The dispute turns on the language of a 2005 pension plan amendment entitling certain Colgate retirees to a residual annuity to make up for benefits they forfeited when choosing to receive their pension in a lump sum. Colgate pushed for a narrow interpretation of the amendment, saying it was intended to correct a single calculation problem stemming from a 1989 ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.
