Former Employee Accuses IBM of ‘Imprudent’ PRT Decision

IBM and State Street stand accused of putting cost savings ahead of retirees’ security by handing $14 billion in pension obligations to a Prudential unit.

A former IBM employee has filed a complaint accusing the company of jeopardizing the retirement security of more than 132,000 former workers by offloading billions of dollars in pension obligations to an insurance subsidiary.

The complaint, filed Friday in the US District Court for Massachusetts, contends that IBM and its independent fiduciary partner State Street Global Advisors, violated federal pension law when they selected Prudential Insurance Company of America as its annuity provider in two pension risk transfers worth $14 billion.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter. 

IBM shifted pension responsibilities in two major transactions. First, a $16 billion transfer in September 2022 covering about 100,000 retirees was divided equally between Prudential and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of MetLife Inc. Then, another $6 billion covering 32,000 retirees was transferred to Prudential in September 2024.

Each deal moved retirees out of the protections of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a federal backstop that insures corporate pensions. Instead, the retirees became holders of group annuities issued by PICA.

According to the complaint, PICA is an “unsafe insurer” so IBM and SSGA acted imprudently in selecting PICA, which resembles arguments from previous PRT complaints.

The lawsuit claims that IBM and State Street Global Advisors, which acted as an independent fiduciary, failed to follow ERISA’s strict requirements to select the “safest available” annuity provider.

The lawsuit asks the court to order IBM to restore protections equivalent to those retirees lost, including by funding a trust or backstop. It seeks damages equal to the difference between the cost of PICA annuities and what it would have cost to select “the safest annuity available.”

In a statement, a Prudential spokesperson said, “Although Prudential is not a party to the lawsuit, Prudential vehemently denies the unsubstantiated and erroneous allegations made against it in the complaint. In filing this lawsuit, class action attorneys are attacking the state insurance regulatory system, the health of the entire pension risk transfer industry, and the very retirees whose pension obligations are safeguarded through these transactions.”