Ronald Morgan v. Daniel Bruton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that investment losses were cognizable losses to the ERISA plan because they reduced the pool of plan assets
• holding that, despite an 6 “imprudent investment,” the plaintiffs lacked standing because there was no actual injury
• holding no constitutional standing existed because the “loss. did not cause actual injury to plaintiffs’ interests in the plan”
• noting that because of minimum contribution requirements, diminutions in plan surplus generally do not result in actual harm to beneficiaries
• concluding prudential limits may be imposed if a plaintiffs complaint fails to fall within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated
• holding investment loss did not cause actual injury to defined benefit plan participants’ interests in the plan

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).