You may find this one (link below) interesting although the money involved is a relatively small amount, equivalent to about £133K (plus interest since 2000).
It is a ruling by South Africa's equivalent to our Pensions Ombudsman. IBM agreed early retirement, without any pension reduction, for four people. They did not tell the trustees they had done this until later. The trustees had to go to the adjudicator to get IBM to pay into the fund the extra cost of what IBM had decided.
Details are in the document; the decision favoured the trustees, with the adjudicator asking "Why should the fund, under ambush, utilise its funds to finance the respondent's business decisions?"
I find this interesting because (a) our trust's decision to allow transfers of C-Plan funds to the M-Plan was in support of an IBM plan to double the membership of our pension schemes and provide only money purchase pensions for the great majority of the additional people, and (b) as a measure of how far IBM central will go to avoid paying into trust funds. It was not as if they were being asked to lose £133K, they were only being asked to put it in the trust fund where it would grow and be used to pay IBM's debts to retirees. There is something doctrinaire about their unwillingness - why else all the lawyer expense in trying to avoid funding early something that had to be paid eventually anyway?
(Not with trustee hat on)