Kentucky Court Holds That Public Pension Plan Beneficiaries Lack Standing To Sue

JD
Jones Day

Contributor

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Kentucky Supreme Court. We will continue to monitor further developments.
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

A lower court's decision to allow beneficiaries of Kentucky's Public Retirement System to sue administrators and advisors over fiduciary responsibilities is overturned.

As we previously discussed in our Alert " Novel Suit by Kentucky Pension Beneficiaries Continues," in December 2017, beneficiaries of Kentucky's public pension system ("KRS") sued various KRS trustees, officers, advisors, and investment managers in state court. Mayberry et al. v. KKR & Co., L.P. et al., No. 17-CI-1348 ("Mayberry"). In November 2018, the trial court denied defendants' joint motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Various defendants appealed the trial court's ruling to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

Just recently, the Court of Appeals vacated the lower court's order, holding the plaintiffs-beneficiaries lacked standing to sue under Kentucky law. The Court of Appeals rejected all four grounds on which the lower court had found standing. The Court held that: (i) the plaintiffs-beneficiaries had not satisfied Kentucky's test for constitutional standing because they did not allege any "impairment of their right to receive benefits"; (ii) standing could not be based on Kentucky's statute imposing fiduciary duties on the KRS officers and trustees, as "statutory 'standing' is not a substitute for constitutional standing"; (iii) a state pension fund is not a trust for the purposes of allowing a beneficiary to sue a third party; and (iv) taxpayer standing was lacking because plaintiffs-beneficiaries had "asserted a mere speculation or expectancy that their taxes have increased or will increase because of Defendants' actions."

The plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Kentucky Supreme Court. We will continue to monitor further developments.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More