a decision that was unprecedented in the circuit or anywhere in holding that p b g c could be liable for benefits in excess of the statutory benefits procedural posture of the case two things first of all the rest of the case that is a more traditional benefit determination decision this proceeding in the district court we would have had a district court decision that had no basis or no ability on appeal to have that decision reviewed why i mean typically if there's if there's a decision that makes a difference the case currently is on the administrative record on benefit germination the five years or egregious case would involve probably a great deal of discovery additional motion practice and a trial which and i'm sure there's some context there that i'm missing i think your honor that you correctly observed that the first sentence is fairly under section thirteen forty two b or the day going to which the plan is terminated is to be allocated between the corporation in a manner determined by the court hear that sentence doesn't  whatever it means it doesn't apply because there was no press the appointed under thirteen forty two b although the king forty two b doesn't the very last part of it refer to a corporation testes corporation could step in and in understanding that is that if if one ever were to happen that is number one if it were to ever happen it would have to happen before number two so right so none of those things happened and so you go to the clear language of the second sentence which says any increase or decrease in the value of assets of a plan occurring after the date on which the plan is terminated should be credited to or suffered by the corporation so you acknowledge that this first sentence is hard to parse and you something in your recent answer suggested that you think maybe there was actually an error in the way that it was written and that seemed to be the position you took in your brief that was dealing with the potential period between when a tr base basically the idea is to keep that to have some accountability during that period i think so but it's not actually written that way at but you're just saying that's not our problem because it also is written at the parties and people really present two very dramatically different views of b g c and the title for insurance system that the plaintiffs argue and close their brief with the assertion that section thirteen individual participants have an interest in their planned benefit while that plan is ongoing whether there's allegations of pressure surely breach or not he's appearing more fundamental distinction and and i'm not arguing that here is what tor and those those might lead to very different responsibilities and cooperation from a writer yes your honor i mean certainly the pilots are asserting that through this whole process we've been acting as the trustee i review is and again title four in thirteen forty two section d talking about that  most of that argument would happen if that case were to go to trial because i think there is there's assertions in the plan that the plaintiff made that we were doing certain things clear in title line that an individual can only get plan my grief if they're arguing for the sherry creech and then total for is written a little bit differently but you have a theory that really invokes that title one limitation title for one i get that but in fact the only reason that you could sue people you see as a fiduciary is because title four says in thirteen forty two that in limited circumstances to be a title one for your share so implicit in that is your only as what are you the most sort of the high watermark for liability for p b c would be title one is to answer all of the questions and i wonder if you have any suggestions and you want to things that strikes me as we don't ordinarily decide issues an interlocutory basis and some of my response tentatively to some of these questions is well it depends you know on the nature of the climate depends on the context so i'm interested in where the firmest ground is that does that work in your view and i'm interested in that from that your honor i think i think that two points on the two questions the one that deals with a little bit what i've been talking about that title for says p can only participants are only entitled to their statutory benefits and under sections thirteen twenty three thirteen forty four and thirteen sixty one it's clear that's all that people g c is permitted to  that argument the fact that other reputable relief under title four here there's it still has to be addressed thing something that they are adversely affected one about when a claim for benefits can be accompanied by a claim under eleven thirty two re three for other equitable relief is one that and i think you probably don't need to reach that one probably don't know right but you can rely on i mean it seems like a pretty reach thirteen point four c issue for example you would need to return thing else in the context of this case but that wasn't the first thing out of your mouth when i said what do you think it is that promised why don't they respect the two arguments are related the fact that that the sections that say what we can pay limit us to the title for benefits that combined with and also get to what may be the paramount issue from our perspective so first of all in section thirteen forty four c your honor the second circuit has noticed exactly what you did that the first sentence in the second sentence are contradictory and don't seem to make they were appointed if you look to thirteen fourteen to be three it's seven is the corporation this isn't page one fifteen of these fish curry then them the corporation in the planning minister made agreed to the appointment of the trustees without receiving the forms with the requirements of one or two of that's what happened here they had an agreement with the plan administrator that they would be appointed the trustee and effect on page two of their opening brief they agreement was as to the appointment so and there and there is an appointment here by agreement and in fact the first sentence then of thirteen forty four so they've got it or you know he also talks about two because the later of the two days was the appointment of the trustee making the first sentence the trigger and the only part of that first sentence then that could become irrelevant since they were weren't a court appointed trustee is this the last part where they had date is not the terminations the later date is the appointment of the trustee in this situation meaning that they're the only thing that could from thirteen or three have the equity provision would have to come out of the first sentence so you're saying that  you compare it you take this the difference between the result under the first sentence which is a period from the appointment from that but the second circuit sort of addressed this in that can make a saying we can't make heads or tails of it of this and so it has to be interpreted narrow and we're not going to use it to override a district court's a great discretion in issuing remedies under under risk because thirteen forty four probably has a drafting error and judge killer but i think you mentioned that the drafting error is probably in the first one where the word any increase or decrease in the value of the assets of a single employer plan occurring during the period beginning  any of that are only allegations that wrongdoing occurred during the process of administering the plan and if the pvc gained as a result of it were entitled to that money under old equity this provision is an accounting measure moving money during a period of time has not come as an accounting more hypothetical discreet we have concrete harms here for instance one week two we identified the two financial harms in just claim one even if on all the benefit claims we are successful we still have concrete financial harm to one is for instance  losing money i mean ron would be losing bets can sort of backdrop if we look at the scheme as a whole and if we're going to have this this year in t part of what makes it work is they say wow you know retirees are in this tough place depending on when their plan fails what if it's a stock market crash we're going to take on insuring against that little sub piece as well as being  over on sure but just having a production interest guarantee and will suffer the losses or take the investment benefits during that period of time it seems like that's not an unreasonable approach for back and that's what they tried to do in kinnick in the courts if you can sue because you suffered a loss when someone else was responsible and we would say just like they could sue somebody if they suffered a loss the list at least we can sue just to get the game back when they  distinct role they have to be looking out for the assets of others as well right that that's the way in which they are very different type of trustee than you would be thinking of when you're talking about old equity well in the city they have to be watching out for funds for others not just for the plans right now when they're a trustee when they're a trustee they're looking out for our benefit that if congress could have said the p v c shall be the trustee in saying that it said all of this is to be done by a plan administrator was a trustee and then said the pvc or anyone else who is qualified could be the trustee so congress didn't qualify anything and actually all the equity is paramount because that's the way the supreme court has said in signatures of the mara for instance other financial harms between the estimated final benefits which had nothing to do with those other things in addition one of the thing that's mentioned in the first claim he is for instance that they whip sawed many of the pilots by saying it by giving them incomplete information so they couldn't there it says if a corporation in the planet is great or agree that a plane should be terminated and agree to the point of across the without proceeding in court then it's accomplished so there's two similar provisions one for case that they didn't raise in their grief or by twenty j letter and i would just point out a couple of things about tunic first of all it was addressing what happens in the pre term violations that the process complaints are about the benefit to terminations process that is complete they have there are benefits so if there amount that they're entitled to they've already got that claim in counts two through six so at that point the producer agrees assertion does become duplicative because it is asking to remedy the same injury exactly thank you thank you very much casey submitted