SPD specifically provides that while “HEB expects to continue the Plan indefinitely ... no amendment or termination of the Plan will affect any claim for expenses incurred prior to the date the amendment or termination is adopted, except as provide by law.” In other words, HEB’s right to terminate the Plan does not deprive Swinton of benefits already accrued under the Plan. Second, if HEB terminates the Plan, it will leave Swinton with all of his common law rights against HEB as a non-subscriber. See Tex. Lab.Code Ann. § 406.033(a). Third, assuming HEB’s promise to provide benefits under the Plan is illusory, the parties formed a unilateral contract when HEB actually provided, and Swinton accepted, benefits in return for Swinton’s promise not to sue. See Light, 883 S.W.2d at 647 n. 6 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the fact that the plan administrator
holding that an agreement to arbitrate is illusory if as here the employer can unilaterally modify the contract holding that ignorance by one prosecutor of promise made by another is irrelevant since the prosecutors office is an entity and  a promise made by one attorney must be attributed for these purposes to the government recognizing that a unilateral contract can be formed when only one promise is illusory because the nonillusory promise can serve as an offer which the promisor who made the illusory promise can accept by performance holding that a promise to make a loan is not covered by  1823e because a promise is not an asset holding that the agreement was not illusory because it was supported by consideration insofar as the employee and employer were equally bound by a promise to arbitrate disputes