This case concerned the proper scope and interpretation of a 2005 amendment to the Plan that was retroactively effective as of July 1989.  July 1989 is when Colgate converted the Plan to a cash-balance pension plan and for the first time allowed participants to receive their benefits in the form of a lump sum.  Before that time, participants in the Plan could only receive their benefits in the form of a monthly annuity.  In 2005, Colgate adopted the Residual Annuity Amendment (“RAA”), which conferred, on a retroactive and prospective basis, an additional benefit, in the form of an annuity, for certain Plan participants who had elected a lump sum after July 1, 1989 but had not received the full value of their Plan benefit.  The lawsuit concerned how broad the RAA was, whom it covered and how it should be implemented.

In 2014, Colgate implemented the RAA but in a way that Plaintiff and Class counsel believed underpaid some Class members and failed to pay other Class members the residual annuities they were owed.   Accordingly, in June 2016, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Following the filing of the Complaint, Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by a release in a prior, related, partially settled lawsuit and/or the statute of limitations.  In February 2017, the Court denied Defendants’ motion.  Dkt. 35.  

In July 2017, overruling Defendants’ objections, the Court certified a class consisting of “any person who, under any of Appendices B, C or D of the Plan, is entitled to a greater benefit than his or her Accrued Benefit as defined in Plan § 1.2, provided such person received a lump sum payment from the Plan, and the beneficiaries and estates of any such person.”  Dkt. 75.

Fact and expert discovery lasted more than two years, during which, among other things, Class counsel received and analyzed many thousands of distinct electronically stored information and hard-copy documents and spreadsheets; took 10 defense-side depositions including that of Colgate’s actuarial expert; and defended the deposition of Plaintiffs’ actuarial expert and of Ms. McCutcheon.  

In April 2019, the Court ordered the parties to mediate.  That mediation occurred in mid-July 2019 and was unsuccessful.

Following the unsuccessful mediation, at the Court’s direction, Defendants moved for summary judgment.  On July 10, 2020, the Court denied Defendants’ motion.  Dkt. 265.  In August 2020, Plaintiffs requested and received leave to file for summary judgment on the remaining claims which motion the Court granted shortly thereafter.   McCutcheon v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 481 F.Supp.3d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“McCutcheon I”).

Defendants appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In early 2023, in McCutcheon II, the Court of Appeals ruled against Defendants, affirming this Court’s final judgment in all respects.  McCutcheon v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 62 F.4th 674 (2d Cir. 2023) (“McCutcheon II”).

Following the Second Circuit’s ruling in McCutcheon II, Defendants informed Plaintiffs that in their view they retained two arguments that were not foreclosed by either McCutcheon I or McCutcheon II that they wished to present to the Court that, if accepted, would reduce Class damages by “tens of millions of dollars.”  Plaintiffs did not accept Defendants’ contentions and requested leave to file a motion to revise the final judgment to specifically address and overrule Defendants’ defenses, both on the merits and on law-of-the-case grounds.  While the parties were briefing Plaintiffs’ motion for a revised final judgment, they entered into direct settlement negotiations.  Those negotiations, however, did not result in a settlement.

Meanwhile, Defendants filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, which petition Plaintiff opposed.  The Supreme Court declined to review the case.  

In March 2024, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a revised final judgment, agreeing with Plaintiffs’ arguments both on the merits and on law-of-the-case grounds.  McCutcheon v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 2024 WL 1332817 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2024) (“McCutcheon III”).  

Defendants appealed to the Second Circuit, which in April 2025 ruled again in Plaintiff’s favor.  McCutcheon v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 2025 WL 1009539 (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2025) (“McCutcheon IV”).

The parties subsequently conferred and agreed to try again to reach an accord and retained a private mediator.  After a 13 hour-long arms’-length mediation held June 2, 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle that would fully and finally resolve the litigation, and provide a settlement amount without further delay of nearly 100% of their unpaid residual annuities, calculated exactly as Plaintiff and Class Counsel alleged they should be calculated, brought forward with interest until today.  

After additional negotiations over the concrete terms of the agreement and working with their actuaries and experts to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the participant benefit calculations data needed to implement it, on August 29, 2025 the Class Action Settlement Agreement was fully memorialized and signed and submitted to the District Court to consider on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval.  That motion explains in detail why Plaintiff and Class Counsel believe that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Class Members.

In its Order of October 8, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and authorized Mailed Notice to be sent to members of the Class and Publication Notice to be published in USA Today.  She has scheduled a final approval hearing for January 12, 2026 at 2:30 pm.

At the January 12, 2026 final approval hearing, the Court orally granted final approval and on January 14, 2026 issued a written order confirming approval of the settlement.