affect the revenues of the United States because they are afforded preferential Federal tax treatment; that despite the enormous growth in such plans many employees with long years of employment are losing anticipated retirement benefits owing to the lack of vesting provisions in such plans; that owing to the inadequacy of current minimum standards, the soundness and stability of plans with respect to adequate funds to pay promised benefits may be endangered; that owing to the termination of plans before requisite funds have been accumulated, employees and their beneficiaries have been deprived of anticipated benefits; and that it is therefore desirable in the interests of employees and their beneficiaries, for the protection of the arine Ins. Co., 48 F.3d 365 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Gourley, 248 F.3d at 220 (holding
holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator holding that plan administrator abused its discretion when it interpreted plan as giving it the right to subrogation with respect to all claims and not just those claims for medical expenses holding that the plan administrator abused its discretion when it ignored contrary evidence without explanation holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions