## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 3 ,200 7 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
B L A IN E F L IN D E R S ; D A V ID B R O W N , on behal f of themsel ves and ot her s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ants , v. WORKF OR CE S T AB I L I Z AT I ON P L AN OF P HI L L I P S P E T RO L E UM CO M P ANY, D efe ndant- A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 4133

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF UT AH ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 4 - CV - 5 4 1 - DA K) S c o t tA . H a g e n ( a n d M i c h a e l E . B l u e w i th h i m o n t h e b r i e fs ) , R a y, Q u i n n e y & N ebek er, P . C , S al tL ake C i t y , U t ah, for Plai nti ffs - A pp el l ants . M at t hew M . D urham (and Just i n B . P al m er w i th h i m on t he b ri ef), S t oel, R i ves, L . L . P. , Sal tL ake Ci t y , U t ah, forD efe ndant- A ppel l ee. B efor e KELLY , HENR Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. KELLY , C i r cui tJ udge.- 2 -

Pl ai nt i ffs - A ppel l ant s B l ai ne Fl i nder s and D avi d B r ow n, on behal f of t hemsel ves and a c l as s of other s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, ( r efe rr ed t o col l ect i vel yas “Pl ai nt i ffs ”) appea l t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s gr antof part i al s um m aryj udgm enti n favor of D efe ndant - A ppel l ee W or kfor ce St abi l i zat i on Pl an of Phi l l i ps Petr ol eum C om pany( “W FSP ” or“the Pl an”) . Pl ai nt i ffs as s er t ed cl ai m s undert he Em pl oy ee R et i r ementI ncome Secur i t yA ctof 1974 ( “ER I SA ”) , ar gui ng thatt he Pl an w r ongful l ydeni ed them benefi t s . T he part i es fi l ed cr os s m ot i ons forpart i al su m m aryjud g m en t on A u g u st 31 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted th e P lan’s m ot i on, fi ndi ng t hatt he Pl an’ s det erm i nat i on thatPl ai nt i ffs w er e not “part i ci pant s ” i n t he W FSP w as notarbi tr aryand capr i ci ous . O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es under28 U . S. C . § 1291, and w e r ever s e and r emand foran aw ar d of ben efi t s.

B ackgr ound Pl ai nt i ffs cons t i tut e a c l as s of form erempl oy ees of the Phi l l i ps Petr ol eum C om pany( “the C om pany ”) . T he cl as s cons i s t s of m ember s of col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng uni t s att w o of the C om pany ’ s pl ant s : a r efi neryi n W oods C r os s , U t ah a n d a ter m in a l in S p o k a n e , W a sh in g to n . T h e W o o d s C ro ss p lain tiffs filed su it agai ns tt he Pl an on J une 14, 2004 t o r ecove rbenef i t s under§ 502( a) ( 1) ( B ) ofE R I SA r equi r es t hata pl an admi ni s tr at orfurni s h t o eac h “part i ci pant 1 cover ed undert he pl an and t o eac h benef i ci aryw ho i s r ece i vi ng benef i t s under th e p la n . . . a s u m m a ry p la n d e s c ri p tio n .” 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 1 (a )( 1 ). - 3 - E R I SA . See 29 U . S. C . § 1132( a) ( 1) ( B ) . T he di s tr i ctcour tcert i fi ed the cl as s on N o v e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 4 , w h ic h w a s la te r e n la rg e d to in c lu d e fo u r S p o k a n e p la in tiffs . T he t ot al amount of bene fi t s s oughtbyPl ai nt i ffs i s $6, 701, 626. 32. A pl t . A pp. at 9 0 8 . A fter the d istri ct co u rtg ran ted th e P lan’s m o ti o n fo r pa rt ial su m m ary jud g m en t, P lai n ti ffs so u g h t l ea v e to s erv e Jo sep h H igh , the P lan’s a d m inistrator, and as s er ta cl ai m forbr eac h of fi duci arydutyunder§ 502( a) ( 3) of ER I SA . See 29 U . S. C . § 1132( a) ( 3) . T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on as fut i l e on M ay18, 2 0 0 6 . T h is a p p e a l fo llo w e d . T he Pl an pr ovi des a s ubs t ant i al benef i tpaym entt o C om panyempl oy ees w ho ar e l ai d off a s t he r es ul tof a mer ger , s peci fi cal l y“[a ] l um p- s um paym ent equi val entt o fourw eeks ’ payforeac h y earof s ervi ce, w i th a mi ni m um benef i tof 1 6 w ee k s’ pa yan d a m ax im u m b en efito f 1 0 4 w ee k s’ pa y . ” A p lt . A p p . at 11 8 . It i s fi nance d us i ng t he gene r al as s et s of “the company , ” w hi ch i s defi ned as “Phi l l i ps Pet r ol eum C om panyand al l other[affi l i at ed] compani es w hi ch have a d o p ted th is p lan .” T h e S u m m a ryP lan D e sc rip tio n (“ S P D ” ) f u rn ish e d to e m p lo y e e s g iv e s th is d e sc rip tio n o f th e P lan ’s fin a n c in g : 1 T he co m pan ypay s the en t i re costof the plan from i t s general asset s. E m pl oy ee c ont r i but i ons ar e notr equi r ed orperm i t t ed. T he company hol ds al l funds us ed t o pr ovi de bene fi t s undert he W or k For ce- 4 -

S t abil i zat i on P l an. T he b enefi t s w i l l no tbe fu nd ed thr ou gh a t rust agr eementorguar ant eed byan i ns ur ance contr acti s s ued byan in s u ra n c e c a rr ie r . . . . I d. at119. T he Pl an expr es s l ygr ant s the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at ordi s cr et i on t o det erm i ne el i gibi l i t yfor ben efi t s, subjectt o revi ew bythe P l an C om m i t t ee. T he P l an als o gr ant s t he Pl an C om m i t t ee the pow ert o “i nt erpr etand admi ni s t erthe Pl an i ncl udi ng t he r es ol ut i on of ambi gui t i es , i ncons i s t enci es and omi s s i ons . ” I d. at 4 5 3 . It fu rth e r sta tes th a t th e “ C o m m itt e e sh a ll h a v e a b so lu te d isc re tio n in carr y i ng outi t s r es pons i bi l i t i es . ” I d. T he Pl an A dm i ni s tr at orand Pl an C om m i t t ee mem ber s ar e al l s eni orexec ut i ves and l ong- t i m e empl oy ees of the C om pany , eac h havi ng s erved w i th the C om panyfora numberof y ear s . I d. at 300- 20, 902- 07. T heyar e compens at ed bys al aryand r ece i ve bonus es bas ed on t he C om pany ’ s per form ance . T he cha i rof the Pl an C om m i t t ee i s J ohn C arr i g, t he C o m p a n y ’s c h ie f

fin a n c ia l o ffic e r. T he Pl an’ s cover age rul es ( as cont ai ned i n the M ar ch 12, 2002 SPD ) s t at e, in re lev a n t p a rt: Y ou become a part i ci pantand ar e el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve bene fi t s i f y ou m eetal l of these cond i t i on s:

• Y ou ar e l ai d off dur i ng the w i ndow per i od.

• Y ou ar e an a ct i ve r egul arful l - t i m e oract i ve r egul ar par t - t i m e empl oy ee of Phi l l i ps orone of the pa r t i c i pa t i ng s ub s i di a r i e s on the c ompa ny ’ s di r e c tU . S.- 5 - d o ll ar p ay roll . T h e fo ll o w ing g rou p s o f e m p loy ee s are notel i gi bl e t o par t i ci pat e:

– R e tail m a rk e tin g sto re o r o u tlet p e rso n n e l; –A nyempl oy ee of

Phi l l i ps Pi pe Li ne C om pany w hos e j ob i s i n the Pi pe Li ne R el i ef LaborPool –A nym emberof a r ecogni zed orcert i fi ed col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng uni tunl es s cover age unde r t he pl an i s i ncl uded underthe col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement ; and –T os co her i t age e m pl oy ees not i fi ed of l ay off pr i or t o D ec. 7, 2001. Id . a t 1 1 8 . T he W oo ds C ross C B A st at es as fol l ow s: E xceptas her ei naft erl i m i t ed, al l benef i t s arr anged bythe C om pany fori t s empl oy ees gener al l ys hal l be ava i l abl e t o empl oy ees cover ed byt hi s A gr eement . “Secur i tyPl ans ” and “ B enef i t s ” i ncl ude among other s:

• U navoi dabl e A bs ence B enef i t s Pl an • G r oup L i fe I ns ur ance and Tot al and Perm anent D i s abi l i t yI ns ur ance • L ong T erm D i s abi l i tyI ns ur ance • C om pr ehens i ve M edi cal and H os pi t al E xpens e Pl an • Phi l l i ps R et i r ementPl an • A nnual M i l i t aryT r ai ni ng L eave of A bs ence and E m e rg e n c yC a ll-o u ts • C i vi l L eave of A bs ence • A ct i ve D ut yM i l i t aryL eave and J ob R ei ns t at ement Pol i cy • T hr i ftpl an • L o st T im e D u e to J u ryD u tyo r as W itn ess in C o u rt P ro c e e d in g s B e n e fits • V aca t i onsT he Pl an poi nt s outt hatthe exc l us i on has been pa r tof the pl an document 2 i t s el f s i nce 1991 a nd t hatt he SPD s peci fi cal l ys t at es t hati ti s notm eantt o i ncl ude al l det ai l s of the Pl an. N evert hel es s , E R I SA r equi r es t hatt he SPD i ncl ude “the p lan’s re q u ir em en ts r esp ec ti n g eli g ibil ity . ” 2 9 U . S . C . § 1 0 2 2 (b). - 6 - • D ent al A s s i s t ance Pl an • L ay off Pl an • L ong T erm St ock Savi ngs Pl an I d. at125. T h e S p o k a n e C B A is s u b sta n tiallysim ilar to th e W o o d s C ro ss C B A , an d it s t at es t hat“al l benef

i t s arr anged bythe C om panyfori t s empl oy ees as a w hol e, s hal l be ava i l abl e t o al l empl oy ees cover ed bythi s A gr eement . ” I d. at139. T he Spokane C B A al s o gi ves a l i s tof exe m pl arybenef i t s , w hi ch does noti ncl ude the W F S P . A n excl us i on foruni oni zed e m pl oy ees fi r s tappea r ed i n the SPD on M ar ch 12, 2002. T he W oods C r os s C B A w as compl et ed overa mont h ear l i er , on

2 February4, 2002. Shor t l yaft erM ar ch 12, 2002, t he C om panyannounce d a pr opos ed mer gerw i t h C onoco. A s a r es ul tof the mer ger , Pl ai nt i ffs w er e l ai d- off o n J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 3 w h e n th e re fin e ry a n d te rm in a l w e re s o ld to H o lly C o rp o ra tio n . Pl ai nt i ffs w er e i m m edi at el yoffe r ed empl oym entbyH ol l yC orpor at i on. A new company , C onocoPhi l l i ps , w as form ed on A ugus t30, 2002. A . T he W oods C r os s Pl ai nt i ffs B el i evi ng theyw er e ent i t l ed t o W FSP benef i t s , t he W oods C r os s pl ai nt i ffs- 7 -

form al l yappl i ed forbenef i t s on J une 5, 2003. O n Sept ember24, 2003, the Pl an A dm i ni s t r at ordeni ed the bene fi t s , gi vi ng the fol l ow i ng r at i onal e:

T hi s l i s tof bene fi t s and pol i ci es thatar e appl i cabl e t o the empl oy ees cover ed byt he [W oods C r os s C B A ] i s qui t e det ai l ed and al t hough r efe r ence i s m ade t o the Lay off Pl an, anothers ever ance benef i tpl an of Phi l l i ps Petr ol eum, ther e i s no r efe r ence t o, or i ncl us i on of, t he W or k For ce St abi l i zat i on Pl an, as r equi r ed bythe W F S P d e fi n i t i o n s fo re m p l o ye e a n d p a r t i c i p a n t . A d d i t i o n a l l y, S ect i on 2 o f A rt i cl e V II of the B argai ning A greem ent further st at es: “The condi t i ons , rul es , and r egul at i ons of s uch s ecur i typl ans and b e n e fits a s e sta b lish e d b yP h ill ip s P e tro leu m C o m p a n ysh a ll d e t e r mi n e a l l q u e s t i o n s a r i s i n g th e r e u n d e r . [ ” ] Th u s , i ti s my det erm i nat i on t hatt he W FSP i s noti ncl uded underthe B ar gai ni ng A gr eementas r equi r ed bythe t erm s of the W FSP and ther efor e, Cl a i mant s a r e no tc ov e r e d b ythe W FSP. Id. at 96 9 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he W oods C r os s pl ai nt i ffs appea l ed the deni al of thei rcl ai m s t o the Pl an C om m i t t ee on O ct ober29, 2003. T he appe al l et t err es ponded t o eac h poi ntr ai s ed i n t he Pl an A dm i ni s t r at or ’ s deni al l et t er , i ncl udi ng the appa r entdet erm i nat i ve r at i onal e that“al t hough r efe r ence i s m ade t o the Lay off Pl an, anothers ever ance benef i tpl an of Phi l l i ps Pet r ol eum, ther e i s no r efe r ence t o, ori ncl us i on of, the W or k For ce St abi l i zat i on Pl an, ” i n the W oods C r os s C B A . T he appe al l et t er s t at ed: A lth o u g h , as [ the P lan A d m inistrator] p o inted o u t i n h is l ett er, th is list o f

p lan s a n d b e n e fits [ f

ro m th e W o o d s C ro ss C B A ] is “ q u ite det ai l ed, ” i ti s notexhaus t i ve. I n fac t , i ti s expr es s l ys t at ed thatthe l i s tdoes noti ncl ude eve r ypl an orbenef i t . T he l anguage of the c o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t is th a t th e C laim a n ts a re e n tit led to “ a ll b e n e fits a rr a n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r i ts e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra lly,”- 8 -

and t hat the b enefi t s avai l able i nclude “am on g o thers, ” t ho se sp e c ifica llyitem ize d in th e list. T h e re is n o d isp u te th a t b e n e fits undert hi s Pl an have been a vai l abl e t o al l Phi l l i ps Petr ol eum C om panyempl oy ees gener al l y , and the l i s t , beca us e i ti s pr ece ded by t he w or ds “among ot her s , ” expr es s l yi ncl udes otherpl ans not s peci fi cal l ym ent i oned. U nderthe pl ai n l anguage of the col l ect i ve b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t, th e C laim a n ts a re th e re fo re e n tit led to “ a ll b e n e fits a rr a n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r i ts e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra lly,” w h ic h in c lu d e b e n e fits u n d e r t h e P la n . . . . F u rth e rm o re , the C laim a n ts h a v e b e e n a llo w e d to p a rticip a te in empl oy ee be nefi tpl ans t hatw er e nots peci fi cal l yl i s t ed i n the c o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t. S u c h p lan s in c lu d e th e S c h o lar sh ip Pl an, t he D eath G r atui t yPl an, the Long-Term C ar e Pl an, the E m pl oy ee A s s i s t ance Pl an, and, m or e r ece nt l y , the Per form ance 66 A c c o u n t, a m o n g o th e rs . I d. at165- 66. A packe tof m at er i al s foradvanc e r evi ew w as pr epar ed forthe Pl an C om m i t t ee w hi ch i ncl uded the appe al l et t er . T he “O vervi ew ” s ect i on of the p a c k e t (w h ich is m o re a c c u ra telyd e sc rib e d a s a re c o m m e n d a tio n ) sta ted th a t: “Ther e i s no r efe r ence t o, ori ncl us i on of, the W FSP i n the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . T he C l ai m ant s ar e notel i gi bl e forthe W FSP . ” I d. at951. T he pac ket cont ai ned no otherr es pons e t o t he ar gum ent s as s er t ed i n the appe al l et t er . I d. at 17 7-229 . T o b e sure, t he p acket outl i ned each o f t he W oo ds C ross plai nti ffs’ ar gum ent s buti tdi d notpr ovi de a r es pons e t o anyof them, as i de fr om the gene r al s t at ementi n t he “O vervi ew ” thatthe W FSP w as notr efe r ence d ori ncl uded i n t he C B A . I n addi t i on, t he Pl an’ s s ubs equentl i t i gat i on pos i t i on–thatthe W FSP i s not a b e n e fit th a t w a s “ a rra n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r its e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra lly ”

– is- 9 -

now her e s peci fi cal l yart i cul at ed i n the appe al packe t . T he onl yr el evantr efe r ence t o t he Pl an’ s avai l abi l i t yi s a s t at ementi n the W oods C r os s pl ai nt i ffs ’ appea l l et t erw hi ch r eads : “Ther e i s no di s put e thatbenef i t s underthi s Pl an have been avai l abl e t o al l . . . empl oy ees gener al l y. . . . ” I d. at206. T h e m in u tes o f

th e P lan C o m m itt e e m e e tin g sta te th e fo llo w in g , in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

T he thi r d agenda i t em w as the ScottH agen [ couns el for Em p l o y e e s ] a p p e a l o n b e h a l f o f th e me mb e r s ( Cl a i ma n t s ) o f P ACE L ocal N o. 8- 578 t o t he Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or ’ s deni al of bene fi t s under t he W or k For ce St abi l i zat i on Pl an ( Pl an) . T he Pl an exc l udes m ember s of a r ecogni zed orcert i fi ed col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng uni tas bei ng el i gi bl e fors ever ance benef i t s unl es s “the Pl an i s i ncl uded undert he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . ” Ther e i s no r efe r ence t o, ori ncl us i on of, t he W or k For ce St abi l i zat i on Pl an i n the col l ect i ve b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t. C onni e B r andon pr es ent ed an ove r vi ew of the keyevent s of the a p p ea l. T h e C o m m ittee rev iew ed an d d iscu ssed M r. H ag en ’s appea l , t he r el evantt erm s of the Pl an and the r el evantt erm s of the “A g ree m en t B etw ee n P h il li p s P etroleu m C o m p an yan d P ap er, A l l i ed- I ndus t r i al , C hemi cal and Ener gyW or ker s I nt ernat i onal U ni on and i t s L ocal N o. 8- 578. ” The U ni on had adopt ed the Phi l l i ps L ay off P la n in n e g o tia tio n s , b u t h a d n o t a d o p te d th e P la n . A f ter d isc u ss io n , the C o m m itt e e d e ter m in e d th e C laim a n ts w er e notel i gi bl e fors ever ance benef i t s underthe W or k For ce S tab ili z a tio n P lan . Jo h n C a rrig m a d e th e m o tio n to d e n yth e a p p e a l, R and B erneys econde d t he mot i on, and the C om m i t t ee vot ed unani m ous l yt o denyt he appe al forthe Pl an bene fi t s . T he C o m m itte e c o n c u rr e d w ith th e P la n A d m in is tr a to r’ s d e c is io n . I d. at325- 26 ( emphasi s added) . T hes e mi nut es m ake no s peci fi c r efe r ence t o t he Pl an’ s l i t i gat i on pos i t i on t hatt he W FSP i s nota pl an arr anged bythe C om panyT h e p a rties d isp u te w h e n th e lette r w a s a c tu a llym a iled , b u t th a t fa c t is 3 i mm a t e r i a l t o o u rr e v i e w. - 10 - fo r its e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra lly . A p p a re n tly , the P lan C o m m itt e e sim p lya g re e d w ith t he pr opos i t i on t hatt he W FSP had notbeen “ adopt ed” bythe U ni on; i . e. , thatt he WF S P wa s n o t“ i n c l u d e d ” i n t h e CB A. T h e P lan C o m m ittee d raf ted a d en ial let ter d ated D ec em b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 3 . In 3 expl ai ni ng i t s deni al , t he Pl an C om m i t t ee di d notcont es tanyof the fa ctual as s er t i ons i n t he W oods C r os s pl ai nt i ffs ’ appea l l et t erbuti ns t ead s t at ed: “The C o m m itt e e d o e s n o t ag re e w ith y o u r in terp re tatio n o f th e lan g u a g e c o n tain e d in t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eementw i th r es pectt o i ncl us i on of the pl an. ” I d. at 169. I tt hen r el i ed exc l us i vel yon the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or ’ s det erm i nat i on t o deny th e c laim s, sta tin g th a t “th e C o m m itt e e is in a g re e m e n t w ith th e re a so n s s e t fo rth i n t he det erm i nat i on of [the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or ’ s ] l et t erof Sept ember24, 2003. ” Id. at 17 0 . T h e W o o d s C ross p lai n ti ffs the n fil ed su ito n Ju n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , w ith M r. F lin d e rs a n d M r. B ro w n s e rv in g a s c la s s re p re s e n ta tiv e s . B . T he Spokane Pl ai nt i ffs T h e S p o k a n e p lain tiffs in iti a llyso u g h t b e n e fits b yin q u irin g d ire c tlyw ith t he C om pany , out s i de the form al cl ai m s admi ni s tr at i on pr oces s s etouti n the Pl an’ s SPD . T heyr ece i ved a w r i t t en r es pons e fr om t he C om panyon A ugus t22, 2 0 0 3 , w h ich sta ted a s fo llo w s:- 11 - T h ese issue s [in clud ing the re q u est fo r P lan b en efit s] w ere di s cus s ed aga i n att he J une 16, 2003 m eet i ng. T he fol l ow i ng i s the com pan y ’s fi nal posi t i on on these i ssues. * * * 3. T he W or k For ce St abi l i zat i on Sum m aryPl an D es cr i pt i on sta tes “ th e fo llo w in g g ro u p s o f e m p lo y e e s a re n o t elig ib le to par t i ci pat e: anym emberof a r ecogni zed orcert i fi ed col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng uni tunl es s cover age unde rthe pl an i s i ncl uded underthe col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . ” A s the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eementdoes noti ncl ude cove r age unde rW or k For ce St abi l i zat i on, [s i c] t he r epr es ent ed empl oy ees ar e notel i gi bl e forbenef i t s under W o rk F o rc e S ta b iliz a tio n . I d. at233- 34. T he Spokane pl ai nt i ffs as ked the C om panyt o r econs i der , butr ece i ved no r es pons e. A ccor di ngl y , on J ul y14, 2004 ( s even mont hs aft erthe fi nal deni al of t he W oods C r os s pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s ) , the Spokane pl ai nt i ffs form al l yappl i ed for benef i t s fr om t he Pl an bya l et t eraddr es s ed t o the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or . T he Pl an A d m in istra to r d e n ied th e c laim s in a lette r d a ted S e p tem b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , g iv in g th is e x p lan a tio n : T o su m m arize m yfin d ing s, the P lan e x clud es e m p loy ee s w h o are m e m b e rs o f

a re c o g n ize d o r c e rtifie d c o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g u n it u n les s th e P lan is in c lu d e d in th e c o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t. T he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eementappl i cabl e t o y ourbar gai ni ng uni t , PA C E L ocal 8- 562 does noti ncl ude the Pl an; ther efor e, the empl oy ees of thatbar gai ni ng uni tar e notpart i ci pant s underthe pl an o r e lig ib le fo r b e n e fits . I d. at239. T he expl anat i on al s o expl i ci t l ys t at ed, forthe fi r s tt i m e, thatthe W FSP w as notarr anged byt he C om panyfori t s empl oy ees “as a w hol e. ” I d. at 2 4 4 .- 12 -

T he Spokane pl ai nt i ffs appea l ed the deni al of bene fi t s i n a l et t erdat ed N ovember3, 2004. T he Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or , how ever , deni ed the appe al s um m ar i l yon t he gr ound t hati tw as s ubm i t t ed l at e. I d. at275- 76. T he Spokane pl ai nt i ffs w er e then adde d t o t he l aw s ui tand the cl as s byw ayof an a m ended compl ai nton A ugus t5, 2005. C . T he Pr ocee di ngs B el ow In d is tr ic t c o u rt , th e p a rt ie s d is p u te d th e a p p ro p ri a te s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w . T he Pl an ar gued that , beca us e the W FSP gi ves the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at orand the P lan C o m m itt e e d isc re tio n a rya u th o rityto d e ter m in e e lig ib ili ty , the b u rd e n sh o u ld b e o n P la in tiffs to s h o w th a t th e d e n ia l o f b e n e fits w a s a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s . S ee F ir esto n e T ir e & R u b b er C o . v . B ruc h , 4 8 9 U . S . 1 0 1 , 1 1 5 (19 8 9 ); C h am b ers v. Fam i l yH eal t h Pl an C orp. , 100 F. 3d 818, 825 ( 10th C i r . 1996) . Pl ai nt i ffs count er ed thatt he Pl an C om m i t t ee mem ber s had a s er i ous confl i ctof i nt er es tand t h a tt h e r e w e r e s i g n i fi c a n ti r r e g u l a r i t i e s i n th e c l a i m s p r o c e s s . C o n s e q u e n t l y, Pl ai nt i ffs ar gued the bur den w as on t he Pl an t o s how i t s deni al of the bene fi t s w as reas on able and sup po rt ed b ysubst anti al evidence. S ee F ou gh tv. U N U M L i fe Ins. C o. , 379 F. 3d 997, 1006 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatthe P lan C o m m ittee m em b ers h ad o n lya stan d ard co n fli ct of interest an d that there w er e no pr ocedur al i r r egul ar i t i es . A ccor di ngl y , i tr evi ew ed the dec i s i on deny i ng benef i t s undert he arbi t r aryand capr i ci ous s t andar d, “adj us t ed onl ys l i ght l yfor- 13 -

t he s t andar d confl i ct[of i nt er es t ] . ” Fl i nder s v. W or kfor ce St abi l i zat i on Pl an, N o. 2 :04 -C V -54 1 , 2 0 0 6 W L 6 4 1 5 2 4 , at * 8 (D . U tah M ar. 10 , 2 0 0 6 ). O n its m e ri ts re v ie w , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ffir m e d th e d e n ia l o f b e n e fits . R eg ard less o f th e stan d ard o f re v iew , itco n side red an d ag ree d w ith the P lan’s ar gum entt hatt he W FSP w as notarr anged bythe C om panyfori t s empl oy ees g e n e ra llya n d th e re fo re w a s n o t in c lu d e d in th e C B A . Id . at * 1 1 . It rea c h e d th is concl us i on beca us e the W FSP excl uded ce r t ai n cl as s es of empl oy ees ( as i de fr om uni on w or ker s ) and w as onl yt r i gger ed upon the happe ni ng of a mer ger . I d. at *10. Fur t herm or e, t he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed the Pl an’ s m ot i on t o s tr i ke the a lleg e d sta tem e n t o f

Jim N o k e s, a C o m p a n ya d m in istra to r, as u n re liab le d o u b le hear s ay . I d. at*11. I tal s o gr ant ed the Pl an’ s m ot i on t o s tr i ke a Y ahoo! fi nance re p o rt s h o w in g th a t th e P la n C o m m itte e m e m b e rs o w n e d s to c k in th e C o m p a n y . I d. O n appea l , Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatthe di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n ( 1) ut i l i zi ng the arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous s t andar d of r evi ew w i thoutanyadj us t m entfora s er i ous confl i ctof i nt er es tora s er i ous pr ocedur al i rr egul ar i tyand ( 2) hol di ng thatthe Pl an’ s deci s i on deny i ng benef i t s on the gr ound thatPl ai nt i ffs w er e not par t i ci pant s w as notarbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous . I n addi t i on, Pl ai nt i ffs cont end that th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in e x c lu d in g th e a lleg e d sta tem e n t o f Jim No k e s a n d t h e Ya h o o ! fi n a n c e r e p o r t . We c o n s i d e rth e s e a r g u me n t s b e l o w.- 14 - D i s cus s i on I . T he St andar d of R evi ew “Sum m aryj udgm entor der s ar e r evi ew ed de novo, us i ng the s ame st andar ds a s a p p lie d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt .” P itm a n v . B lu e C ro s s & B lu e S h ie ld o f O k la ., 2 1 7 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). A d e n ial o f b e n e fits c o v e re d b yE R IS A “ is t o be r evi ew ed undera de novo s t andar d unl es s t he bene fi tpl an gi ves t he admi ni s t r at ororfi duci arydi s cr et i onaryauthor i tyt o det erm i ne el i gi bi l i tyfor benef i t s ort o cons t rue the t erm s of the pl an. ” Fi r es t one, 489 U . S. at115. I f the benef i tpl an gi ves di s cr et i on t o a pl an admi ni s tr at or , t hen a de ci s i on deny i ng b e n e fits is typ ica llyre v iew e d u n d e r a n a rb itrar ya n d c a p ric io u s s tan d a rd . F o u g h t, 3 7 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 0 3 . S u c h re v ie w is lim ite d to “ d e te rm in in g w h e th e r t h e . . . in te rp re ta tio n [ o f

th e p la n ] w a s re a s o n a b le a n d m a d e in g o o d fa ith .” Id . I f, how ever , a pl an admi ni s tr at oroper at es underan i nher entorpr oven confl i ctof i nt er es tort her e i s a s er i ous pr ocedur al i rr egul ar i tyi n the admi ni s t r at i ve pr oces s , i ti s nece s s aryt o adj us tt he s t andar d of r evi ew . I d. at 1006. E ffe ct i vel y , t hi s cour thas cr aft ed a “ s l i di ng s cal e appr oach” w her e the “r evi ew i ng cour tw i l l al w ay s appl yan arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous s t andar d, butt he cour tm us tdecr eas e the l evel of defer ence gi ven . . . i n pr opor t i on t o the s er i ous nes s of the conf l i ct . ” C hamber s , 100 F. 3d at825- 26. I f a pl ai nt i ff c an- 15 -

pr ove a s er i ous confl i ctof i nt er es torthe exi s t ence of a s er i ous pr ocedur al i r r egul ar i t y , t hen the bur den s hi ft s t o the pl an admi ni s tr at ort o pr ove the re a s o n a b le n e s s o f

its d e c is io n u n d e r t h e a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s s ta n d a rd . Fought , 379 F. 3d at1006. W hen the bur den s hi ft s i n thi s m anner , the pl an a d m in istra to r “ m u st d e m o n stra te th a t it s in terp re tatio n o f th e ter m s o f

th e p lan is r eas onabl e and thati t s appl i cat i on of thos e t erm s t o the cl ai m anti s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” I d. “The di s tr i ctcourtm us tt ake a har d l ook atthe evi dence and ar gum ent s pr es ent ed t o the pl an admi ni s tr at ort o ens ur e thatthe deci s i on w as a r eas oned appl i cat i on of the t erm s of the pl an t o the part i cul arcas e, u n ta in te d b yth e c o n flic t o f in te re s t.” Id . Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatt her e w as a s er i ous confl i ctof i nt er es tr equi r i ng r ever s al of the bur den of pr oof bec aus e: ( 1) the W FSP i s nots i m pl ys el f- funded, i ti s “unfunde d, ” w i t h benef i t s bei ng pai d di r ect l ybythe C om panyas neede d, ( 2) t he Pl an A dm i ni s t r at orand Pl an C om m i t t ee mem ber s ar e al l pai d empl oy ees and s t ockhol der s i n t he C om pany , ( 3) J ohn C arr i g, the Pl an C om m i t t ee c hai r m an ( and the C o m p an y ’s C F O ), h ad an ince n ti v e to c u t cos ts du e to th e im p en d ing m erg er, and (4) w hen view ed in r el at i on t o the pri ce of the sal e of the W oo ds C ross R efi nery( $25 m i l l i on) , t he cos tof bene fi t s s ought( $6. 4 m i l l i on) w oul d have ha d a si gn i fi cant i m pact on t he C om pan y . P l ai nti ffs al so argue thatthere w as a s er i ous pr ocedur al i r r egul ar i t ybeca us e: ( 1) the deni al of thei rcl ai m s w as- 16 -

pr edet erm i ned, ( 2) t hei rcl ai m s w er e r ej ect ed i n s um m aryfas hi on w i thout r es pons e t o t hei rs ubs t ant i ve ar gum ent s , and ( 3) the Pl an as s er t ed a ne w gr ound fordeny i ng benef

i t s i n di s t r i ctcourtthatw as notart i cul at ed i n the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d–namel yt hatt he W FSP w as notarr anged bythe C om panyfori t s empl oy ees gener al l y . W e nee d notaddr es s w hetherther e w as a s er i ous confl i ctof i nt er es tor a s er i ous pr ocedur al i r r egul ar i t ybeca us e w e conc l ude thatthe Pl an’ s as s er t ed r at i onal e fordeny i ng Pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m s i s unr eas onabl e underanys t andar d of r e v i e w. I I . Th e P l a n ’ s Ra t i o n a l e F o rDe n y i n g th e Cl a i ms I n r evi ew i ng a pl an admi ni s tr at or ’ s deci s i on, w e mayonl ycons i derthe evi dence and ar gum ent s t hatappea ri n the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d. Sandoval v. A etna Li fe a nd C as . I ns . C o. , 967 F. 2d 377, 380 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ; s ee a l s o K i ng v. Ha r t fo r d L i fe a n d Ac c i d e n tI n s . Co . , 4 1 4 F . 3 d 9 9 4 , 9 9 9 ( 8 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ [ A] r evi ew i ng cour tm us tfocus on t he evi dence avai l abl e t o the pl an admi ni s tr at or s at t he t i m e of thei rdeci s i on and maynotadmi tnew evi dence orcons i derpos thoc ra tio n a les .”). T h is m e a n s th a t, w h e n re v iew in g a p lan a d m in istra to r’s d e c isio n to d e n yb e n e fits, w e c o n sid e r o n lyth e ra tio n a le a ss e rte d b yth e p lan a d m in istra to r in t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d and det erm i ne w hetherthe dec i s i on, bas ed on the a s s e rt e d ra tio n a le , w a s a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s . T o det erm i ne w hethera pl an admi ni s tr at orcons i der ed and a s s er t ed a- 17 -

p a rticu lar ra tio n a le, w e lo o k o n lyto th o se ra tio n a les th a t w e re sp e c ifica lly ar t i cul at ed i n t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d as the bas i s fordeny i ng a cl ai m . See 29 U . S. C . § 1133( 1) ( not i ng t hata cl ai m deni al m us t“s et [] for th the s peci fi c r eas ons fors uch deni al , w r i t t en i n a mannercal cul at ed t o be under s t ood bythe par t i ci pant ”) ( emphasi s added) ; s ee a l s o Schadl erv. A nthem L i fe I ns . C o. , 147 F. 3d 388, 394 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) ; W eave rv. Phoeni x H om e Li fe M ut . I ns . C o. , 990 F . 2 d 1 5 4 , 1 5 8 (4th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); W h it e v . Jac o b s E n g ’g G rou p L o n g T erm D isa b ili tyB e n e fit P lan , 8 9 6 F .2 d 3 4 4 , 3 5 0 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); R ich a rd so n v . C e n t. St at es , Se. and Sw . A r eas Pens i on Fund, 645 F. 2d 660, 665 ( 8th C i r . 1981) . T he r eas on fort hi s rul e i s appar ent– “[w ] e w i l l notperm i tE R I SA cl ai m ant s deni ed t he t i m el yand s peci fi c expl anat i on t o w hi ch the l aw ent i t l es them t o be s andbagge d byaft er - t he- fac tpl an i nt erpr et at i ons devi s ed forpurpos es of li ti g ati o n . ” M aro ltv . A ll iant T ec h sy stem s, Inc . , 1 4 6 F . 3 d 6 1 7 , 6 2 0 (8th C ir . 1998) . T hi s i s cons i s t entw i t h t he conve r s e rul e thata cl ai m antm aynotur ge new gr ounds out s i de the admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d thatw oul d s uppor tthe aw ar d of benef i t s . Sandoval , 967 F. 2d at381. I n di s t r i ctcour t , t he Pl an ar gued thatPl ai nt i ffs ar e notpart i ci pant s i n the W FSP beca us e the Pl an i s not“arr anged bythe C om panyfori t s empl oy ees g en era ll y . ” S ee F li n d ers, 20 0 6 W L 6 4 1 5 2 4 , at *9 . W e h av e re v iew ed the re co rd a n d c a n fin d n o e v id e n c e th a t th is ra tio n a le w a s c o n sid e re d o r sp e c ifica lly a rticu late d b yth e P lan in th e a d m in istra tiv e p ro c e e d in g . H a d th e P lan a c tu a llyInd ee d , this fac t sug g ests the P lan likelyd id n o t con side r th e W F S P ’s 4 (c o n tin u e d ...) - 18 - cons i der ed thi s r at i onal e bel ow , the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d w oul d l i kel yhave c o n tain e d in fo rm a tio n a n d a rg u m e n ts re g a rd in g th e W F S P ’s a v a ilab ili ty , b u t it does not . See Schadl er , 147 F. 3d at397 n. 10 ( “[I ] n m anycas es the fa ctual devel opm entt hatt akes pl ace att he admi ni s tr at i ve l evel w i l l di ffe rdependi ng on th e p la n p ro v is io n s u p o n w h ic h th e a d m in is tr a to r r e lie s to d e n yb e n e fits .” ). I ndeed, t he l ack of

anyfac tual di s cus s i on of the Pl an’ s avai l abi l i tyi ndi cat es that t he deni al of bene fi t s l i kel yhi nged s ol el yon the Pl an’ s i nt erpr et at i on thatthe W FSP ’ s el i gi bi l i t yl anguage r equi r ed thati tbe s peci fi cal l ynamed i n the l i s tof exampl e bene fi t s cont ai ned i n t he C B A . See A pl t . A pp. at169 ( “The C om m i t t ee does notagr ee w i t h y ouri nt erpr et at i on of the l anguage cont ai ned i n the col l ect i ve b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t w ith re s p e c t to in c lu s io n o f th e P la n .” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T he Pl an ar gues t hatt her e i s evi dence thatthe Pl an A dm i ni s tr at orand the Pl an C om m i t t ee c ons i der ed Pl ai nt i ffs ’ “ar gum ent ” thatthe W FSP i s arr anged by t he C om panyfori t s empl oy ees gener al l yand r ej ect ed i t . T he Pl an ar gues that beca us e Pl ai nt i ffs as s ert ed the undi s put ed fa ctthatthe W FSP i s arr anged bythe C om panyfori t s empl oy ees gener al l y , and the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at orand Pl an C om m i t t ee de ni ed bene fi t s anyw ay , the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at orand Pl an C om m i t t ee m u st h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e W F S P w a s n o t ar ra n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r its e m p l o ye e s g e n e r a l l y. 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 avai l abi l i t y . A ft eral l , Pl ai nt i ffs as s er t ed the uncont es t ed fa ctthatthe Pl an w as arr anged byt he C om panyfori t s empl oy ees gener al l yi n thei rappea l l et t er , aft er t he Pl an A dm i ni s t r at orhad deni ed thei rcl ai m s . I f anythi ng, thi s s houl d have ind icated to the P lan C o m m ittee tha t Plainti ffs v iew ed the P lan A d m inistrator’s d e c isio n a s re stin g so lelyo n th e fa c t th a t th e W F S P w a s n o t li ste d a s a n e x a m p le benef i ti n t he C B A . Y et , i n i t s deni al l et t er , the Pl an C om m i t t ee s t i l l di d not d is c u s s th e P la n ’s a v a ila b ility. - 19 - T h is c o n c lu sio n is in c o rre c t. P lain tiffs’ s tate m e n t th a t th e re is n o d isp u te th a t th e W F S P is a rra n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r its e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra llyis o n ly w hati tpurpor t s t o be: an as s ert i on of an undi s put ed fa cti n s uppor tof aw ar di ng benef i t s , notan ar gum ents uppor t i ng the deni al of bene fi t s . T he fa ctthat Pl ai nt i ffs ’ undi s put ed fa ctw as neverchal l enged orr ebutt ed ( l etal one ment i oned) i s t el l i ng. T o be s ur e, a pl an admi ni s tr at ori s fr ee t o r ej ectan undi s put ed fa ct ur ged bya cl ai m ant , buts uch a r ej ect i on m us tbe art i cul at ed and ha ve a factual b asis. S ee C aldw ell v . L ife In s. C o . o f N . A m . , 2 8 7 F . 3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 2 (10 th C ir . 2002) ( i ndi cat i ng t hata pl an admi ni s tr at or ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons m us tbe su p p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce to su rviv e a rbitraryan d ca p ri ciou s rev iew ). It w oul d be mani fes t l yunfai rt o hol d thatPl ai nt i ffs ’ as s er t i on of an undi s put ed fa ct w as nece s s ar i l ycons i der ed and r ej ect ed bythe Pl an A dm i ni s tr at orand Pl an C o m m itte e s im p ly b e c a u s e P la in tiffs n o te d th a t th e fa c t w a s u n d is p u te d . T he di s t r i ctcour tr el i ed on G al l o v. A m oco C orp. , 102 F. 3d 918, 922- 23 ( 7t h C i r . 1996) , t o hol d t hatt he Pl an’ s concl us i on thatthe W FSP w as noti ncl uded- 20 -

in th e C B A w a s s u ffic ie n t to p re s e rv e (fo r o u r r e v ie w ) a n ys u p p o rt in g ra tio n a le . S ee F li n d ers, 20 0 6 W L 6 4 1 5 2 4 , at *7 . G all o co n ce rne d w h ethe r an em p loy ee ’s “hi gh- t hr ee” y ear s of ea r ni ngs us ed t o fi gur e an a nnui tyi ncl uded paym ent s i n l i eu of vac at i on. T he pl an documentw as notent i r el ycl ear , buts i nce 1939 the companyhad nott r eat ed s uch paym ent s as earni ngs . W hen the empl oy ee appea l ed, t he pl an admi ni s t r at ors t at ed thatthe companycons i s t ent l yi nt erpr et ed th e p lan to e x c lu d e su c h p a ym e n ts a n d th a t th e in terp re tatio n w a s n e c e ss a ryto avoi d doubl e count i ng. I d. at920- 21. O n appea l , the Seventh C i r cui tconcl uded th a t th e d e n ial w a s a d e q u a te. It h e ld th a t th e p lan ’s r e a so n fo r d e n y in g b e n e fits

“ w a s s u fficie n t ex p lan a tio n to e n a b le G a llo to fo rm u late h is f u rth e r c h a llen g e to t he deni al . ” I d. at923. W hi l e a pl an admi ni s t r at orm aynotbe r equi r ed t o gi ve “the r eas oni ng behi nd t he r eas ons , ” i d. at922, t he pl an admi ni s tr at ors t i l l m us ti dent i fythe sp e c ific r e a so n fo r d e n y in g b e n e fits. H e re , the P lan A d m in istra to r d e n ied b e n e fits beca us e “ther e i s no r efe r ence t o, ori ncl us i on of, the [W FSP i n the C B A ] . ” The phr as e “ther e i s no r efe r ence t o” s uffi ci ent l yart i cul at es the Pl an’ s r at i onal e that t he W FSP had t o be i ncl uded i n the l i s tof exa m pl e bene fi t s t o be i ncl uded i n the C B A . B u t th e p h ra se “ th e re is n o . . . inc lu sio n o f” fa ils to a rticu late th e ra tio n a le that the W F S P w as n o t arrang ed b ythe C o m p an yfo r i ts em p loy ee s g en era ll y . In fac t , t hi s phr as e mer el yr es t at es the Pl an’ s gener al el i gi bi l i tycr i t er i a. See Skr etvedtv. E . I . D upontde N emours & C o. , 268 F. 3d 167, 177 n. 8 ( 3d C i r . 2001)- 21 -

( cr i t i ci zi ng a deni al l et t ert hatm er el yr es t at ed the r equi r ement s of a be nefi tpl an and then s t at ed s um m ar i l yt hata cl ai m antfai l ed t o m eetthem); V ander K l ok v. P rov iden t L ife & A cc iden t I n s. C o . , 9 5 6 F . 2 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 6 (6th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (sam e); W olfe v. J. C . P enn eyC o. , 71 0 F . 2d 38 8, 39 3 (7t h C i r. 19 83 ) ( sam e); see al so R ich a rd so n , 8 9 6 F .2 d a t 6 6 5 (“ B a ld -fa c e d c o n c lu sio n s d o n o t sa tisf yth is re q u ire m e n t.”). O n lyo n c e th e c a se w a s in d istric t co u rt d id th e P lan fin a lly a rticu late th e ra tio n a le th a t th e W F S P w a s n o t ar ra n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r its e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra lly. C o n se q u e n tly , G a llo is in a p p o site . In th a t ca se , the c o m p a n yc o n sis ten tly ar t i cul at ed the s ame r eas on fordeny i ng benef i t s fr om the mi nut e the admi ni s t r at i ve pr oces s began. Fur therm or e, the pl an ati s s ue i n G al l o w as ambi guous r egar di ng t he tr eatm entof “pa yi n l i eu of va cat i on, ” and the company sp e c ifica llyo ffe re d its in terp re tatio n . In th is c a se , the W F S P ’s e lig ib ili ty l anguage i s notatal l ambi guous , as di s cus s ed i nfr a, and the r at i onal e as s er t ed by t he Pl an i n l i t i gat i on di ffe r s s i gni fi cant l yfr om thatw hi ch i tas s er t ed i n the admi ni s t r at i ve pr oces s . W er e w e t o appl yG al l o i n a ca s e l i ke thi s , a pl an admi ni s t r at orcoul d s i m pl yt r eatthe admi ni s tr at i ve pr oces s as a tr i al run and offer a p o st h o c ra tio n a le in d istric t co u rt. In a d d iti o n , su c h a p ra c tice w o u ld re su lt i n an i ncompl et e admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d. T he Pl an does ci t e t o a por t i on of the Pl an A dm i ni s tr at or ’ s l et t erdeny i ng t he Spokane pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s t hats t at es “[W FSP ] . . . i s cl ear l ynots ever anceF u rth e rm o re , the S p o k a n e p lain tiffs’ a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l is n o t ac tu a lly 5 rel evan tbecau se, absent an abu se of d i scr et i on byt he tr i al j ud ge, on l yt he clas s repr esent at i ves m ustexh austt heiradm i nis trat i ve clai m s, and t he clas s r epr es ent at i ves ar e W oods C r os s pl ai nt i ffs . I n r e H ous ehol d I nt ’ l T ax R educa t i on Pl an, 441 F. 3d 500, 501- 02 ( 7t h C i r . 2006) . T o the ext entt he Pl an cha l l enges t hat t he Spokane pl ai nt i ffs s houl d nothave be en adde d t o the cl as s , t he Pl an r ai s ed this i ssu e b efo re the d istri ct co u rtb u t has n o t cha ll en g ed the d istri ct co u rt ’s a d v e rs e d e te rm in a tio n o n a p p e a l. - 22 - payt hati s arr anged forempl oy ees ‘ as a w hol e’ . . . . ” A pl t . A pp. at468. B ut t hatl et t erw as s enton Sept ember24, 2004, aft erthe W oods C r os s pl ai nt i ffs had a lr e a d yfile d s u it. T h u s , it is n o t e v e n p a rt o f th e re le v a n t a d m in is tr a tiv e re c o rd . See K al i s h v. L i ber t yL i fe A s s ur . C o. , 419 F. 3d 501, 511 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( not i ng t hatt he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d cons i s t s of al l i nform at i on s ubm i t t ed t o the fid u c iar y b e fo re th e fin a l d e n ial). It w a s im p ro p e r fo r th e d istric t co u rt to 5 c o n sid e r th e ra tio n a le th a t th e W F S P w a s n o t ar ra n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r its empl oy ees gener al l y . I ns t ead, t he Pl an’ s deci s i on t o denybenef i t s m us ts t and or fal l on i t s art i cul at ed r at i onal e al one. I I I . T he Pl an’ s D eni al of B enef i t s W as A rbi tr aryand C apr i ci ous U ndert he arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous s t andar d, w e mustdet erm i ne w hethert he P l a n ’ s d e c i s i o n t o d e n yb e n e fi t s b a s e d o n i t s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f t h e W F S P a n d CBA w as “ rea so n ab le an d m ad e in g o o d fa ith . ” F o u g h t, 3 7 9 F . 3 d at 10 0 3 . In conduct i ng t hi s r evi ew , w e typi cal l ycons i derw hether : ( 1) t he dec i s i on w as t he r es ul tof a “ r eas oned and pr i nci pl ed pr oces s , ” ( 2) i s “cons i s t entw i th anypr i or- 23 -

i nt erpr et at i ons byt he pl an admi ni s tr at or , ” ( 3) i s “r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof any e x t e r n a l s t a n d a r d s , ” a n d ( 4 ) i s “ c o n s i s t e n tw i th th e p u rp o s e s o f th e p l a n . ” I d . We need notdet erm i ne thatt he Pl an’ s i nt erpr et at i on w as the onl yl ogi cal one, nor e v e n t h e b e s to n e . F i n l e yv . He wl e t t - P a c k a r d Co . Em p l o y e e Be n e fi t s Or g . I n c o me P ro tec tio n P lan , 3 7 9 F .3 d 1 1 6 8 , 1 1 7 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). In ste a d , the d e c isio n w ill be uphel d “unl es s i ti s notgr ounded an a nyr eas onabl e bas i s . ” I d. I n t hi s cas e, t he arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous r evi ew encompas s es the contr act law sta n d a rd o f

a m b ig u ity . A p ro v isio n o f a c o n tra c t is a m b ig u o u s if it suscept i ble t o m ore than on e reas on able i nterpret at i on . H i ckm an v . G E M Ins. C o. , 299 F. 3d 1208, 1212 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) . A deci s i on deny i ng benef i t s bas ed on an i nt erpr et at i on of an ER I SA pr ovi s i on s ur vi ves arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous r evi ew s o lo n g a s th e in te rp re ta tio n is re a s o n a b le . F in e ly, 3 7 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 6 . C o n se q u e n tly , if a p lan p ro v isio n is a m b ig u o u s, a n d th e p lan a d m in istra to r a d o p ts o n e o f tw o o r m o re rea so n ab le i n terpretati o n s, then the p lan a d m inistrator’s deci s i on t o denybenef i t s bas ed on thati nt erpr et at i on s ur vi ves arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous r evi ew . T o t he contr ary , i f the pl an pr ovi s i on i s unambi guous , and the pl an admi ni s t r at or ’ s i nt erpr et at i on di ffe r s fr om the unambi guous m eani ng, then t he pl an admi ni s t r at or ’ s i nt erpr et at i on i s unr eas onabl e, and the dec i s i on t o deny benef i t s bas ed on thati nt erpr et at i on i s arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous . See Sw abac k v. A m . Info. T echs. C orp. , 10 3 F . 3d 53 5, 54 0 (7t h C i r. 19 96 ); L i cktei g v . B us. M en’ s A s s ur ance C o. of A m . , 61 F. 3d 579, 585 ( 8th C i r . 1995) ; L ockhartv.- 24 -

U nit ed M i ne W orkers 19 74 P ensi on T rust , 5 F . 3d 74 , 78 (4th C i r. 19 93 ). T hu s, t he s t ar t i ng poi nti n t hi s and s i m i l arcas es i s t o det erm i ne w hetherthe r el evant pl an pr ovi s i on i s ambi guous . See H i ckman, 299 F. 3d at1212. I f w e det erm i ne t hatt he pl an pr ovi s i on i s unambi guous , then w e mustcons true i tas a mat t erof la w . Id . I n det erm i ni ng w hethert he W FSP ’ s el i gi bi l i tyl anguage i s ambi guous , the l anguage m us tbe gi ven “i t s comm on and or di narym eani ng as a r eas onabl e per s on i n t he pos i t i on of the pl an part i ci pantw oul d have unde r s t ood the w or ds t o m ean. ” I d. ( emphasi s added) . T he W FSP s t at es : “A nym emberof a r ecogni zed or cert i fi ed co l l ect i ve b argai ning un i t[shal l no tbe eli gibl e t o p art i ci pate] un l ess cover age unde rt he pl an i s i ncl uded underthe col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . ” A pl t . A pp. at118. T he W oods C r os s C B A s t at es : “Exceptas her ei naft erl i m i t ed, al l benef

i t s arr anged byt he C om panyfori t s empl oy ees gener al l ys hal l be a v a ila b le to e m p lo y e e s c o v e re d b yth is A g re e m e n t.” Id . a t 1 2 5 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Th e CBA s t a t e s t h a ti n c l u d e d p l a n s a n d b e n e fi t s “ i n c l u d e a mo n g o th e r s : [ s o me fo u rte e n listed e x a m p les ].” I d . T h e lan g u a g e in th e S p o k a n e C B A is e ss e n tially id e n tic a l. T hes e pr ovi s i ons ar e unambi guous . A uni on empl oy ee i s cover ed bythe W FSP , s o l ong as t he W FSP i s “i ncl uded underthe col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng a g re e m e n t.” T h e C B A c o n tain s a c a tch -a ll p ro v isio n sta tin g th a t all b e n e fits

“ a rra n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r its e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra lly ” sh a ll b e a v a ilab le to- 25 -

uni oni zed e m pl oy ees . T he C B A then l i s t s a numberof exa m pl e bene fi t s , but t hos e l i s t ed bene fi t s ar e, byi ncl us i on of the l anguage “among ot her s ” not e x c lu siv e . C o n se q u e n tly , P lain tiffs a re p a rticip a n ts in th e W F S P so lo n g a s it is

“ a rr a n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r i ts e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra lly.” T he C om pany ’ s art i cul at ed r at i onal e fordeny i ng cover age, how ever , w as t hatt he “l i s tof bene fi t s and pol i ci es thatar e appl i cabl e t o the empl oy ees cover ed byt he [W oods C r os s C B A ] i s qui t e det ai l ed and a l though r efe r ence i s m ade t o t he L ay off Pl an, anothers ever ance benef i tpl an of Phi l l i ps Petr ol eum, ther e i s no r efe r ence t o, ori ncl us i on of, t he W or k For ce St abi l i zat i on Pl an. ” I d. at969 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h is in terp re tatio n o f th e W F S P a n d C B A is u n re a so n a b le beca us e i tconfl i ct s w i t h t he unambi guous l anguage of the ca t ch- al l pr ovi s i on and t he expr es s s t at ementt hatt he exa m pl e bene fi t s l i s t ed ar e i l l us tr at i ve r atherthan e x c l u s i v e . I n t h e P l a n ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n , l a n g u a g e o f i n c l u s i o n h a s b e c o me l anguage of exc l us i on. T he Pl an count er s that“cove r age unde rthe Pl an ca nnotbe in c lu d e d in th e C B A s b yim p lica tio n .” A p lee . B r. at 4 3 . E v e n a c c e p tin g th is pr i nci pl e, t he C B A expr es s l yi ncl udes al l benef i t s thatar e arr anged bythe C om panyfori t s empl oy ees gener al l y . C ons equent l y , the Pl an’ s deci s i on t o deny benef i t s bas ed on i t s i nt erpr et at i on of the W FSP and C B A i s arbi tr aryand capri ci ou s. I V . T he A ppr opr i at e R emedy W hen a pl an admi ni s t r at or ’ s deci s i on i s over tur ned as arbi tr aryand- 26 -

capr i ci ous , w e mayei t herr emand t he ca s e t o the pl an admi ni s tr at orfora r enew ed eval uat i on of the cl ai m ant ’ s cas e orw e mayor deran aw ar d of bene fi t s . D eG r ado v. J effer s on Pi l otFi n. I ns . C o. , 451 F. 3d 1161, 1175 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “W hi ch of th e se tw o re m e d ies is p ro p e r in a g iv e n c a se , h o w e v e r, d e p e n d s u p o n th e sp e c ific flaw s in th e p lan a d m in istra to r’s d e c isio n .” Id . If th e p lan a d m in istra to r fa iled to m ake a dequat e fa ctual fi ndi ngs orfai l ed t o adequa t el yexpl ai n the gr ounds fort he deci s i on, t hen the pr operr emedyi s t o r emand t he ca s e forfur therfi ndi ngs or addi t i onal expl anat i on. C al dw el l , 287 F. 3d at1288. I n contr as t , i f the evi dence i n t he r ecor d cl ear l ys how s t hatt he cl ai m anti s ent i t l ed t o benef i t s , an or der aw ar di ng s uch bene fi t s i s appr opr i at e. See B uffonge v. Prudent i al I ns . C o. of A m . , 426 F. 3d 20, 31 ( 1s tC i r . 2005) ; C al dw el l , 287 F. 3d at1289. I n t hi s cas e, t he Pl an A dm i ni s tr at orerr ed byunr eas onabl yi nt erpr et i ng the W FSP and C B A t o r equi r e thatt he W FSP be s peci fi cal l ynamed i n the l i s tof exampl e bene fi t s . T he othergr ound upon w hi ch t o denyPl ai nt i ffs benef i t s now u rg e d b yth e P lan is th a t th e W F S P w a s n o t ar ra n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r its empl oy ees gener al l y . W e di d notcons i derthi s ar gum enti n ourm er i t s r evi ew b e c a u se it w a s n o t as se rte d in th e a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd . B u t w e c a n n o t ig n o re it forpurpos es of form ul at i ng an appr opr i at e r emedy . T o be s ur e, w e ar e aw ar e that “i ti s nott h[i s ] court ’ s funct i on ab i ni t i o t o appl ythe corr ects t andar d t o the p arti cipa n t’ s claim . ” K ing , 4 1 4 F . 3 d at 10 0 5 . T h is case is un iqu e, ho w ev er, beca us e the Pl an ( t hr ough i t s br i efs ) has s t at ed qui t e cl ear l ythati tcons i der s theA s d iscu ssed ea rl ier, o ther e x clud ed g rou p s inc lud e “ retail m ark ing store 6 orout l etper s onnel . . . [a] nyempl oy ee of Phi l l i ps Pi pe Li ne C om panyw hos e j ob i s i n t he Pi pe Li ne R el i ef LaborPool . . . T os co her i t age e m pl oy ees not i fi ed of l ay off pr i ort o D ec. 7, 2001, ” and a nyempl oy ee on a n appr oved “Leave of A b s e n c e .” A p lt. A p p . a t 1 1 8 . - 27 - W F S P n o t to h a v e b e e n a rr a n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r i ts e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra lly. T he Pl an’ s br i efi ng on t he mat t eri s ext ens i ve, and anydoubtabouthow the Pl an m i ghtexer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on on r emand i s el i m i nat ed byi t s tr eatm entof the S p o k an e p lai n ti ffs’ claim s. C o n seq u en tl y , if th e P lan’s p o sit ion o n the W F S P ’s avai l abi l i t yi s unt enabl e, t her e i s no poi nti n r emandi ng the ca s e s o thatthe Pl an c a n a g a i n d e n yb e n e fi t s , o n l yt o b e r e v e r s e d a s e c o n d t i me o n a p p e a l . S e e Co mm. forFi r s tA m endmentv. C ampbel l , 962 F. 2d 1517, 1525 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ( not i ng th a t th is c o u rt is n o t r e q u ir e d to re m a n d in f u tilit y ). B as ed on the pl ai n l anguage of the W FSP and the r el evantfac t s and ar gum ent s as s ert ed byt he part i es i n thei rbr i efs , w e conc l ude thati tw oul d be pat ent l yunr eas onabl e, underanys t andar d of r evi ew , forthe Pl an t o deny Pl ai nt i ffs cover age on the bas i s t hatthe W FSP i s notarr anged bythe C om pany fori t s empl oy ees gener al l y . I n i t s br i ef, the Pl an ar gues thatthe W FSP i s not a rra n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r its e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra llyb e c a u se it o n lya p p lies to act i ve em ploy ees and speci fi cal l yexcludes several group s of em ploy ees, i ncl udi ng uni on m ember s w hos e C B A does not i ncl ude the W FSP . T he Pl an 6 al s o ar gues t hatt he W FSP i s notarr anged byt he C om panyfori t s empl oy ees- 28 -

g e n e ra llyb e c a u se th e W F S P is c o n tin g e n t o n th e o c c u rre n c e o f a p a rticu lar e v e n t, namel ya l ay - off a s defi ned i n t he W FSP . B ecaus e s uch an e ventm i ghtnever o c c u r, ar g u e s th e P lan , the W F S P is n o t ar ra n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r its e m p l o ye e s g e n e r a l l y. T h is la tter a rg u m e n t is sp e c io u s. O f th e fo u rte e n e x a m p le b e n e fits listed in t he C B A , al l ar e tr i gger ed upon the happe ni ng of a c ont i ngency . Forexampl e, t he “Long T erm D i s abi l i t yI ns ur ance ” bene fi ti s onl ytr i gger ed w hen a c over ed em p loy ee su ffers a lon g -t erm d isab il ity . S im il arly , the “ A cti v e D u tyM il it ary L eave and J ob R ei ns t at ementPol i cy ” i s onl ytr i gger ed w hen a c over ed empl oy ee is c a lled to a c tiv e m ili tar yse rv ice . L ik e w ise , the “ D e n tal A ss ista n c e P lan ” is o n ly trig g e re d w h e n a c o v e re d e m p lo y e e u n d e rg o e s c e rt a in d e n ta l p ro c e d u re s . T aken a tfac e val ue, t he Pl an’ s r eas oni ng l eads t o the abs ur d concl us i on thatthe den t al plan i s not arranged byt he C om pan yfor i t s em ploy ees gen eral l ybecau se notal l empl oy ees w i l l need r ootcana l s , fi l l i ngs , orbr i dgew or k. Focus i ng onl yon t he el i gi bi l i tyl anguage of the W FSP , the Pl an’ s ar gum ent th a t th e W F S P is n o t ar ra n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r its e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra lly beca us e i tcont ai ns cert ai n excl us i ons i s bar el ycol or abl e. T he Pl an i gnor es the p lain m e a n in g o f

th e w o rd “ g e n e ra lly ” a n d in ste a d su b stitu tes “ u n iv e rsa lly ” in its pl ace . T hatt her e ar e s ever al excl us i ons i n the W FSP i s i rr el evant , s o l ong as the W FSP cover s enough empl oy ees t o be “ge ner al l y ” ava i l abl e, w hi ch the A m er i can H er i t age D i ct i onarydefi nes as “w i del y , ” or“forthe mostpart . ” gene r al l yT heWh i l e , i n i t s b r i e f, t h e P l a n d i s a g r e e s wi th t h e c o n c l u s i o n t o b e d r a wn 7 f ro m th e fa c ts a s s e rt e d b yP la in tiffs , it n e v e r d is a g re e s w ith th e fa c ts th e m s e lv e s . A ccor di ngl y , w e as s um e the Pl an has no di s put e w i th Pl ai nt i ffs ’ ver s i on of the fa c ts re g a rd in g th e P la n ’s a v a ila b ility. T h e P lan a rg u e s th a t th e P lan C o m m itt e e m e m b e rs d id n o t p e rso n a lly 8 determ i ne w ho recei ved t he Y E S binders . T his argum ent i s unp ers uasi ve b ecause plan fi du ci ari es ar e “l egall yres po nsi ble bot h fo r [their ] ow n d eci si on s and als o fordeci s i ons m ade by[thei r ] agent s . ” G eddes v. U ni t ed St aff i ng A l l i ance E m p lo y e e M e d . P la n , 4 6 9 F .3 d 9 1 9 , 9 3 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). - 29 - A m er i can H er i t age D i ct i onaryof the Engl i s h L anguage ( 4th ed. 2004) . I n other w or ds , t he W FSP need notcovereveryC om panyempl oy ee i n or dert o be a rr a n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r i ts e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra lly. W hen cons i der ed i n l i ghtof the fa ct s putforw ar d byPl ai nt i ffs i n the d istric t co u rt, h o w e v e r, th e P lan ’s a rg u m e n t re g a rd in g th e e x c lu sio n s is sim p ly unt enabl e. Forexampl e, fors ever al y ear s pr i ort o the mer ger , the W FSP w as

7 inclu d ed in a larg e re d b ind er o f S P D s tha t w as lab eled “Y E S ” fo r “Y o u r E x tr a S ec u ri ty . ” In the y ea rs prior to the m erg er, Plainti ffs h ad p arti cipa ted in ev ery o t h e rYES b e n e fi tp l a n . Pl a i n t i ffs a l s o r e c e i v e d p e r i o d i c u p d a t e s t o e a c h YES b en efitp lan, i n clud ing the W F S P , w h ich w ere ac co m p an ied b ytr an sm ittal let ters i den t i fy i ng P l ai nti ffs as part i ci pan t s. 8 F u rth e rm o re , m a n yo f th e Y E S b e n e fit p lan s c o n tain e x c lu sio n s s im ilar to t hos e i n t he W FSP . T aki ng t he medi cal pl an as an exa m pl e, t he pl an exc l udes s even c l as s es of empl oy ees , i ncl udi ng cert ai n r et ai l m arket i ng empl oy ees , contr act- 30 -

empl oy ees , cert ai n non- U . S. empl oy ees w or ki ng i n thei rhom e countr i es , and u n io n m e m b e rs w h o s e C B A d o e s n o t in c lu d e th e p la n . S e e A p lt. A p p . a t 7 8 5 . L ik e w ise , the d e n tal p lan e x c lu d e s s ix c las se s o f e m p lo y e e s, in c lu d in g c e rta in r et ai l m arket i ng empl oy ees , empl oy ees of a c om panythathas notadopt ed the pl an, t empora r y , i nt erm i t t ent , l eas ed orcontr actempl oy ees , m ember s of the Phi l l i ps Pi pe Li ne C om panyPi pe Li ne R el i ef LaborPool , non- U . S. empl oy ees w or ki ng i n t hei rhom e countr i es , and uni on m ember s w hos e C B A does noti ncl ude th e p lan . S e e id . at 7 8 7 . N e v e rth e les s, P lain tiffs w e re a lw a y s a llo w e d to p a rticip a te in th e m e d ica l an d d e n tal p lan s, a lo n g w ith e v e ryo th e r Y E S b e n e fit p lan . A n d w h ile th e P lan sta tes th a t n o u n io n m e m b e r h a s e v e r re c e iv e d b e n e fits undert he W FSP , pr i ort o t he mer gerw i th C onoco, ther e had ne verbeen a change i n contr ol t hatw oul d have tr i gger ed bene fi t s underthe W FSP foranycover ed empl oy ee. Si m pl yput , t her e i s no pr ece dentforexcl udi ng Pl ai nt i ffs fr om the W F S P . N o r a re w e c o n v in c e d b yth e P lan ’s a rg u m e n t th a t n o o th e r Y E S b e n e fit pl an cont ai ns t he s ame excl us i ons as the W FSP . W e have r evi ew ed the excl us i ons cont ai ned i n t he otherbenef i tpl ans and manyar e s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar oreven br oadert han the exc l us i ons i n the W FSP . Fur therm or e, i ti s i rr el evant j us tw hats peci fi c cl as s es of empl oy ees ar e exc l uded bythe Pl an, s o l ong as the Pl an cove r s enough empl oy ees t o be arr anged bythe C om panyfori t s empl oy ees gener al l y . T he Pl an has notart i cul at ed anyl ogi cal pr i nci pl e fortr eat i ng the- 31 -

W FSP di ffe r ent l yfr om everyot herY E S benefi tpl an, even w hen cha l l enged t o do s o byPl ai nt i ffs i n t hes e pr ocee di ngs . A l though the Pl an r emi nds us thati t“w as n o t r eq u ir ed to reso lve h yp o thetical disp u tes co n ce rnin g o ther p lans n o t befo re it , ” A p lee. B r. at 50 n . 1 1 , this argu m en t i s u n p ersu asiv e in ligh t of the W F S P ’s s t r i ki ng s i m i l ar i t yt o t he otherY E S benefi tpl ans –es peci al l ygi ven thatthe Pl an has neverar gued thatt he W FSP excl us i ons ar e br oaderthan the exc l us i ons i n, for exampl e, t he medi cal and dent al pl ans . C ons equent l y , the Pl an’ s ar gum entthat th e W F S P is n o t ar ra n g e d b yth e C o m p a n yfo r its e m p lo y e e s g e n e ra llyis w h o lly uns uppor t ed and e nt i r el yi ncons i s t entw i th i t s pas tpr act i ces . I tw oul d be unr eas onabl e t o denybenef i t s bas ed on thi s gr ound. T he Pl an has art i cul at ed no ot herr at i onal e fordeny i ng benef i t s , and w e ca n conce i ve of none thati s ei ther appar entorm er i t or i ous . T hus , t hi s i s a ca s e w her e a r emand i s unnece s s aryand w e mustaw ar d Pl ai nt i ffs the bene fi t s t o w hi ch theyar e cl ear l yent i t l ed. See B u ffo n g e , 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 3 1 . G i ven ou r di sposi t i on of the case, i ti s unn ecessaryt o co nsi der Plai nti ffs’ a d d iti o n a l ar g u m e n ts th a t th e d istric t co u rt w ro n g lye x c lu d e d th e sta tem e n t o f Jim N okes and the Y ahoo! fi nance r eport . W e R E V E R SE and R E M A N D , di r ect i ng t he di s t r i c tc ou r tt o e nt e rj ud gmen ta w a r di ng Pl a i nt i ffs be ne fi t s un de rthe W FSP, i ncl udi ng i nt er es t . W e l eave t o t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s cr et i on w hetheran aw ar d of att o rne y ’s fe es a n d co sts i s ap p rop ri ate u n d er 2 9 U . S . C . § 1 1 3 2 (g).