"The district court found that the communications to employees [about a 1996 modification of its pension plan to become a cash balance plan, causing a suspension of benefit accruals for four to five years for several thousand participants] were intentionally false and misleading ... You have to ask why this case did not settle. Well before trial, Foot Locker surely knew the facts were not favorable, and the plaintiffs also must have been concerned about serious legal issues.... There were legitimate limitations period issues. Compromise on technical actuarial factors (interest rates and mortality tables) might have been reasonable. The plaintiffs might have yielded on the windfall issue.... It might be difficult to find employment records back to 1996 ... But perhaps 'principle' took over.... This loss will cost Foot Locker [$180 million]." [Osberg v. Foot Locker, Inc., No. 15-3602 (2d Cir. July 6, 2017; cert. pet. filed Nov. 8, 2017)]  MORE >>