A rapidly growing line of ERISA cases seeks to impose fiduciary standards of conduct—developed by courts largely in the retirement plan context—to health plan design choices. The most recent, Barbich et al. v. Northwestern University et al., No. 1:25-cv-06849 (N.D. Ill.) filed on June 20, 2025, involves a new and potentially disruptive twist: plaintiffs
On March 28, 2025, two neighboring district courts issued sharply contrasting decisions on constitutional standing in lawsuits challenging pension risk transfers under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in Camire et al. v. Alcoa USA Corp. (“Alcoa Decision”)
Earlier this year, current and former participants of two ERISA-governed health plans filed complaints alleging the same novel legal theory: that plan fiduciaries violated ERISA by mismanaging the plan’s prescription drug benefits. In both complaints, plaintiffs alleged that the mismanagement was caused in part by the plans paying excessive and unreasonable fees to their respective