41 pages. "This case -- which has now been to this Court three times and to the U.S. Supreme Court once -- raises issues of grave concern to amici and their members.... Contrary to the principle of deference that has long prevailed in this area, plaintiffs and their amicus seek to replace the construction of the Plan given by the Plan Administrator with the views of individual ERISA Plan participants; they claim insubstantial 'conflicts' that could be asserted with respect to virtually any ERISA plan; they attempt to ignore the Plan's content based on disclosure documents; and they claim entitlement to a remedy with no basis in the governing statutory and equitable standards.... If a plan administrator's construction can be denied deference based on the considerations plaintiffs and their amicus raise, it is hard to imagine a case where deference would apply." [Conklin v. Frommert, 2nd Cir.]  MORE >>