District Court Sides With Allegheny Technologies in PRT Complaint

A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed a complaint against Allegheny Technologies Inc. for carrying out a pension risk transfer. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because even if the chosen insurer failed, they would not suffer a reduction in benefits.

U.S. District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan, presiding over Schoen et al. v. ATI Inc. et al., ultimately sided with a federal magistrate judge’s recommendation from October 2025 that, like several other pro-employer PRT rulings, held that plaintiffs lack standing to sue unless they can claim a PRT reduced promised benefits.

The plaintiffs in Schoen argued that ATI’s PRT with insurer Athene Annuity and Life Assurance Co. breached the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, since it allegedly harmed their rights to receive retirement benefits. They argued that the insurer was not the “safest annuity available” and that the transaction resulted in the plaintiffs losing ERISA protections, which breached the plan sponsor’s fiduciary duties and created a risk of future harm in the event that Athene became insolvent and reduced payments.

Ranjan dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ arguments, citing the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., which essentially found that as long as plaintiffs continue to receive their promised benefits, they do not have standing, no matter how the insurer is managed.

Ranjan was most sympathetic to the fifth claim of potential future harm—that because “Athene is a risky insurer,” the PRT created substantial risk. He ruled that was an argument that Thole did not preclude, but ruled that the “allegations don’t create the necessary substantial risk that the harm at issue—losing pension benefits—will occur.”

According to the court, for plaintiffs to be harmed, Athene would need to fail, “suffer catastrophic losses,” lack alternative funding sources and lack the ability to cover participant losses. Additionally, plaintiff needs would to have exceed the amount covered by state insurance guaranty associations—$250,000 in most states—according to Ranjan’s decision.

“It seems more likely than not that, even if Athene failed, plaintiffs would still see no reduction in their retirement payments,” Ranjan wrote.

The Department of Labor and several industry groups have frequently filed amicus briefs supporting employers in PRT cases, particularly those before appellate courts, arguing that plaintiffs lack standing unless they receive less than their promised benefits.

According to Encore Fiduciary, 12 pension risk transfer disputes were filed in 2024, but only one was filed in 2025. Davis & Harman LLP, which represents employers in ERISA disputes, noted that no new PRT cases were filed in 2026 through May, according to its PRT litigation tracker.

At least six of the complaints have been dismissed by courts, with two cases surviving a motion to dismiss, according to a PLANPSONSOR analysis of the PRT complaints. Two complaints await rulings.

Schlichter Bogard LLC represents plaintiffs in the complaint against ATI, while Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP represents the employer.