to intervene. We decline to address all other issues on appeal as moot. 1 . For purposes of establishing standing, Taylor seeks to recast her complaint as one not alleging artificial inflation. This attempt is disingenuous at best. The complaint clearly alleges that KeyCorp stock was artificially inflated. ("During the Class Period the market price of KeyCorp common stock was artificially inflated due to the concealment of KeyCorp’s true financial and operating condition[.]"). Taylor cannot avoid the consequences of this allegation at this juncture. 2 . Similarly, several courts have found plaintiffs to be without Article III standing when the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty resulted in no economic harm. See Harley v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 284 F.3d 901, 906-07 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Piazza v. EBSCO Indus., Inc., 273 F.3d 1341,
holding that beneficiaries of an estate lacked standing under rico to sue for an injury derivative of the estates injury holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under  502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that an erisa plaintiff lacked standing because the plan portfolio had a surplus and thus did not experience actual injury