"Defendants focus, in particular, on participants who received seniority enhancements under the cash balance plan. Those participants, Defendants contend, experienced little to no wear-away, but in fact received more relief than other participants because they benefitted from a windfall created by the cumulative effect of the 'A benefit' and 'B benefit' ordered by the district court.... [We] review a district court's award of equitable relief 'only for an abuse of discretion or for a clear error of law,' Amara II ... and we detect none here. As we stated in Amara II, the equitable remedy of reformation is governed by contract principles, and a district court may 'properly reform[] [a pension] plan to reflect the representations that the defendants made to the plaintiffs.' " [Osberg v. Foot Locker, No. 15-3602 (2d Cir. July 6, 2017)]  MORE >>