclosed.

In the first instance, ERISA provisions, as well as regulations 

promulgated by the Department of Labor, set forth several mechanisms by 

which an employer may remove liabilities from a pension plan, one of which is 

through transfer to an insurance company by an annuity purchase.47 Upon 

transfer via annuity purchase, an individual is no longer “a participant covered 

under an employee pension plan or a beneficiary receiving benefits under an 

employee pension plan,” so long as the individual’s entire benefit rights are (1) 

guaranteed by the insurance company; (2) enforceable against the insurance 

company at the sole choice of the individual; and (3) the individual is issued 

notice of the benefits to which he or she is entitled under the plan.48 Appellants 

do not dispute that the annuity transaction complied with these requirements, 

transferring the entire benefit rights of the Transferee Class and satisfying the 

three requirements for removal from the Plan.

Regarding the ability of a plan sponsor to perform an annuity transfer 

during an ongoing plan, neither ERISA itself nor the regulations promulgated 

thereunder speak directly to this point. However, a Department of Labor 

interpretive bulletin describes circumstances in which a pension plan might 

purchase annuity contracts, and notes that “in the case of an ongoing plan, 

 

46 Id. at 102.

47 See 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-3(d)(2)(ii) (2015). See also 29 U.S.C. §§ 1341 (termination); 

1058 (merger).

48 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-3(d)(2)(ii) (2012).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

15

annuities might be purchased for participants who are retiring or separating 

from service with accrued vested benefits.”49 Although the bulletin does not 

specifically describe this circumstance, the bulletin describes potential 

circumstances non-exclusively, suggesting that such transfers are permitted, 

especially when considered in conjunction with the annuity-transfer 

regulation.

Finally, even assuming arguendo that ERISA prohibits annuity 

purchases during ongoing plans, Appellants cite no authority which would 

make the amendment a fiduciary function due to violation of that prohibition.

In light of the above considerations, we hold that the transfer of pension 

liabilities from an ongoing plan through an annuity transaction amendment is 

a settlor function, permitted under ERISA, or, alternatively, that such 

transactions are not subject to fiduciary duty requirements.

2. Alleged Breaches by Plan Fiduciaries

The Transferee Class also alleges breach of fiduciary duty in the 

implementation of the amendment. In this regard, the Transferee Class 

asserts several grounds, alleging that Plan fiduciaries: (1) failed to hold the 

annuity contract as a Plan asset; (2) failed to obtain consent of the Transferee 

Class members; (3) failed to communicate with the Transferee Class members 

prior to the annuity transaction; (4) violated the terms of § 8.5 of the Plan; and

 

49 See Interpretive Bulletins Relating to the Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974, 60 Fed. Reg. 12328, 12328 (Mar. 6, 1995) (providing, 

[p]ension plans purchase benefit distribution annuity contracts in a variety of 

circumstances. Such annuities may be purchased for participants and 

beneficiaries in connection with the termination of a plan, or in the case of an 

ongoing plan, annuities might be purchased for participants who are retiring 

or separating from service with accrued vested benefits.).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

16

(5) failed to select more than one annuity provider.50 We consider these 

breaches seriatim.

Failure to Hold Annuity Contract within Plan as Plan Asset. The 

Transferee Class maintains that Plan beneficiaries should have held the 

annuity contract as a Plan asset (“internal annuity”), and that such an 

arrangement would have maintained ERISA and PBGC protections for the 

benefit of the class members.

However, as the district court reasoned, the plan amendment did not 

allow for the Plan to remain obligated for the benefit of the Transferee Class. 

As noted above, the Plan fiduciaries are only responsible for decisions over 

which they have discretion. Although disputed by Appellants, the terms of the 

amendment clearly provide that the Plan will have no obligation to make any 

payment for the pension benefits of the Transferee Class after the annuity 

transaction. Within the strictures of the amendment terms, Plan fiduciaries 

were without discretion to maintain pension obligations of the Transferee 

Class within the Plan.51

Failure to Obtain Transferee Consent. The Transferee Class also asserts 

that the Plan fiduciaries should have obtained the consent of the Transferee 

Class members before transferring the pension obligations to the annuity 

 

50 The Transferee Class also alleged that the annuity transaction breached a fiduciary 

duty by underfunding the Plan in violation of several statutes. The district court dismissed 

this claim and, although the Transferee Class makes passing reference to underfunding in 

its brief, it does not substantively urge review the district court’s dismissal of this ground on 

appeal. The issue is therefore waived. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994) 

(citation omitted).

51 The SAC does not describe in any detail how selecting an internal annuity was an 

amendment-compliant option within the discretion of Plan fiduciaries. At a minimum, 

however, maintaining the PBGC protections sought by the Transferee Class requires the 

payment of premiums, see 29 U.S.C. § 1307, which would run afoul of the amendment’s 

requirement that, after the annuity transaction, “the Plan shall have no further obligation to 

make any payment with respect to any pension benefit of a Designated Participant.” ROA.120 

(emphasis added).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

17

contract. In the first instance and as the district court noted, the determination 

to transfer assets to an annuity was a decision made by Verizon as settlor, and 

does not fall within the scope of its fiduciary duties. In Hughes Aircraft Co. v. 

Jacobson, the Supreme Court held that three fiduciary claims were foreclosed 

because “without exception, plan sponsors who alter the terms of a plan do not 

fall into the category of fiduciaries.”52 The Eighth Circuit decision in Howe v. 

Varity Corp.,53 a pre-Jacobson decision to which Appellants cite for the consent 

requirement, does not succeed in imputing fiduciary obligations to an action 

which the Supreme Court has deemed immune from those obligations. We 

further note that Appellants’ position is neither supported by the terms of 

ERISA, which itself contains no such requirement for consent, either in the 

provisions detailing fiduciary duties,54 or in the provisions governing ERISAcompliant annuity purchases.55

Failure to Communicate with Transferees. The Transferee Class also 

asserts that Plan fiduciaries breached their duty by not communicating with 

beneficiaries. Although the Transferee Class asserts that “ERISA and its 

accompanying regulations” require such communication, the Transferee Class 

does not cite any actual ERISA provisions, and only cites to the Ninth Circuit 

decision of Booton v. Lockheed Med. Benefit Plan, an inapposite opinion which 

discussed the ERISA-required documentation following the denial of 

benefits.56 Although the Annuity Regulation does require that participants 

receive notice of the terms of the benefits to which they are entitled as part of 

 

52 Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 443 (1999) (citing Lockheed Corp. v. 

Spink, 517 U.S. 882, 890-91 (1996)). 53 36 F.3d 746, 756 (8th Cir. 1994), aff’d on other grounds, 516 U.S. 489 (1996).

54 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a).

55 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-3(d)(2)(ii).

56 110 F.3d 1461, 1463 (9th Cir. 1997).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

18

the annuity transaction,57 it is undisputed that the Transferee Class received 

this notice. After the annuity transaction, the benefits are no longer governed 

by ERISA, and any nondisclosure does not give rise to a cognizable action.58

Expenses of Annuity Transaction. As part of the annuity transaction, it 

is undisputed that Verizon paid Prudential a total of $8.4 billion, $1 billion 

more than the amount of the transferred liabilities. The Transferee Class 

alleges that Verizon violated § 8.5 of the Plan, requiring that Plan assets be 

used for the exclusive benefit of Plan beneficiaries and participants, as well as 

reasonable expenses of administering the Plan and Pension Fund. In the SAC, 

the Transferee Class alleges as follows:

However, almost $1 billion more than necessary to cover the 

transferred liabilities was paid by Prudential by the Plan for 

amounts other than benefits and reasonable expenses of 

administering the Plan. The extra $1 billion payment was applied 

toward expenses, not for administering the ongoing Plan, but to 

enable avoidance of payment of such expenses by the Plan sponsor, 

[Verizon], thus violating Section 8.5 . . . .59

The extra $1 billion payment was used to pay Verizon’s-the 

settlor’s obligations for third-party costs related to the annuity 

transaction, including fees paid to outside lawyers, accountants, 

actuaries, financial consultants and brokers. Those expenses and 

fees should have been charged to Verizon’s corporate operating 

revenues, not charged to the Plan and Master Trust.60

The district court ruled that these allegations failed to state a claim by 

not specifying “which aspects of the extra $1 billion of expenditures were 

unreasonable, or how they were unreasonable.”61 The Transferee Class argues 

that the district court’s reasonableness analysis is misplaced, and that the 

 

57 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-3(d)(2)(ii).

58 See Beck v. PACE Intern. Union, 551 U.S. 96, 106 (2007). 59 SAC at ¶ 114 (emphasis in original).

60 Id. at ¶ 115.

61 Lee III, 2014 WL 1407416, at *4 (citing Lee II, 954 F.Supp.2d at 494).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

19

proper inquiry is whether the additional $1 billion in administrative costs was 

a settlor cost which was wrongfully paid from Plan assets, constituting a 

fiduciary breach. The Transferee Class supports their position by citing to a 

Department of Labor advisory opinion discussing plan-related expenses for 

which a settlor is responsible. The advisory opinion provides: 

Expenses incurred in connection with the performance of settlor 

functions would not be reasonable expenses of a plan as they would 

be incurred for the benefit of the employer and would involve 

services for which an employer could reasonably be expected to 

bear the cost in the normal course of its business operations. 

However, reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the 

implementation of a settlor decision would generally be payable by 

the plan.62

Appellants quote the first portion, but omit the italicized portion of the

advisory opinion from their brief.63 The effect of the advisory opinion, upon 

which Appellants otherwise rely, is two-fold. First, by contemplating that 

expenses implementing a settlor decision, such as an amendment and restructuring of a plan, are payable by the plan, the advisory opinion refutes 

Appellants’ argument that expenditures not associated with plan 

administration are unreasonable. Second, since implementation expenses by 

the plan are permitted to the degree they are reasonable, the advisory opinion 

focuses the critical inquiry on the reasonableness of the expenses.

In light of the foregoing, reasonableness of the expenses must be 

addressed by the Transferee Class’s allegations. Here, although the allegations 

enumerate various expenses associated with the implementation of Verizon’s 

decision as settlor, they wholly fail to address how those expenses are not 

reasonable expenses which are payable by the plan. To be sure, $1 billion in 

 

62 Dept. of Labor Advisory Opinion 2001-01A (January 18, 2001) (emphasis added). 

Available at: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/aos/ao2001-01a.html. 63 See Blue Br. 38–39.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

20

expenses is a large sum but, in light of the $7.5 billion in attendant obligations, 

we will not conclude that this allegation alone is sufficient to support 

unreasonableness under our pleading standards. In light of the threadbare 

allegations, along with the size and complexity of the annuity transaction, we 

agree with the district court’s dismissal of this ground as insufficiently 

supported.

Failure to Select Multiple Annuity Providers. The Transferee Class 

further alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by selecting Prudential as the sole 

annuity provider. Regarding the selection of an annuity provider, this court 

described the relevant inquiry in Bussian v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., as follows:

[W]hether the fiduciary, in structuring and conducting a thorough 

and impartial investigation of annuity providers, carefully 

considered [the factors enumerated in the Department of Labor 

Interpretive Bulletin 95-1] and any others relevant under the 

particular circumstances it faced at the time of decision. If so, a 

fiduciary satisfies ERISA's obligations if, based upon what it 

learns in its investigation, it selects an annuity provider it 

“reasonably concludes best to promote the interests of [the plan's] 

participants and beneficiaries.”64

In a later decision, we clarified that the test of fiduciary prudence “is one 

of conduct, not results.”65 Even where a fiduciary’s conduct does not meet that 

standard, “ERISA's obligations are nonetheless satisfied if the provider 

selected would have been chosen had the fiduciary conducted a proper 

investigation.”66

In support of this showing, the Transferee Class simply alleges that a 

more prudent choice would have been to contract with more than one insurer, 

to avoid “put[ting] all of the Plan’s eggs in one basket” and “placing everyone 

 

64 223 F.3d 286, 300 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Donovan v. Bierwirth, 680 F.2d 263, 271 

(2d Cir. 1982)) (second alteration in original).

65 Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 526 F.3d 243, 253 (5th Cir. 2008).

66 Bussian v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 223 F.3d 286, 300 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

21

in jeopardy of losing retirement benefits based upon the fortunes of a single 

insurer.”67 The district court ruled that these allegations did not support a 

fiduciary breach because they were conclusory.68 While that is a basis for 

dismissing this ground, the allegations also only implicate the results of the 

process, and not the conduct of FCI. 

Additionally, however, the SAC includes allegations implicating the 

conduct of the Plan fiduciaries, asserting that the Prudential selection occurred 

on the same day as the amendment’s adoption and that “VIMCO and Plan 

fiduciaries did not prudently allow any period of time, much less a reasonable 

time period for consideration [of the annuity provider(s)].”69 Acknowledging 

that these allegations might plausibly assert that the Plan fiduciaries did not 

consider any annuity provider other than Prudential, the district court ruled 

that such an interpretation nevertheless was rendered implausible in light of 

other allegations in the SAC. To wit, the SAC alleges both that VIMCO 

employed FCI almost two months prior to the alleged date of decision,70 and 

that FCI had submitted a written determination of the transaction’s 

compliance with ERISA over a month prior to the date of the amendment.71

We agree, and find no error in the district court’s dismissal of the 

Transferee Class’s claim for fiduciary breach.

D. Violation of ERISA § 510, 29 U.S.C. § 1140

The Transferee Class also alleged a violation of ERISA § 510 in the Plan 

amendment’s transfer of benefit obligations for only certain Plan participants, 

 

67 SAC at ¶ 109.

68 See Lee III at 2014 WL 1407416, at *7.

69 SAC at ¶ 110.

70 Id. at ¶ 29(A).

71 Id. at ¶ 29(C).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

22

asserting that such expulsion represented intentional interference with rights 

of the transferred participants.72

Section 510 provides that it is “unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, 

suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a participant . . . for the 

purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such 

participant may become entitled under the plan.”73 The district court 

dismissed this claim, ruling that the Transferee Class failed to allege a viable 

right with which Verizon intended to interfere.74

Although acknowledging that § 510 requires discrimination “for the 

purpose of interfering with” a right, Appellants posit that § 510 prohibits 

expulsion without any intent-to-interfere requirement. Appellees argue that 

the prohibition on expulsion, like that on discrimination, must be made with 

the intent to interfere with a right under the plan. Neither party provides 

authority for their positions, and instead rely solely on their interpretation of 

the provision’s language.

Appellees’ argument that expulsion must be attended by intent to 

interfere in order to be actionable, however, is supported by a practical 

consideration. Appellants’ construction would divorce the intent-to-interfere 

requirement from any prohibition other than discrimination, which would also 

divorce those prohibitions from the object of the interference, i.e. “any right to 

which such participant may become entitled under the plan.” Such a reading, 

 

72 As an initial point, Appellants argue that this case brings the question of whether 

a plan amendment can be actionable under § 510 directly before the court, and cites several 

previous opinions which did not address the issue. See McGann v. H & H Music Co., 946 F.2d 

401, 406 n.8 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom, Greenberg v. H & H Music Co., 506 U.S. 

981 (1992); Hines v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 43 F.3d 207, 210 n.5 (5th Cir. 1995), overruled 

on other grounds, Arana v. Ochsner Health Plan, 338 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2003). However, 

because we hold that Appellants failed to allege a right with which Verizon intended to 

interfere, the issue is not before us.

73 29 U.S.C. § 1140.

74 Lee III, 2014 WL 1407416, at *2 (citing Lee II, 954 F.Supp.2d at 495).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 22 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

23

which separates ERISA prohibitions from any rights in the ERISA-governed 

plan, is overly broad. 

Thus reading the expulsion prohibition to require an intent to interfere 

with a right under the Plan, Appellees proffer two bases for affirming the 

district court’s dismissal of this claim. First, as the district court ruled, the 

Transferee Class did not identify a viable right with which Verizon interfered. 

In the SAC, the Transferee Class alleges interference with two rights, their 

continued participation in the Plan, and ERISA and PBGC protections. The 

Transferee Class asserts their right to continued participation arises from the 

language in the SPD, providing: “You are a plan participant as long as you 

have a vested benefit in the plan that has not been paid to you in full.”75 The 

district court rejected this argument, noting that the Annuitization Regulation 

provides that an individual ceases to be a participant when benefit rights are 

guaranteed by an insurance company.76 On appeal, Appellants respond that, 

where the language of an SPD conflicts with that of a regulation, the SPD 

should control. This argument is unavailing even assuming the SPD controls

because the SPD advised participants of the potential amendments which 

could affect their rights.77 Although unaddressed by the district court, the 

Transferee Class assertion of rights in ERISA and PBGC protections is 

unsupported. As previously discussed regarding Appellants’ similar assertion 

in Issue I, there is little support in ERISA provisions or regulations, or case 

law, for including ERISA protections and PBGC benefits as rights to which a 

plan participant is entitled.78 Further, as Appellees point out, the right to any 

 

75 ROA.77.

76 See 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-3(d)(2)(ii) (2015).

77 ROA.75.

78 See III.B., supra.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 23 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

24

of ERISA and PBGC protections is dependent on the class members’ right to 

continued participation. 

By failing to allege a viable right with which the amendment interfered, 

the Transferee Class failed to state a claim and we find no error in the 

dismissal of this claim.

E. Constitutional Standing

On behalf of the Non-Transferee Class, Plaintiff Pundt asserts, through 

ERISA § 502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3), a claim for relief under 

ERISA § 409(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1109, for violation of fiduciary obligations by the 

Plan fiduciaries. The district court ruled in Lee III that Pundt lacked 

constitutional standing to assert this claim, as asserted in the SAC, by 

reference to its prior basis for dismissal in Lee II.79 Pundt challenges this ruling 

on appeal, and we must first address this challenge prior to any consideration 

of the merits since “[t]he requirement that jurisdiction be established as a 

threshold matter . . . is inflexible and without exception.”80

Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA allows a civil action to be brought by “a 

participant, beneficiary or fiduciary for appropriate relief under [ERISA 

§ 409].”81 In turn, § 409(a) creates a right to relief against fiduciaries for the 

restoration of any loss to a plan resulting from the breach of “any of the 

responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon fiduciaries by this 

subchapter.”82 On appeal, the Non-Transferee Class asserts that Plan 

fiduciaries breached fiduciary duties by paying an excessive and unreasonable 

expense, echoing the ERISA § 404 basis alleged by the Transferee Class.83

 

79 See Lee III, 2014 WL 1407416, at *2 (citing Lee II, 954 F.Supp.2d at 496). 80 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998).

81 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) (2012). 82 29 U.S.C. 1109 (2012). 83 As with the allegations by the Transferee Class regarding breach of fiduciary duties 

under ERISA § 404(a), the Non-Transferee Class alleged below that the annuity transaction 

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 24 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

25

The dispute centers not on whether Pundt has statutory standing under 

§ 502, but instead whether he has constitutional standing under Article III.84

In order to establish the “irreducible, constitutional minimum” of Article-III 

standing,85 “a plaintiff must show (1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal 

connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a 

likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”86 The 

showing involves an injury-in-fact requirement that the plaintiff has a 

“personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,”87 such that the injury is 

“concrete and particularized,” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or 

hypothetical.”88 “An allegation of future injury may suffice if the threatened 

injury is ‘certainly impending,’ or there is a ‘substantial risk’ that the harm 

will occur.’”89

The district court ruled that Pundt had failed to allege an injury in fact 

sufficient to support constitutional standing. Appellants argue Pundt was 

injured through “losses to Plan assets held on [Pundt’s] behalf as a direct result 

of the fiduciary mismanagement of Plan assets in violation of ERISA,” and that 

this “invasion of his statutory right to proper management of Plan assets” is 

sufficiently concrete to provide standing.90 Appellees argue instead that 

constitutional standing requires allegations to support injury against an 

 

underfunded the Plan in violation of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. The NonTransferee Class, however, does not urge review of those allegations on appeal.

84 U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. 

85 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

86 Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, --- U.S. ---, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2341 (2014) (quoting 

Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 87 Id. (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)).

88 Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560) (internal quotation marks omitted).

89 Id. (quoting Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. ---, --- n.5, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1147, 

1150 n.5) (internal quotation marks omitted).

90 Blue Br. 52.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 25 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

26

individual’s benefit payments, rather than injury to the plan as a whole. We 

agree with the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Direct Harm to Participants. Pundt first argues that fiduciary 

misconduct to his defined benefit plan presents individually cognizable harm, 

but this position is not supported by case law. The cases cited by Appellants 

discuss plans which, in contrast to the defined-benefit plan at issue here, 

present a more direct risk of harm from fiduciary misconduct.91 For example,

as the Supreme Court explained in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., “[f]or 

defined contribution plans . . . fiduciary misconduct need not threaten the 

solvency of the entire plan to reduce benefits below the amount that 

participants would otherwise receive.”92 As a result, other circuit courts have 

held that participants in defined-contribution plans had redressable, Article

III standing because alleged fiduciary breaches had a direct effect on the 

amount of benefits.93

A defined-contribution plan presents a starkly different circumstance 

than a defined-benefit plan, which “‘as its name implies, is one where the 

employee, upon retirement, is entitled to a fixed periodic payment.’”94 In 

contrast to plans in which fiduciary misconduct might present a more direct 

impact on a participant’s interest, fiduciary misconduct in a defined-benefit 

plan “will not affect an individual’s entitlement to a defined benefit unless it 

creates or enhances the risk of default by the entire plan” since such a plan 

 

91 See Tolbert v. RBC Capital Markets Corp., 758 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering 

ERISA’s application to a wealth accumulation plan, another type of “employee pension 

benefit plan” whereby benefits are dependent upon individual employee contributions and 

investment performance); Leigh v. Engle, 727 F.2d 113 (7th Cir. 1984) (considering a profitsharing trust).

92 LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 552 U.S. 248, 255–56 (2008).

93 See, e.g., Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728, 735–36 (9th Cir. 2009).

94 Beck v. PACE Intern. Union, 551 U.S. 96, 98 (2007) (quoting Comm’r v. Keystone 

Consol. Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 152, 154 (1993)).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 26 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

27

“consists of a general pool of assets rather than individual dedicated 

accounts.”95 As a result, the injury to participants like Pundt is attenuated as, 

prior to default under the plan, “the employer typically bears the entire 

investment risk and—short of the consequences of plan termination—must 

cover any underfunding as the result of a shortfall that may occur from the 

plan's investments.”96 Moreover, even where an employer is unable to cover 

underfunding, the impact on participants is not certain since the PBGC 

provides statutorily-defined protection of participants’ benefits.97

The degree to which the impact of fiduciary misconduct must be realized 

on this causal chain in order to establish standing is a matter of first 

impression for this court. However, considering similar circumstances, our 

sister circuits have concluded that constitutional standing for defined-benefit 

plan participants requires imminent risk of default by the plan, such that the 

participant’s benefits are adversely affected; in turn, those courts have held 

that fiduciary misconduct, standing alone without allegations of impact on 

individual benefits, is too removed to establish the requisite injury.98 The 

Fourth Circuit found such “risk-based theories of standing unpersuasive, not 

least because they rest on a highly speculative foundation lacking any 

discernible limiting principle.”99 It is true that those courts considered plans 

which remained overfunded after the alleged fiduciary misconduct, while here 

the complaint alleges that, immediately after the annuity transaction, the plan 

 

95 LaRue, 552 U.S. at 255 (contrasting the impact of fiduciary misconduct in definedcontribution and defined-benefit plans).

96 Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 439 (1999).

97 See 29 U.S.C. § 1322.

98 See, e.g., David v. Alphin, 704 F.3d 327, 338 (4th Cir. 2013); Harley v. Minn. Mining 

& Mfg. Co., 284 F.3d 901, 906 (8th Cir. 2002), Perelman v. Perelman, 919 F.Supp.2d 512, 

517–520 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2013), aff’d, 2015 WL 4174537 (3rd Cir. July 13, 2015). 99 David, 704 F.3d at 338.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 27 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

28

was “left in a far less stable financial condition and underfunded by almost $2 

billion or only about 66% actuarially funded.”100

However, regardless of whether the plan is allegedly under- or overfunded, the direct injury to a participants’ benefits is dependent on the 

realization of several additional risks, which collectively render the injury too 

speculative to support standing. In the first instance and as previously 

discussed, absent plan termination, the employer must cover any shortfall 

resulting from plan instability.101 Pundt’s allegation that the plan was 

underfunded, and less financially stable, merely increases the relative 

likelihood that Verizon will have to cover a shortfall. However, Pundt’s 

allegations do not further allege the realization of risks which would create a 

likelihood of direct injury to participants’ benefits. To wit, Pundt does not 

allege a plan termination, an inability by Verizon address a shortfall in the 

event of a termination, or a direct effect thereof on participants’ benefits; on 

the contrary, Appellants concede on appeal that the actuarial underfunding 

resulted in no direct injury to Pundt. 

Pundt also asserts that he directly suffered constitutionally cognizable 

injury through invasion of his statutorily created right, specifically that the 

alleged fiduciary breach from the mismanagement of Plan assets constitutes 

an invasion of his statutory rights to proper Plan management, and invokes 

principles of disgorgement. In David v. Alphin, however, the Fourth Circuit

rejected a similar argument as conflating the concepts of statutory and 

constitutional standing.102 We agree with the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning in this 

regard. Article III standing is distinct from statutory standing, and we decline 

to undermine this distinction by recognizing the latter as conferring the 

 

100 ROA.1386.

101 See Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 439 (1999).

102 See David, 704 F.3d at 338.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 28 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

29

former. Though the Supreme Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife allowed 

that the invasion of statutory rights might create standing, Lujan addressed 

constitutional standing arising from de facto injury, which is not alleged by a 

breach of fiduciary duty.103 Importantly, the Lujan Court clarified that a 

legislative creation of rights does not eliminate the injury requirement for a 

party seeking review.104 Accordingly, at least with regard to a direct injury to 

Pundt as a class representative, we conclude that the allegations are 

insufficient to support his standing to assert this claim.

Harm to Plan as Injury-in-Fact. While the alleged fiduciary misconduct 

is thus too attenuated to suffice as direct injury to Pundt, Appellants 

alternatively assert that the injury to the Plan itself is sufficient because Pundt 

is statutorily authorized to assert the claim on behalf of the Plan. 

In support of his argument that a direct-benefit plan participant may 

bring suit on behalf of the plan, Appellants quote (without attribution) the 

Supreme Court’s discussion in Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC 

Services, Inc., of the various examples where courts permit suit for the benefit 

of parties that are not themselves bringing suit.105 The Sprint Court held that 

an assignee for collection has Article III standing, even where the recovered 

proceeds of the claim are promised to the assignor, and even though the 

assignee did not originally suffer any injury.106 Supporting the proposition that 

“the assignee of a claim has standing to assert the injury in fact suffered by the 

assignor,” the Sprint Court cited to Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. 

 

103 504 U.S. 555, 577–78 (1992).

104 See id. at 578. 105 554 U.S. 269, 287–88 (2008) (noting that “federal courts routinely entertain suits 

which will result in relief for parties that are not themselves directly bringing suit. Trustees 

bring suits to benefit their trusts; guardians ad litem bring suits to benefit their wards; 

receivers bring suit to benefit their receiverships; assignees in bankruptcy bring suit to 

benefit bankrupt estates; executors bring suit to benefit testator estates; and so forth.”).

106 554 U.S. at 285–87.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 29 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

30

United States ex rel. Stevens.107 In Vermont Agency, the Court held that a 

relator had Article III standing to bring a qui tam action because, through the 

government’s partial assignment its claim for damages, the government had 

conferred its injury in fact to the relator.108 In both Sprint and Vermont Agency, 

the Court found that the petitioners had standing based on the history and 

precedent permitting assignees to maintain suit.109

In light of this precedent, Appellants posit that Plan participants may 

bring suit in a quasi-representative capacity, satisfying Article III’s injury-infact requirement via an injury to the Plan. However, we decline to adopt this 

position because both Sprint and Vermont Agency are distinguishable in 

critical respects. First, those cases involved assignment between the parties, 

while here the Plan and Plan participants have no such relationship, and the

Appellants do not argue that ERISA effects such an assignment (as did the 

statute in Vermont Agency). Since the Court’s reasoning in both cases was 

firmly grounded on the history and tradition of assignment relationships, 

applying that reasoning to a circumstance in which no such relationship 

existed is speculative. 

Second and even more significant, Sprint and Vermont Agency both 

involved the assignor as the injured party. Here, on the other hand, Appellants 

seek standing based on statutory authorization by an uninjured government, 

to seek redress by one private party of the injury to another private party. As 

the Eighth Circuit noted regarding similar circumstances, extending Sprint in 

such a way raises “serious constitutional concerns,” because “[i]f Congress 

could assign an ERISA plan’s claim to a participant who is not injured, . . . then 

what principled reason would preclude Congress from assigning the claim to 

 

107 529 U.S. 765 (2000).

108 See id. at 773.

109 See Sprint, 554 U.S. at 285–86.

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 30 Date Filed: 08/17/2015
No. 14-10553

31

any stranger?”110 Collectively, the facts and reasoning of Sprint and Vermont 

Agency allow a practical answer to this question, permitting Congress to satisfy 

the injury-in-fact by statutory assignment, yet only when the government is 

the injured party. Bearing in mind that “[i]n no event . . . may Congress 

abrogate Article III minima,” we decline to otherwise construe and expand the 

reasoning of Sprint.111

For those reasons, we find no error the district court’s dismissing the 

claim of the Non-Transferee Class for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

 

110 McCullough v. AEGON USA Inc., 585 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 2009).

111 Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979).

 Case: 14-10553 Document: 00513157171 Page: 31 Date Filed: 08/17/2015