DOL Anchors Wave of Briefs Backing Bristol-Myers in PRT Appeal

The U.S. Department of Labor has expanded its campaign to defend employers’ utilization of pension risk transfer transactions by filing an amicus brief in a Bristol-Myers Squibb appeal, joining a coalition of business groups, insurers and state attorneys general urging the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a district court decision that allowed retirees’ ERISA claims to proceed against a Bristol-Myers Squibb pension risk transfer.

The filings collectively argue that the plaintiffs—company pension fund beneficiaries—lack Article III standing to bring suit because they continue to receive their full pension benefits and that allowing such lawsuits to proceed could undermine employers’ willingness to sponsor defined benefit pension plans.

The latest filing marks the second time the department has sided with employers in pension risk transfer litigation this year, following its January amicus brief supporting Lockheed Martin in a similar case before the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Together, the briefs signal a broader shift in the department’s litigation strategy under the administration of President Donald Trump. The agency is taking an active role in defending pension risk transfers as lawful and subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, pushing back against what it has characterized as “regulation by litigation.”

It also continues a broader campaign from the department to use amicus filings to weigh in on appellate cases that concern ERISA disputes. For instance, the DOL has frequently sided with employers on plan sponsors’ discretion to use retirement plan forfeiture money.

What the DOL Argued

The appeal against Bristol-Myers Squibb stems from a September 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Garnett concluded that former Bristol-Myers Squibb employees Charles Doherty and Michael Noel had plausibly alleged that the company’s 2019 transfer of approximately $2.6 billion in pension liabilities to Athene Annuity and Life Co. exposed those employees to a “substantial risk” of future harm. The court dismissed several claims, but allowed the plaintiffs’ core allegations—that Bristol-Myers, its pension committee and State Street Global Advisors breached ERISA’s duties of prudence and loyalty—to move forward.

In its July 21 brief, the DOL argued that Garnett erred by permitting speculative future risks to satisfy Article III standing. According to the DOL, the plaintiffs have continued receiving every pension payment owed to them and alleged no “certainly impending” injury, making their claims incompatible with Supreme Court precedent, including that set in Thole v. U.S. Bank. The DOL also argued that the plaintiffs cannot create standing merely by alleging a fiduciary breach, absent any concrete harm.

Thole, decided in 2020 in a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, essentially determined that retirees in defined benefit plans who receive guaranteed payments cannot bring federal lawsuits for fiduciary mismanagement unless their benefits are directly threatened.

In its Bristol-Myers brief, the Labor Department also reiterated its view of Interpretive Bulletin 95-1, arguing that ERISA does not require fiduciaries to select the single safest annuity provider available. Rather, fiduciaries satisfy their obligations by following a prudent process that balances the factors outlined in the bulletin. The brief warns that courts should not use hindsight to second-guess fiduciary decisions after a transaction has been completed.

Beyond the issue of standing, the department warned that allowing such PRT lawsuits to proceed would have broader consequences for the retirement system. According to the brief, pension risk transfers are expressly contemplated under ERISA and provide employers with a mechanism to manage pension liabilities, while preserving participants’ benefits. The filing argues that exposing every transfer to years of litigation would discourage employers from maintaining defined benefit plans and would ultimately harm American workers.

The DOL’s brief was joined by several organizations representing different segments of the retirement and insurance industries, each emphasizing distinct policy concerns.

The collection of amicus briefs mirrors many of the arguments the DOL advanced earlier this year when it entered PRT litigation for the first time in support of Lockheed Martin. In that case, the department similarly argued that participants who continue receiving full pension benefits lack standing to sue over a transfer to an annuity provider and maintained that fiduciary duties focus on the decisionmaking process—not backward-looking assessments of outcomes.

Industry Groups Weigh In

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s brief made arguments similar to the DOL’s, stating that the plaintiffs failed to allege any concrete injury and warned that permitting litigation based solely on hypothetical future risks would invite “meritless” ERISA lawsuits.

Meanwhile, the American Council of Life Insurers’ brief focused on the regulatory framework governing insurers that assume pension liabilities. It detailed the industry’s capital requirements, reserve rules, ongoing solvency oversight and guaranty association protections, arguing that life insurers operate under a comprehensive state regulatory system designed to protect annuity holders. The organization also argued that reinsurance arrangements do not diminish an insurer’s obligations to policyholders.

The ERISA Industry Committee, the American Benefits Council and the Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets argued that providing defined benefit plans remains voluntary under ERISA and that pension risk transfers have long served as an accepted mechanism for employers seeking to reduce pension liabilities. Their brief further asserted that ERISA does not require fiduciaries to identify a single “safest” annuity provider and stressed that participants continue receiving the same promised benefits after a transfer as they had prior to it.

A coalition led by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and joined by 12 other states’ AGs argued that the lawsuit effectively challenges the legitimacy of state insurance regulation. Because Iowa serves as Athene’s primary regulator, the states contended that the plaintiffs’ allegations amount to an unsupported “attack” on state regulators’ ability to oversee insurer solvency. The states further argued that no pensioner has lost benefits through a state-regulated pension risk transfer annuity and that the alleged future risks are too speculative to establish standing.

The 2nd Circuit hears cases from New York, Connecticut, and Vermont district courts, while the 4th Circuit, which is presiding over the Lockheed Martin case, hears cases from Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.