reports from what you say it seems to be everybody who ever was an active member of a plan unless they can see that they have been fully paid which they could never do because they might later discover some new fraud on the part of the judiciary in which case under your logic nobody ever ceases to be an active member of the play and that just seems like suit then he'll claim again that he has standing because he'll say i still haven't been paid all the benefits to which i'm hoping so there's no end to it even for your client even if you prevails in the current was under your understand the difference between types of claim but that only helps to standing immediately for one of the two categories you're client is in the other category we're trying to figure out how his standing and membership ever ends and i still don't hear an answer what is what is the what is the rule of reason that says that your call it is covered but there is an end court i'm not suing for vested benefits i'm suing on behalf of the plane for damages under the language of the state in provision which he have standing or not yes people how can it be we see no standing here can mr norton sue in state court on the grounds that these transactions for outside of the governance of the arista act well i think that is getting far intent of congress was to cover universally anybody who could have been hurt by hearing fraud we knew very easy for the congress in the standing section to simply say i'm i'm trying to figure out what logically congress would've intended given the words they used and of trying to do that by seeing what turn of words they might have used if their intent was to cover absolutely everybody who could have suffered any sort of economic harm from the floor and by the fiduciaries so why couldn't they have just said anyone who is worked ever was a member of a plane who that's  history that preceded it ackman of the bill we're evidence for example in a committee report burn a floor debate that they intended to cover everybody was hard doing you'll use the language damages and benefits but what the court was ultimately doing was distinguishing between claims that come from plan and that would be for example a defined contribution plan and those that come on that come from outside of the benefits when they talk about vested benefits tell us about the benefits part of it you can probably understand the vested part of it but the benefits part of it may be more allusive than first appears benefits are those things you're entitled to under the plan cover everybody who was harmed work everybody who is harmed minus some category and that's the issue in the case i think everybody was harmed in that they didn't get all the benefits they were due under the terms of the plan so that  pardon me for for a defined benefit plans for a failure to include a standing section would allow spinning the church shouldn't occur so they had to have a section to exclude out the defined benefit plan type of the two types of planes you're on your it's a pretty odd that the standing provision didn't cite that distinction but there are other scenarios besides the defined benefit versus defined contribution i just think that  paid standing without any creation of a new judge be tested have standing under your interpretation of the language vested benefit women no i think there is something category of people that are beyond statutory the argument that i'm advocating that fall can if i'm a pleasant present playing participant in a defined contribution plan can i sue for damages and and put it in my pocket and i buy stock with the other half of the money and this happens month after month after month the actual credit to your account is going to read a level of fifty percent of what it already that right now can't believe that congress wanted to allow that to happen and you the in your complete enough not to be able to sue well first of all as a practical matter i think that that would be something that the person who is making  benefits and then you look at firestone and the question is do you have a cultural claim that you currently or eligible for benefits look last minute indicated that this court whether he wins or loses on the i don't know what about the preemption provisions of the receipt which seem to preempt any state revenues dealing with the employee benefit plan well chris in the ninth circuit said that where there is not a ris be if the reach of preemption gets to everything dealing with employee benefit plans any relief for take uring with employee benefit plans i think that's a difficult question those people drive various court decisions have affected we've been restored to their status as current members of the planet why couldn't we do the same thing with mr gre law as far as i'm aware that suggests that somebody who that in my hypothetical play which is there's something comical to gives a kill that he didn't get that he should be able to get it that's at least it seems to be the policy of congress that were that's the same thing that's what the number will be that he has one hundred six point five shooters in his account that we use and we can look beyond that even if there is reason to believe that that number is fraudulent discovered florida and i try to follow suit in the search standing in the intervening ten years no one would expect the company to be treating me like an active member and sending me annual reports and whatever the other requirements are so i don't see where all the big lead discovered evidence of the fraud well i still think the point that i have  well yeah but that doesn't answer the question before the court why does your generalization like that i actually think that it does in that i don't think that the statutory language as interpreted by because i think you know one of the court's chief concerns is that there's no limit to how long this person will be a participant but there are moments when as for any