Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): seeks damages — that is, those entered into with Safeco, Provident and Manulife. (See Pl.’s Br. in Opp’n at 34, 92 Doc. 484-1 at 51, 109.) In the opinion of the Court, all of the Safeco, Provident and Manulife annuities, except the QPA-2, are variable annuities not entitled to the exemption provided for by section 3(a)(8). (1) The Safeco Annuities The QPA-2 was a traditional fixed annuity with a guaranteed interest rate. (PL’s Ex. 358 at Safeco 00127, Doc. 456-3 at 1.) All deposits were held in Safeco’s general fund, not a separate account. (PL’s Ex. 360 at Safeco 00115, Doc. 456-4 at 2.) Safeco bore all of the risk as it had to meet minimum interest payments. As such, it falls within the exemption provided by section 3(a) (8), 15 U.S.C. § 77c(a)(8). See Otto I, 814 F.2d at 1131-32 (<HOLDING>). The Resource Variable Account A was an 
 Holding statements: (A) holding railroad rate exempt from state regulation (B) holding that the trustee did not breach its fiduciary duty when its actions were consistent with the trust instrument (C) holding that insurance instrument was fixed annuity exempt from securities regulation because the instrument provided a guaranteed return of four percent 4 (D) holding that the gravamen of the offense is the physical adaptation of the instrument (E) holding that the deferential standard of review of a plan interpretation is appropriate only when the trust instrument allows the trustee to interpret the instrument and when the trust ee has in fact interpreted the instrument
Output (English): holding that the deferential standard of review of a plan interpretation is appropriate only when the trust instrument allows the trustee to interpret the instrument and when the trust ee has in fact interpreted the instrument