Anyway the retroactive modification of a plan can't be used to diminish damages to which participants have been held entitled, even if the modification is lawful. In effect the defendant is arguing that okay, we screwed our participants unlawfully, but we could have screwed them lawfully, and that’s what we’ve now done by amending the plan, and since the amendment is retroactive it wipes out the claims on which the case is based, mooting the lawsuit.
Ruppert v. Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan, No. 12-3067, slip op. 6 (7th Cir. Aug. 9, 2013) (Posner, J.); but see Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, No. 12-304-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 9, 2013) (holding that defendant darn well can screw plaintiffs by making their claims too costly to pursue) (following Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013)).
Bonus: "Supreme Court Majority Kills Again".