argue that the SPDs misled them into believing that their Secured Benefit Accounts would not be projected forward to normal retirement age. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that a Signal Retirement Plan brochure distributed in January 1984 was misleading because it in fact promised that a 3.5% interest rate would be used to project a participant’s Secured Benefit Account. First, this argument is effectively moot in light of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ anti-cutback claims, which holds that a 3.5% interest rate must be used to project the Account. Second, the brochure is not a summary plan description and thus does not fall under the scope of § 1022. See § 1022(b) (setting forth twelve requirements for SPDs); see also Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Third, the brochure describes the
holding that an insurance company assignee of a fiduciary of an erisa trust has standing to sue under 29 usc  1132a2 holding that the reinstatement of the right to an election of benefits may be an appropriate equitable remedy under 29 usc  1132a3 holding that an insurance booklet describing benefits was not an spd because it lacked ten of the required twelve elements set forth in 29 usc  1022b holding under the exclusive civil enforcement provisions of  502a as set forth in 29 usc  1132a that a beneficiary may sue to recover benefits due under the plan to enforce the participants rights under the plan or to clarify rights to future benefits holding that the finding that entities constitute a single enterprise under 29 usc  203r is separate and distinct from whether an entity is an employer under 29 usc  203d