Washington, D.C., November 25, 2025 – On Monday, The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) filed amicus briefs in two separate cases affecting pension plans governed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The first case represents a challenge to the practice of “pension risk transfers.” The second case involves a challenge to the use of “forfeitures” in 401(k) plans. An overview of each case is below along with comments that can be attributed to Tom Christina, Executive Director of the ERIC Legal Center. Links to each brief can be found at the conclusion of the overview.
Spohn v. International Business Machines Corporation
Spohn v. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) is a putative class action brought by former IBM employees challenging a transaction in which a defined benefit pension plan maintained by IBM purchased annuity contracts from an insurance company by transferring assets to the insurer, which agreed to be liable for payment of the former employees’ pension benefits. ERIC and a coalition of employers filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts supporting IBM’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, explaining that the plaintiffs had not been harmed in any way.
“Pension risk transfer cases are another fad cooked up by the plaintiffs’ bar. One thing is clear – these cases threaten to leave both employers and the courts drowning in costly and time-consuming litigation. This would be devastating to plan sponsors and the participants who rely on benefit plans for their financial security. The court can curtail the spread of this growing category of litigation by dismissing this case.”
ERIC was joined by the American Benefits Council and the Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets on the brief. Seyfarth Shaw LLP prepared the amicus brief, which is available here.
Wright v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Wright v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. represents a growing wave of class actions challenging the use of “forfeitures” in 401(k) plans to pay plan expenses or offset employer contributions — a practice that has been permitted under Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations that predate enactment of ERISA. ERIC and a coalition of trade associations filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold a lower court decision that dismissed the case with prejudice earlier this year.
“When the lower court dismissed this case, they made clear that it is permissible for plans to use forfeited funds to offset either employer contributions to the plan or plan expenses. Those options didn’t emerge from thin air. They were informed by more than half a century of regulatory and legislative precedent. But, unsatisfied with their “day in court,” the plaintiff’s bar is seeking the judicial equivalent of a “do-over.” The court can end the game now by affirming the decision of the lower court. This would bring this case to a close before more money is spent on legal fees, leaving less to be invested in the voluntary retirement plans that employees rely on for financial security.”
ERIC was joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Benefits Council, and the National Retail Federation on the brief. Goodwin Procter LLP prepared the amicus brief, which is available here.
