Opinion ID: 750718
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: any relevant regulations formulated by the appropriate administrative agencies, and

Text: 78 (3) the factual background of the determination and any inferences of lack of good faith. 79 Id. at 638; see also Batchelor v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local 861 Pension and Retirement Fund, 877 F.2d 441, 445-48 (5th Cir.1989). These factors indicate that the Plan's application of the Amendment to Spacek did not constitute an abuse of discretion. First, application of the Amendment to Spacek in no way rendered the Plan internally inconsistent. Second, our research revealed no regulations prohibiting or casting into doubt the propriety of the Plan's application of the Amendment to Spacek. Indeed, the relevant treasury provisions discussed in Part III.A.3, supra, indicate that application of the Amendment to Spacek was perfectly lawful under ERISA. Third, Spacek presented no evidence to the district court that in any way establishes bad faith on the part of the Plan in applying the Amendment to suspend his benefits. The only factual inference that we can draw from the record before us is that the Plan made a good faith decision to conserve its resources for participants who had truly decided to retire and not reenter the local longshoring industry. The affidavit of Shirley H. Hunt, administrator of the Plan at all times relevant to this lawsuit, states that the Plan adopted the Amendment to promote the Plan's financial integrity and enhance the corpus of the trust assets ... [by] prevent[ing] early retirees such as Mr. Spacek from returning to work in the longshoring industry while simultaneously collecting regular pension benefits without the necessity of having to make further contributions to the Plan. We therefore conclude that, even if the scope of the Plan's amendment provision is ambiguous, as a matter of law the Plan did not abuse its discretion in applying the Amendment to Spacek.