Trust Company (“RTC”), which is arguably an agency of the U.S. government. They ground this argument on the fact that from 1992 to 1995, the RTC was the receiver for a failed savings and loan association which owned shares in Cole. The S & L’s shares represented about 28% of Cole’s stock. The RTC was allowed to elect three members to the seven member board of directors of Cole. The RTC, however, exercised no control over Cole or the Plan, and no government employee served as a fiduciary under the Plan. The RTC’s involvement with Cole did not convert Cole’s private benefit plan into a government benefit plan. The Plan was established and paid for by Cole, a private entity, for the benefit of its employees. Cf. Silvera v. The Mutual Life Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 423, 427 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); and see McGraw v. Prudential Ins. Co., 137
holding that disability plan established by state university for benefit of employees qualified for governmental plan exclusion 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 holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that where a governmental entity purchases a benefit plan on behalf of government employees and dele gates the administration to a private insurer the plan is a government plan exempt from erisa holding that a group benefits policy purchased by the city for employees was a governmental plan even though the plan was offered and administered by a private insurer