At issue: whether or not a supplemental executive retirement plan drafted before the addition of the $200,000 compensation cap to Internal Revenue Code section 401(a)(17) legally operated to provide supplemental benefits that were unaffected by that compensation cap, due to promissory estoppel supported by ambiguity in the terms of the plan. Held: no ambiguity; the plan's terms did not provide benefits beyond the limit imposed by the cap. [Aramony v. United Way of America, No. 00-7146 (2d Cir. June 20, 2001)]  MORE >>