to satisfy the purpose and intent of COBRA. COBRA permits an employee a 60 day period to elect coverage. See 29 U.S.C. § 1162(3). In this case, the notice of the offer given by Defendant was ambiguous and failed to explain the terms of payment (that it would consist of payment of monthly premiums according to a standard schedule), the terms of insurability (that Plaintiff could not be denied coverage), and the terms of coverage (that standard terms of coverage would apply). Because of these ambiguities, the Court will require Defendant to re-extend the COBRA offer with clarifying language for an additional 60 day period. The Court has authority to fashion this equitable remedy under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1). See Griggs v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 237 F.3d 371, 381 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). This equitable remedy also works to the
holding one example of a claim is a right to an equitable remedy that can be satisfied by an alternative right to payment holding that  1132a1b affords the plaintiff adequate relief for her benefits claim and a cause of action under  1132a3 is thus not appropriate holding that the reinstatement of the right to an election of benefits may be an appropriate equitable remedy under 29 usc  1132a3 holding that the authorization under 29 usc  1132a3 extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary party in interest to a transaction barred by 29 usc  1106a holding that monetary damages may be awarded in a  1132a3 claim because when sought as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty restitution is properly regarded as an equitable remedy because the fiduciary concept is equitable