WPCq gwuTY&D9梧Tf4nDYL?LRQ4i|ndoyG.Pԍ !QX9$r,>/J*>Ytڦc 8F,-^<y-ͬA!|ʮ2ZtF?#ǝDf~khMw~`Xpne]NGhu@/ V2Q,@7f@~vi#b!l5k **4? K&K^6@kO[/Qe>u< ZH0Pi#%arˢ鯻E @'R~`U\KjyB#S0|l@^Ge" A'_[XpP7F9 ¬FHIU}u :#Hy+TϰY@H$_w8&\G HH(K;C@sh~5j8h# % ^ 0G) UFp U"8 U0 UBU>`^ bNw4 0 mnTN;U@=E}faO 0D(b |T!;" &#&)6-- B///44 0U7 07n8 0/? 0? 0@ 0lA 0B 0B 0sC 0D 0D 0E 0]F 0 G 0G 0RH 0H 0I 0J 0J 0K 0OL 0L 0M 0;N 0N 0eO 0O 0P 0_Q 0>R 0[R 0SS 05T 0U 0U 0V 0W 0wX 02IY 0{Y 0:wZ 0YZ 0_ [ 0 i[ 0s\ 0] B*_ D/%` D+T` 0` D/b 0b 06c 0c 0:d 0^d 0<Xe 1eeU6eU>/fU*mf 1uf 72 g>gSgSgSgigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigigqCkHP LaserJet 8150 PCL 5e,,,,0XL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT($XfXXXԶL 9Z+.Courier New Regular<4 9Z+ Courier New <\( 9Z+Courier <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi\( 9Z+&Courier Regularl5  - -x4:i+003|x(G2_X$ !XXXX    =Xdd=  XXhX  0   U<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(9 Z(Times New Roman TABLE A E _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  *    _=XXdXd=ӀOftheNinthCircuit,sittingbydesignation.(#$  0    _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  7    _=XXdXd=ӀXXXXThedecisionsonwhichdefendantsrelydonotmandatea  differentapproach.Noneinvolvedafindingofasevereconflict  basedpartlyonactualimpropermotivationssuchasanimus.#XXXX#XXXXԀSee \ _Fenton_v.JohnHancockMut.LifeIns.Co.,400F.3d83,90(1st 2 Cir.2005)(arbitraryandcapriciousreviewproperinabsenceof X showingthat"adversedeterminationwasimproperlymotivated"); . Lopesv.Metro.LifeIns.Co.,332F.3d1,4-5&n.6(1stCir.   2003)(refusaltoapplydenovoreviewproperwheretherewas   structuralconflictandevidenceofimpropermotivationwas"not `  particularlyconvincing"andrevealed"nothinguntoward"); 6   X Pari-_Fasano_,230F.3dat419(arbitraryandcapriciousreviewwhere  therewasstructuralconflictbutnotactualimpropermotivation);  Doyle,144F.3dat184(incaseofstructuralconflict,applying \ arbitraryandcapriciousreviewwith"morebite,"and"interpreting 2 'morebite'asadheringtothearbitraryandcapriciousprinciple, X withspecialemphasisonreasonableness,butwiththeburdenonthe . claimanttoshowthatthedecisionwasimproperlymotivated").#XXXX=#  _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  2    _=XXdXd=ӀThedistrictcourtdidfindthatanimuswasnotthemotive  inChibaro'soriginalfiduciarybreachesoffailingtopromptly  liquidateandsegregateassetsandtotimelyseethattheDecember \ 31,2000valuationwascompleted. Butthenlossesbegantomount 2 asaresultofthebreaches,andChibaro,indecidingwhetherto X revalue,begantobe"motivatedinpart"byadesirenotto,ashe . sawit,"enrich"thedepartingparticipants.(Eventhen,thecourt   found,hisprimarypurposewassimplytoavoidlosinghisown   money.) - -  _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  6    _=XXdXd=ӀXXXXAsweexplaininthetext,itislessclearthandefendants  thinkthatthisdutyrequired,orevenpermitted,revaluationhere.#XXXX# CHIBAROERISA USPA decisionmakingFecteau UPSACottrillPrizer r _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  3    _=XXdXd=ӀThecourtdidawardpostjudgmentinterestandcoststo  Janeiro.  1 _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  4    _=XXdXd=Ӏ XXXX Onappeal,defendantsignoreandevencontradictmanyofthe  districtcourt'sadversefindingsoffact. Defendantspresentno  developedargumentinsupportofmostoftheirversionofthe \ facts.Wethereforedonotmentiontheirversion,excepttothe 2 extenttheyhavedevelopeditonappealbypresentingsomething X approachingaclearerrorargument. #XXXX#  | _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  10    _=XXdXd=ӀXXXXJaneiroarguesthatplanassetsfinancedChibaro'sdefense,  andthatChibaro,astheprimaryowneroftheremainingassets,  wouldbearthebruntofafeeawardtoJaneiro. #XXXX#Onappeal,XXXXChibaro \ sayshebore(withhisplanassets)theattorneys'feesandcosts 2 ofdefendingthiscase. #XXXXA#Ifanypaymentwasimproper,an X appropriateparty maypursuethematter.   _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  12    _=XXdXd=ӀXXXXJaneirohasnotofferedanydevelopedargumentthatthis  courtshouldadopt(orhasalreadyadopted)apresumptioninfavor  ofprejudgmentinterest.SeeBigginsv._Hazen_ԀPaperCo.,953F.2d \ 1405,1427(1stCir.1992)(stating,whereprejudgmentinterestwas 2 awarded,that"[_w]e_Ԁneednotgo[asfarasadoptingapresumption] X atthistime")#XXXX#XXXX,vacatedonothergrounds,507U.S.604(1993).#XXXXe# , _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  13    _=XXdXd=ӀXXXXIndeed,Janeiroevenreliesonthedeterrencefactor 󀄄  which,asalreadystated,thedistrictcourtviewedasadequately  servedbythelargebenefitsaward.#XXXX# d  _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  9    _=XXdXd=ӀDefendantssuggestthatbecausethedistrictcourthadruled  outatheoryofrecoverybasedonbreachoffiduciaryduty,itwas  somehowimproper,oran"endrunaroundERISA,"toconsider \ Chibaro'sactualfiduciarybreaches,whichprecededthe 2 revaluations,inassessingtheequitiesofrevaluing. This X argumentmakeslittlesense,butasitisunsupportedbyany <  citationstoauthority,wesimplydeemitwaived.Werejectthe  claimthatevenifthebreachescouldbeconsidered,thedistrict  court"placedundueemphasis"onthemandonChibaro'sownership \ interestintheremainingassets. Thecourt'sweighingofthese 2 factors,alongwithothers,wasperfectlysensible.  _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  8    _=XXdXd=ӀDefendantscharacterizerevaluationasnecessarytoprevent  thedepartingparticipantsfrom"obtainingawindfall"atthe  expenseoftheremainingparticipants. Itisdifficulttoseehow \ notbeingforcedtobeartheentiretyoflossesthatnevershould 2 haveoccurredinthefirstplace,whiletheremainingparticipants X bearnone,canbelabeleda"windfall."*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /    d _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  5    _=XXdXd=ӀWilliamPrizer,theinvestmentadvisor,testifiedthat  ChibaronevertoldhimwhenChibaroexpectedtodoadistribution,  thatPrizerwasgiven"theclearunderstandingthatthiswasn't. \ ..goingtohappenanytimesoon,"andthatifPrizerhadbeen 2 toldtherewould"beapayoutdateinDecember,"he"[_a]bsolutely_" X wouldhaveadvisedthatmoreplanassetsbeputintocashlike . investmentstominimizerisk. Wedonotconsidertheclaim,raised   forthefirsttimeatoralargumentandwithoutrecordcitation,   thatPrizerknewabouttheimminentdepartureof70%oftheassets `  becausehewasalsoJaneiro'spersonalinvestmentadvisor. 6     ThomasFecteau,ofthethirdpartyadministrationfirm,  \  testifiedthatitwasChibaro'sideatorevalueinsteadofpaying  2  thedepartingparticipantsbasedontheDecember31,2000   valuation,andindeedthatChibarowas"adamant"aboutrevaluing.    Fecteaufurthertestifiedthathedidnotmakearecommendation d  "onewayortheother"astorevaluation. *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7](X7    5+ ` hp x 5?j%2A`Arial?  Si\  `&Times New RomanS7^(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d\)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7`(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?j%2A`Arial?  Si\  `&Times New RomanS7^(X75+ ` hp x 5  \)2dxd0KS.SampleKh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKh<6X9`(Courier NewKSi\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  6789:;<= 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ki)        _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  1    _=XXdXd=ӀXXXXDefendantsemphasizeoneincidentthatoccurredinthe  meantime #XXXX# XXXX:inmidJanuary2002,JaneirodirectedSmithBarney,the  custodianoftheplanassets,nottomakefurtherdistributions. \ TheassetsremainedfrozenuntilmidApril2002. #XXXX# Whetherornot 2 thefreezemightinothercircumstanceshavejustifiedadelayin X distributionandevenrevaluation,itcametoolatehere: . defendants'casefoundersattheveryfirstrevaluation. g _X$XXXX  =Xdd=  XXhX  11    _=XXdXd=ӀThebreachoffiduciarydutyclaimwasassertedonlyagainst  ChibaroandtheUSPA. Theclaimsforbenefits,prejudgment  interest,andattorneys'feesdidnotspecifydefendants,although \ thefirstclaimdidassertarighttosue"thePlans." Itis 2 apparentfromvariouspretrialfilingsthatthepartiesunderstood X thesethreeclaimstobeagainstallthedefendants,including . Chibaroindividually. Moreover,thejudgmentforJaneirodidnot   specifywhichdefendantswereliable. Attrial,however,the   districtcourtsaid,indisposingofthebreachoffiduciaryduty `  claim,"Idonotseehow[Janeiro]canmaintainanyclaimagainst 6   ...Chibaroindividually.Idon'tseehowhecanmaintainclaims  \  againstUSPAin[its]capacityasaplanadministrator.Instead,  2  hisremainingclaimisaclaimforbenefitswhichisproperly   assertedagainsttheplans...." Thecourtlaterreiterated   thatJaneirowasentitledtoreliefonlyagainstthetwoplans. d   Janeirodoesnotdevelopanycontraryargumentonappeal. !XXXX  _   *,X` XX*TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !     X0yXXXyXX0y=  XXdd=8XXdd8"-nrm@UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#X0yXyH#  MXX0yFortheFirstCircuit#X0yXM# #XXXX0y)#  A') ` dE<` A   Nos.052150;052208 u    @@ JOHNJ.JANEIRO,JR., ! q @@| | Plaintiff,Appellee/CrossAppellant,    @@tt)v. y  UROLOGICALSURGERYPROFESSIONALASSOCIATION;UROLOGICALSURGERY %u  PROFESSIONALASSOCIATIONMONEYPURCHASEPENSIONPLANANDTRUST; K  UROLOGICALSURGERYPROFESSIONALASSOCIATIONPROFITSHARINGPLAN ! ANDTRUST;EDWARDA.CHIBARO,M.D.,  @@ Defendants,Appellants/CrossAppellees. S A') ` dE<` A O   APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 4 FORTHEDISTRICTOFNEWHAMPSHIRE   Y@` ` [Hon.PaulJ._Barbadoro_,U.S.DistrictJudge] f A') ` dE<` A b @'Before G   @@((_Torruella_,CircuitJudge,   Hug, #  *      ׀SeniorCircuitJudge, y! andLynch,CircuitJudge. O " A') ` dE<!` A !K$ 3,XX X,X` X3      AlexanderJ.Walker,Jr.,withwhomDanielleL.Pacik, "0& JeanneaneN.Osborne,andDevine,Millimet&Branch,P.A.wereon #' brief,forappellants/crossappellees. $(   ThomasJ.Donovan,withwhom_McLane_,Graf,Raulerson& b% ) MiddletonProfessionalAssociationwereonbrief,for 8&!* appellee/crossappellant. '^"+  7,X` X,XX Xw 7*'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ( $-( $  SI)n$. @38935@SAugust7,2006 )D%0  RHC*&1" @38935 @ R ," )n$2 ? ,Ї * !y8XXdXXd8  =  XXd XXd= ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .Thisisacasearisingunderthe  EmployeeRetirementIncomeSecurityActof1974(ERISA),29U.S.C. x 1001-1461.Afterabenchtrial,plaintiffJohnJ.Janeiro,Jr. $t wasawarded$195,036inbenefits,asumthatthedistrictcourt   heldhadbeenwrongfullywithheldfromhimbytworetirementplans. |  TheplanswereadministeredbytheUrologicalSurgeryProfessional ( x  Association(USPA),andtheirprimarytrusteewasEdwardA. $  Chibaro,Janeiro'sformerbusinesspartner.    ` Onappeal,themainissueiswhatstandardofreviewthe ,|  districtcourtshouldhaveappliedtothebenefitsclaimin ( evaluatingthedefendants'decisionmaking.Thestandardvaries,  dependingonwhethertherewasaconflictofinterest.Defendants 0 arguethattheywereentitledtogreaterdeferencefromthecourt , astotheirrepeatedrevaluationsof,anddelayinpaying,the  amountduetoJaneiro.Wedisagree.Onthesefacts,thedistrict 4 courtproperlyengagedinplenaryreview,inlightoftheconflict 0 ofinterestoftheplans'trustee,Chibaro.Itthencorrectly   foundforplaintiffonhisbenefitsclaim. 8!"  ` Forhispart,Janeirohascrossappealed,seeking "4$ attorneys'feesandprejudgmentinterest.Weholdthatthe $& districtcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingthese <&!( requests.Insum,boththeappealandthecrossappealfail.The '8#* judgmentofthedistrictcourtisaffirmedinallrespects. )$,  @+&.   I.  i  Background \  ` Wedescribethefactsinthelightmostfavorabletothe X judgment,drawingallreasonableinferencesfromtherecordin   favorofJaneiroastothebenefitsclaim,butinfavorof `  defendantsastoattorneys'feesandprejudgmentinterest.See  \  ServiciosComercialesAndinos,S.A.v.Gen.Elec.DelCaribe,Inc.,   145F.3d463,466(1stCir.1998);WainwrightBank&TrustCo.v. d  Boulos,89F.3d17,19(1stCir.1996).Oursummaryisbased `  largelyuponthedistrictcourt'sfactualfindings,inwhichwesee   noclearerror. h A. ` ThePlans d  ` Foroveradecade,JaneirowasanemployeeoftheUSPA,  amedicalpractice.HeandChibaro,bothdoctors,werecoowners l ofthepractice. TheUSPAwas,andstillis, thesponsorand h administratoroftwopensionbenefitplansgovernedbyERISA:the  MoneyPurchasePensionPlanandTrust,andtheProfitSharingPlan p  andTrust. Janeiroparticipatedinbothplans. !l"  ` TheMoneyPurchasePlanwasfundedbycontributionsfrom "$ employees'salaries,andtheProfitSharingPlanwasfundedbya t$& combinationofemployeeandemployercontributions.Bothplans  &p!( weredefinedcontribution,pooledassetplans. Bothplans '#* consistedofseveraldocumentsaPrototypePlan,anAdoption x)$, Agreement,aTrustAgreement,andaSummaryPlanDescription $+t&. thatare,inallrelevantrespects,identicalforeachplan.    ` Thepertinenttermscreatedbythedocumentsarethese: \ First,B.5.1ofeachplan'sAdoptionAgreementprovidesthat X "[t]herearenorestrictionsotherthanthoseofArticle10inthe   [PrototypePlan]onwhen,followingterminationofemployment,a `  participantmaybeginreceivingbenefits." Article10ofthe  \  PrototypePlan,inturn,providesin10.1(b)that"[u]nlessa   participantelectsotherwise...,benefitdistributionoccurs d  (orbegins)nolaterthanthesixtiethdayfollowingtheendofthe `  planyearinwhich...[theparticipant]terminateshis   employmentwiththeemployer." NootherprovisionofArticle10is h pertinenthere.  d  ` SectionB.5.1ofeachplan'sAdoptionAgreementprovides  that"[w]henanaccountbalancebecomespayable,itispaidina l lumpsumatthevaluationdatefollowingtheoccurrence h precipitatingthedisbursement." UnderB.4.1,"[v]aluationdates  occurattheendofeachplanperiod." The"planperiod"wasthe p  sameasthe"planyear":thecalendaryear,endingonthelastday !l" ofDecember.  "$  ` Section6.2ofthePrototypePlanprovides:"Accountsare t$& adjustedtoreflectinvestmentchangesoneachadjustment  &p!( date....Eachvaluationdateisanadjustmentdate.Theplan '#*  administratormayalsoprovideforanextraordinaryadjustmentdate x)$, whenevermarketvaluesofunderlyingassetshavechangedsomuch  thatitwouldbeinequitabletodootherwise."  \   ` Finally,under21.1ofthePrototypePlan,"[t]he X principalemployeristheplanadministrator"and"has   discretionaryauthoritytodetermineeligibilityforbenefitsand `  toconstruethetermsoftheplan."   \   ` Thislawsuitconcernsbenefitsunderbothplans.For   convenience,werefertobothas"theplan,"theusageadoptedby d  thedistrictcourt.  `   ` Chibarowaslistedontheplanastheindividualtrustee.    AlthoughJaneirowasnamedcotrusteein1999andsignedsome h documentsinthatcapacity,thedistrictcourtfoundthathe"was d atrusteeinnameonly,"andthatChibarowastheonewho  "exclusivelyexercised"boththeresponsibilitiesoftrusteeand l theUSPA'sresponsibilitiesofplanadministration. "In h particular,"thecourtfound,"itwasDr.Chibarowhowas 0 exclusivelyresponsibleforinteractionswithboththeplan's   investmentadvisorandthethird[]partyadministrator."  8!"  ` Theplan'sthirdpartyadministratorwasFecteau "4$ Associates,Inc.("Fecteau"). Fecteauhandledtheannualvaluation $& ofplanassets.Itgeneratedthisinformationusingacensusform <&!( itsenttotheUSPAeveryDecemberorJanuary;astatement, '8#* obtainedfromtheplan'sinvestmentadvisor,ofthevalueofthe )$, assetsintheplanasofDecember31;andotherinformation, @+&. concerningdevelopmentssuchasdepositsandwithdrawals,obtained  fromtheUSPAduringtheordinarycourseoftheyear. Thecourt \ foundthatittooktheUSPAroughlytwohourstocompletethe X census,andthatittookfivetotenhoursforFecteautocomplete   thevaluationonceithadalltheinformation.  `  B. ` TheBusinessBreakupandtheBenefitsDispute  \   ` InJulyof2000,Janeirogavenoticethatheintendedto   leavetheUSPA. Thereafter,therelationshipbetweenJaneiroand d  Chibarowas,inthedistrictcourt'swords,"coldandattimesvery `  contentious." InOctoberof2000,Janeiroterminatedhis   employment.؀ Thenextvaluationdate,whichwouldapplyinthe h ordinarycourse,wasDecember31,2000.  d  ` Thedistrictcourtfoundthatbothbeforeandafter  December31,2000,Janeiro"clearlyandrepeatedlycommunicatedhis l intentiontoDr.Chibaro...towithdrawhisplanassetsassoon h astheycouldbewithdrawn." Inaddition,severalotherterminated  employeesandChibaro'sexwife,claimingbywayofarecent p  divorce,soughttoobtaintheirshareofassetsasoftheDecember !l" 31,2000valuationdate. Inall,Chibaroknewthatasofthatdate "$ roughly70%oftheplan'sassetswouldbedeparting. Ofthe30% t$& remaining,92%belongedtoChibaro.  <&!(  ` ThedistrictcourtfurtherfoundthattheUSPAhad '8#* Fecteau's2000annualcensusforminearlyJanuaryof2001,butdid )$, notcompleteandreturnittoFecteauuntilMarch12,2001. @+&.  FecteaucompletedthevaluationforDecember31,2000(thefirst  valuation)andtransmittedittoChibarobyletterdatedJune19, \ 2001. Janeiro'sshareofassetsasofDecember31,2000wasvalued X at$651,680.      ` Importantly,betweenDecemberof2000andJuneof2001, `  themarketvalueoftheplanassetsdeclined. Thedistrictcourt  \  foundthatChibaro"becameconcernedbecause...hedidn'twant   tomakemoneyforotherpeoplethatwereleavingtheplan,andin d  effectifDr.JaneiroweretobepaidthevaluationasofDecember `  31,2000,hewouldreceiveagreaterpercentageoftheplanassets   thanhewouldbeentitledtoifanewvaluationwasconducted." h  Chibaro,who"wasdeterminedtohavetheassetsrevalued,"directed d Fecteautorevaluetheassets,thistimeasofJune30,2001(the  secondvaluation). Fecteaudidso,conveyingtheresultsto l ChibaroonAugust10,2001.Thistime,Janeiro'ssharewasvalued h at$603,052.Asthedistrictcourtexplained,theeffectofthe  revaluation"wastotransferalossthatotherwisewouldhavebeen p  born[e]bythepartieswhoseassetsremainedintheplantothe !l" partieswhowereleaving."  "$  ` AtsomepointafterAugust10andbeforeSeptember11, t$& 2001,consenttodistributionformsweredistributedtoJaneiroand  &p!( theotherclaimants. Janeiroreturnedhiscompletedformon '#* September17,2001. Bythen,themarkethadfurtherdeclined,most x)$, notablyafterSeptember11,2001. ChibarohadFecteauperform $+t&. anotherrevaluation,thistimeasofOctober31,2001(thethird  valuation);theresultswerecommunicatedtohimonNovember5, \ 2001. Hedidnotnotifytheterminatedemployeesaboutthis X revaluationuntilNovember30,andhedidnotprovidethemwith   consenttodistributionforms(whichwouldhavespecifiedthevalue `  oftheirshares).     \   ` December31,2001was theendoftheplanyear,andso   wasavaluationdate. ThevaluationasofDecember31,2001(the d  fourthvaluation)wastransmittedtoChibaroonApril30,2002.q #  1      ׀ `   InAprilof2002,consenttodistributionformsweredistributed,   butthistimeJaneirodidnotsignorreturnhis.  h   ` OnJuly19,2002,FecteautransmittedtoChibaroa d valuationasofJune30,2002(thefifthvaluation).Consentto  distributionformsweresenttothedepartingemployees;Janeiro l completedhisandreturneditonAugust11,2002. Thevalueof h Janeiro'sshare,asofthisvaluation,was$456,644. Hereceived  thissum$195,036lessthanthefirstvaluationbylatefall p  of2002,nearlytwoyearsafterthefirstvaluationdateof !l" December31,2000. Heunsuccessfullysoughttorecoverthis "$ $195,036amountthroughadministrativemeans.  t$&  ` JaneirothensuedtheUSPA,thetwoplans,andChibaro.   Heassertedfourclaims.Thefirsttwo,forbenefits,see29 \ U.S.C.1132(a)(1)(B),andforequitablereliefandrestitution X forbreachoffiduciaryduty,seeid.1132(a)(3),were   essentiallytheoriesofrecoveryforthe$195,036.Thethirdwas `  forprejudgmentinterest,andthefourthwasforattorneys'fees.   \  C. ` TheDistrictCourt'sBenchRuling    ` Attheendofathreedaybenchtrial,thedistrictcourt d  madefindingsoffact,mostofwhicharesummarizedabove.The `  courtfurtherdeterminedthatChibarowasinbreachofhis   fiduciarydutyintwoways:First,Chibarowasawareasof h December30,2000thatasubstantialamountoftheassets,having d beenclaimedbythedepartingparticipants,would(orshould)  shortlybeleavingtheplan,buthefailedtoapprisetheplan's l investmentadvisorofthisfactsothattheadvisorcouldliquidate h andsegregatesufficientplanassets. Thisfailuremeantthat"the  assetsremainedinvestedinamixtureofstocksandbonds[,]which p  exposedtheassetstobedistributedtoanunacceptabledegreeof !l" marketrisk." Second,Chibaro"failedtotakereasonablestepsto "$ ensurethatthe[December31,2000]valuationwascompletedina t$& timelymanner"bypromptlytransmittingthecensustoFecteauand  &p!( insistingthatFecteautimelydoitsjob.Thesixmonthdelay '#*  simplywasnotjustified.  x)$,  ` Takentogether,thesefiduciarybreachesledtootherwise   avoidablelosses:marketlossestraceabletothedepartingassets, \ whichhadnotbeenliquidatedandsegregated,butratherhad X remainedinriskyinvestments.Thisparticularcategoryoflosses,   asdistinctfromthemarketlossestraceabletotheremaining `  assets, was"dueentirelyandexclusively"toChibaro'sfiduciary  \  breaches. ThecourtfoundthatJaneirowasnotatallresponsible   forthebreachesorthelosses. XXXXԀThecourtalsodeclinedtofind d  thatChibaroreliedingoodfaithontheadviceofprofessionals, `  notingthat,ifanything,theevidencetendedagainstsucha   finding. #XXXXHO#  `  h  ` Thedistrictcourtthenmadethefollowingconclusionsof d law:First,ChibaroandtheUSPAwereentitledtojudgmentasa  matteroflawontheclaimfordamagesbasedonabreachof l fiduciarydutytheory,becausesuchaclaimdoesnotliewhere,as h here,thesuitisonlyonbehalfofaclaimantwhohasanavailable  claimforbenefits.SeeVarityCorp.v.Howe,516U.S.489,515 p  (1996).ThecourtstressedthatalthoughJaneirowasnotlegally !l" entitledtoanyreliefonabreachoffiduciarydutytheory, "$ Chibarowasinfactinbreachofhisfiduciaryduty.  t$&  ` Second,thecourtheld,Janeirowasentitledtoprevail  &p!( onhisbenefitsclaim.ThecourtreasonedthatJaneiro'saccount '#* balancebecamepayableonthevaluationdatefollowinghis x)$, terminationthatis,onDecember31,2000andthatJaneiro $+t&. hadtimelyelectedsuchpayment. Further,theamounttowhich  Janeirowasentitledwasthevalueofhisaccounton December31, \ 2000,unlesssomedeparturefromthatvaluationdatewasjustified. X  Thecourtagreedwithdefendantsthat 6.2ofthePrototypePlan,   whichpermittedtheplanadministratorto"provideforan |  extraordinaryadjustmentdatewhenevermarketvaluesofunderlying ( x  assetshavechangedsomuchthatitwouldbeinequitabletodo $  otherwise,"suppliedapotentialbasisfordeparture. Theultimate   question,therefore,waswhetherChibaro,exercisingtheUSPA's ,|  planadministrationauthority,wasentitledtodeclare ( extraordinaryadjustmentdatesonJune30,2001andonlaterdates.    ` Inansweringthisquestion,thecourtfirstdetermined 0 theappropriatestandardofreviewofdefendants'applicationof , theplan'sterms.Thecourtacknowledgedthatordinarilyitwould  reviewonlyforabuseofdiscretion,butitheldthatinthiscase, 4 "Chibaro[was]operatingunderaconflictofinterestthatwasso 0 severe...thatitentitleshisdeterminations"tonodeference.    Thecourtcitedseveralfactssupportingthisconclusion. 8!"  ` First,Chibaro'sjudgmentastowhethertoemployan "4$ extraordinaryvaluationdatewas"inevitablygoingtobeaffected $& byaconcern...thathecouldbesubjecttosuitforbreachof <&!( fiduciaryduty." Itwashisfailurestotimelyliquidateand '8#* segregateplanassets,andtoobtainaDecember31,2000valuation )$, thatproducedavoidablelossesthatis,marketlossestraceable @+&. tothedepartingassets,whichshouldhavebeenisolatedfrom  marketriskandgiventothedepartingparticipants.Usingalater \ valuationdate(withalowervalue)wouldputtheseavoidable X lossesonthedepartingparticipantsandthusreducetheriskthat   anyoneremainingintheplanwouldsueforbreachoffiduciary `  duty.  ` Second,thedistrictcourtnoted,Chibarofeltpersonal  \  animustowardthedepartingparticipants. ByJuneof2001,he"was   inahighlyadversarialrelationshipwiththedepartingemployees," d  includingtheofficemanager,withwhomhehada"veryhostile `  relationship,"andJaneiro,withwhomhewasthenengagedinstate   courtlitigation. ItwasJaneirowhohadcommencedthat h litigation,andthedistrictcourtfoundthat"therewasanimosity d betweenthemasaresultofthislitigation." Asmentionedabove,  oneoftheotherownersofthedepartingassetswasChibaro'sex l wife,claimingbywayofarecentdivorce.Thecourtfoundthat h Chibaro"didnotwanttomakemoneyforpeoplewhowereleavingthe  plans,"andthathe"harbor[ed]ananimusagainst[them]sufficient p   toamounttoconflictofinterest." #  2       !l"   ` Third,Chibaro'spersonalfinancialinterestswereset   directlyagainstthoseofthedepartingparticipants. Thecourt \ foundthatbecauseheowned92%oftheremainingassets(thatis, X ofthe30%remaining),"hewouldbetheprincipalbeneficiary"of   adecisiontorevalue. `    ` Reviewingtherevaluationdecisionsdenovounderthe  \  planterms,thecourtruledthatChibaro"wasnotentitledto   declareanextraordinaryvaluationdateeitherasofJune30,2001 d  or[on]anyofthesubsequentdates."The courtdescribedthisas `  a"verydifficultquestion." ItreasonedthatevenifChibarohad   notbeentheprincipalbeneficiaryofrevaluation,itstillwould h havebeeninappropriatetodeclareanextraordinaryvaluationdate. d  Thiswasbecauserevaluingdidnot"equitablyallocate"the  avoidablelossescausedbyChibaro'sfiduciarybreaches"amongall l oftheassets,"butrathercompletelyshiftedallofthoselosses h "fromtheplanparticipantswhoseassets...remainintheplan,  ...toplanparticipantswhoseassetsareleavingtheplan."  p   ` Thecourtcitedseveralreasonsforrejectingdefendants' !l" argumentthattheconsequenceofnotrevaluingnamely,leaving "$ alloftheavoidablelossescausedbyChibaro'sfiduciarybreaches t$& ontheremainingparticipantsjustifiedtheircourseofaction.  &p!( First,themarketdecreasebetweenthefirstandsecondvaluations, '#* roughly7.5%insixmonths,was"notunusualatall,"andcausing x)$, theremainingassetstobearthefullamountoflosses(including $+t&. lossestraceabletothedepartingassets)wouldnothavebeen"so  unusualorsubstantialastocauseafailuretorevaluetobe \ inequitable." Second,revaluingdelayedthedistributionoffunds. X  Third,shiftingalloftheavoidablelossescausedbythebreaches   ontodepartingparticipantswasnotmorefair,because"[t]he `  fairestplacetoleavetheconsequence[]ofthefiduciarybreach  \  underthesecircumstancesiswhereitlies"asaresultofthe   breachthatis,withtheremainingplanassets. The court d  explainedthattheremainingparticipantsinjuredbythebreach `  haverecourseagainst,andcanrecoverfrom,theadministrator.     ` Lastly,thecourtnoted,Chibaroowned92%ofthe h remainingassets,meaningthattheprimaryeffectofrevaluation d wouldbetoshiftlossesfrom"thewrongdoer"to"innocentparties"  departingtheplan. Notrevaluingwouldsimplyhaveleftthe l lossesfromChibaro'sfiduciarybreachestofallalmostentirelyon h "thewrongdoer"himselfandwouldnothavebeeninequitable.    ` ThecourtthusfoundthattheJune2001revaluationwas p  inappropriate,andthatJaneirohadarighttohisbenefitsas !l" valuedasofDecember31,2000. Hewasthereforeentitledto "$ recover$195,036thedifferencebetweentheinitialvaluation t$& andtheamountthathehadactuallybeenpaidtodate.   &p!(  ` Thecourtthenheardoralargumentonattorneys'feesand '#*  prejudgmentinterest and,afterdeterminingthatithaddiscretion x)$, astobothmatters,deniedboth.  #  3      ׀ Asforattorneys'fees,the   courtcitedthefivefactortestdescribedinCookv.LibertyLife \ AssuranceCo.,334F.3d122,124(1stCir.2003),anditdetermined X thateachfactorcutinfavorofdefendants:first,Chibarodidnot   actinbadfaith,butinsteadbelievedthathewaspermittedunder `  thelawtoactashedid;second,theplandidnothavedeep  \  pockets,butratherhadnomorethan$500,000inassets,ofwhich   nearly$200,000wasalreadybeingawardedtoJaneiro;third,an d  awardwasnotnecessaryfordeterrencepurposes;fourth,anaward `  comingattheexpenseoftheremainingplanparticipants,who   (exceptforChibaro)wereinnocent,wouldbeinappropriate;and h fifth,thiswasaclosecase.  d  ` Asforprejudgmentinterest,thecourtemphasizedits  concernabouttheeffectsuchanawardwouldhaveontheplan. It l addedthatinitsview,"muchthesamefactorsthatinfluencean h awardofattorney'sfeeshereshouldapplyinaprejudgment  interestsituation,"andthatthosesamefactorsindicatedthatan p  awardofprejudgmentinterestwasnotwarranted.  !l"   II. "$ y  TheBenefitsClaim(Defendants'Appeal) t$&  z ` Inreviewingajudgmentfollowingabenchtrial,we  &p!( acceptthedistrictcourt'sfindingsoffactunlesstheyare '#* clearlyerroneous,keepinginmindthatthedistrictjudgehadthe  opportunitytoassessthecredibilityofthewitnesses.Fed.R. \ Civ.P.52(a)."[W]emaynotdisturbthedistrictcourt's X record-rootedfindingsoffactunlessonthewholeoftheevidence   wereachtheirresistibleconclusionthatamistakehasbeenmade." `  Smithv.F.W.Morse&Co.,76F.3d413,420(1stCir.1996)."This  \  deferentialstandardextends...toinferencesdrawnfromthe   underlyingfacts,"and"ifthetrialcourt'sreadingoftherecord d  [withrespecttoanactor'smotivation]isplausible,appellate `  reviewisatanend."! #  4      ׀Id.Wereviewconclusionsoflawdenovo,   id.,andthepartiesareinagreementthatthisdenovoreview h extendstothedistrictcourt'sultimatedecisionastowhich d standardofreviewappliedtodefendants'owndecisions.    A. ` StandardofReviewofRevaluationDecisions l  ` Theheartofdefendants'argumentisthatthedistrict h courtshouldnothaveapplieddenovoreviewtotheirdecisions.   Theyraisetwoargumentsbasedonthefactthattheplanvestedthe p  USPA,theplanadministrator,withdiscretionaryauthority :First, !l" theysay, theplanadministratordidnotoperateunderaconflict "$ ofinterest,sotheusualhighlydeferentialstandardofreview t$& shouldapply.Second,theyargue,eventheexistenceofagenuine  conflictofinterestshouldonlyhaveaddedsomebitetothe \ review,withoutmakingitwholly_nondeferential_. Thesearguments X failinlightoftheparticularfactsofthecase.    ` WherethetermsofanERISAplangivediscretiontothe `  planadministratortomakebenefitsdecisionsandtoconstruethe  \  termsoftheplan,thedistrictcourtordinarilyshouldupholdsuch   determinationsbytheadministratorunlesstheyconstituteanabuse d  ofdiscretion,orarearbitraryandcapricious.SeeWrightv.R.R. `  _Donnelley_Ԁ&SonsCo.GroupBenefitsPlan,402F.3d67,74&n.3   (1stCir.2005);Leahyv.RaytheonCo.,315F.3d11,15&n.3(1st h Cir.2002).Asthiscourthasrepeatedlymadeclear,however, d "[i]tiswellsettledthatwhenaplanadministratorlaborsunder  aconflictofinterest,courtsmaycedeadiminisheddegreeof l deference--ornodeferenceatall--totheadministrator's h determinations."Leahy,315F.3dat16(emphasisadded);seealso  Wright,402F.3dat74(quotingthesamelanguagefromLeahy). p   ` Asforwhethertherewasaconflictofinterest, !l" defendantsfirstattacktheroleChibaro's92%ownershipofthe "$ remainingassetsplayedinthedistrictcourt'sanalysis. They t$& invoketherulethatstructuralconflictsalonethosearising  &p!( fromtheadministrator'sortrustee'sownfinancialinterests '#* arenotsufficienttoabandonthenormalhighlydeferentialreview. x)$, SeeWright,402F.3dat75(factthatplanadministratorwasalso $+t&. planinsurerdidnot,byitself,alternormal"arbitraryand  capricious"standardofreview);Mahoneyv._Bd._Ԁof_Trs_.,973F.2d \ 968,97173(1stCir.1992)(applying"arbitraryandcapricious" X standardofreviewwhere"trusteesexercisedclearlygranted   discretiontobenefitonegroupofbeneficiariesmorethananother, `  andthetrustees_benefited_Ԁfromthatactionasmembersofthemuch  \  larger,favoredgroup").Thisrulemakessensebecause,wherethe   potentialconflictarisessolelyfromthefactthatanypaymentof d  benefitswillcomeatthedecisionmaker'sexpense,marketforces `  cangenerallybeexpectedtomitigateunduestinginess.SeeDoyle   v.PaulRevereLifeIns.Co.,144F.3d181,184(1stCir.1998); h Wright,402F.3dat75. d  ` Thedistrictcourt'sdecisionisentirelyconsistentwith  therulethatastructuralconflictbyitselfdoesnotprovidea l basisfordepartingfromtheusualstandardofreview.Thecourt h didnotrelysolelyonthestructuralconflictarisingfrom  Chibaro'sfinancialinterest,butrathercitedadditionalfactors p  presentinthiscase.Theseadditionalfactorsmadeitespecially !l" likelythatChibaro'spersonalfinancialinterestplayedareal "$ roleinthedecisionstorevalue,andtheyshowedintheirown t$& rightthatthedecisionswereactually"improperlymotivated."  &p!( Doyle,144F.3dat184;seealsoWright,402F.3dat7578 '#* (consideringvariousfactorsallegedlyshowingimpropermotivation, x)$, inadditiontostructuralconsiderations,aspossiblebasesof $+t&. conflictofinterest);Pari-Fasanov.ITTHartfordLife&Accident  Ins.Co.,230F.3d415,419(1stCir.2000)(distinguishingbetween \ "potential"or"possible"conflictsofinterestarisingfrom X structuralconsiderationsandcaseswherethecircumstances   actually"indicate[]animpropermotivation"). `   ` Defendants'attacksontheothertwofactorscitedbythe  \  districtcourtarealsounavailing.Asfortheconflictbasedon   Chibaro'sfearoflitigationstemmingfromhisearlierfiduciary d  breaches,defendantsclaimthat"[_t]here_Ԁissimplynoevidencethat `  theprospectoflitigationfactoredintoDr.Chibaro'sdecisionto   revalue." Theyassertthattheresimplywasnoprospectofa h lawsuit,andiftherewas,Chibarowasneitherawarenorafraidof d it.   ` First,defendantssay,noneofChibaro'sprofessional l advisorstoldhimhewasobligedtoliquidateandsegregateassets h sufficienttopaytheimminentlydepartingplanparticipants,and  thefirstdecisiontorevaluewasbasedsolelyontheadviceof p  professionals,notonthepossibilityofliabilityforanyfailure !l" toliquidateandsegregate. Butthedistrictcourtfoundthat "$ Chibarofailedtoinformtheinvestmentadvisorinthefirstplace t$& thatasignificantexoduswasimminent,foundthatitwasChibaro  &p!( whowas"determinedtohave"arevaluationandwho"directed"that '#* oneoccur,andexpresslyXXXXrefusedtofindthathereliedingood x)$, faithontheadviceofprofessionals#XXXX#.Thedefenseofgoodfaith $+t&. relianceonadviceisnotavailabletoonewhoomitstodisclose  materialinformationtoadvisorsordictatesimprudentoutcomesto \ advisors._. #  5      _ Cf.UnitedStatesv.Rice,449F.3d887,897(8thCir. X 2006)(defendantnotentitledtoadviceofcounseldefensewherehe   neither"fullydisclosedallmaterialfactstohisattorneybefore `  seekingadvice"nor"actuallyreliedonhiscounsel'sadviceinthe  \  goodfaithbeliefthathisconductwaslegal").    ` Second,defendantsargue,therewas"noevidence"that d  Chibarofearedliabilitystemmingfromthesixmonthdelayin `  completingthefirstvaluation. Theysaythatannualvaluations   weregenerallycompletedinAprilbecauseittooktheUSPAtimeto h determinetheamountofitscontributiontotheProfitSharing d Plan,andthatseveralmonthspassedaftertheUSPAsubmittedthe  censusformtoFecteaubeforeFecteaucompletedthevaluation.  l Takingthesepointsinreverseorder,wenotethatthedelayonce h thecensuswasinFecteau'shandswasattributabletoChibaro,who  shouldhaveensuredpromptnessonFecteau'spart;thatanarguably \ justifieddelayastooneplandoesnotjustifyadelayastothe X otherplan;andthathabitualdelaysinvaluationoffourmonths,   notconclusivelyshowntobejustifiedtobeginwith,arehardly `  conclusiveproofthatadelayofhalfayearforworkthat  \  shouldtakeamatterofhoursordayswasjustified.    ` Theevidence,insum,supportedafindingthatChibaro d  wasatfaultforfailuretotimelyliquidateandsegregate `  sufficientassetsandforfailuretoensurethatthefirst   valuationwastimelycompleted.Itwasalsoplausibletofindthat h therewasaprospectoflitigationbytheremainingparticipants d (asidefromChibarohimself),whowouldbearthefullcostsof  Chibaro'sfailuresifnorevaluationwasdone.Anditwas l plausibletoinferthatChibaromusthavebeenawareofandfeared h thisprospectoflitigation,andthatthisplayedaroleinhis  decisiontorevalue. p    ` Withrespecttothedistrictcourt'sfindingthatChibaro !l" harboredanimustowardthedepartingparticipants,defendantsoffer "$ nocontraryfactualargument.Theyrelyinsteadonanonsequitur: t$& thatChibarohadafiduciarydutytoprotectthefinancial  &p!( interestsofallplanparticipants,includingtheremainingones. '#*  ThereisnodoubtChibarohadalegaldutytotheremaining x)$, m@ m  m  participants. #  6      ׀Butthatdutydidnotnecessarilymotivateinwhole   oreveninparthisdecisiontorevalue,nordiditmakeit \ factuallyimpossibleforhimtohavebeenmotivatedbyanimus.The X districtcourtXXXXexpresslyfoundChibaronotcrediblewithrespectto   hisclaimthat,indirectingeachrevaluation,hewastryingto `  protecttheotherparticipants(asidefromhimself)remainingin  \  theplan. #XXXX>#Further,therelationshipbetweenChibaroandthe   departingparticipantswasplainlyacrimonious,andwehaveno d  reasontodoubtthattherewasanimusandthatitplayedarolein `  Chibaro'sdecisiontorevalue.    9 ` Finally,werejectdefendants'fallbackargumentthat h eveniftherewasaconflictofinterest,thedistrictcourtshould d haveappliedarbitraryandcapriciousreviewwith"bite"but  withoutrulingoutalldeference. Wehaverepeatedlystatedthat l "whenaplanadministratorlaborsunderaconflictofinterest, h courtsmaycedeadiminisheddegreeofdeference--ornodeference  atall--totheadministrator'sdeterminations."_< #  7      _ԀLeahy,315F.3d p  at16(emphasisadded);seealsoWright,402F.3dat74.   ` Thedistrictcourt'sapproachwasconsistentwiththe \ SupremeCourt'sstatementthat"ifabenefitplangivesdiscretion X toanadministratororfiduciarywhoisoperatingunderaconflict   ofinterest,thatconflictmustbeweighedasa'_facto[r_]in `  determiningwhetherthereisanabuseofdiscretion.'"Firestone  \  Tire&RubberCo.v._Bruch_,489U.S.101,115(1989)(alterationin   original)(quotingRestatement(Second)ofTrusts187_cmt._Ԁd d  (1959));seealsoWright,402F.3dat74("Inapplyingthe `  arbitraryandcapriciousstandard...theexistenceofaconflict   ofinterestonthepartoftheadministratorisafactorwhichmust h beconsidered.").Insomecases,theconflictissoseverethat d givingitsufficientweightasa"factor"(orapplyingthelevelof  "bite"necessarytoaccountfortheseverityoftheactual l conflict)requiresgivingnodeferencetotheconflicted h _decisionmaker_.Giventhesevereconflictofinterestunderwhich  Chibarowaslaboring,thedistrictcourtproperlygavenodeference p  tothedecisionshemadeinexclusivelyexercisingtheUSPA'splan !l" administrationauthority. "$ B. ` CorrectnessofRevaluationDecisions t$& nr n  n   ` Thedefendantsarguethebelatedrevaluationswereproper  undertheprovisionallowingtheadministratorto"provideforan \ extraordinaryadjustmentdatewhenevermarketvaluesofunderlying X assetshavechangedsomuchthatitwouldbeinequitabletodo   otherwise."Thedistrictcourtdidnoterrinfindingthatthis `  provisiondidnotapplyandthatitprovidednobasistodenythe  \  benefitssought.Defendantspurporttojustifyallthe   revaluationsonthegroundthattheywere"necessarytoensurethat d  themarketlossesthatoccurredafterDecember31,2000wereborne `  equallybyallplanparticipants." Fortheexactreasonsstatedby   thedistrictcourt,thisisaninadequateexplanation. h  ` First,thedistrictcourtfoundthatthe7.5%market d decreaseduringthesixmonthsfollowingDecember31,2000was"not  unusualatall,"andthatnotrevaluingwouldnothaveputan l especiallylargeburdenontheremainingassets(thelosstothe h remainingassetswouldhavebeenroughly25%).Defendantshavenot  shownthatthisessentiallyempiricalanalysis,inthecontextof p  aplanprovisionfor"extraordinary"adjustmentdates,waswrong. !l"  ` Second,therevaluationsdiddistribute"marketlosses" "$ equallyamongallplanparticipants,buttheydidnotdistribute t$& thelossesattributabletoChibaro'sfiduciarybreachesequally  &p!( amongallparticipants.Themarketlossesthatoccurredafter '#* December31,2000,totheextenttheyaretraceabletothe x)$, departingassets,shouldnothaveoccurredtobeginwith.Those $+t&. "- " "  assetsshouldnothavebeeninriskymarketinvestmentsafter  December31,2000,andthelossestraceabletothemwerethedirect \ resultofChibaro'sfiduciarybreachesinfailingtotimely X liquidateandsegregateplanassets,andtoobtainvaluations.The   effectofrevaluationwastoputallofthelosscausedbythese `  fiduciarybreachesonthedepartingparticipants.Keepinginmind  \  thattheplanallowedforextraordinaryrevaluationsonly"whenever   ...itwouldbeinequitabletodootherwise,"equityhardly d  demandedthatthisentirelossbeputonthedeparting `  participants.* #  8          ` Notrevaluingwouldsimplyhaveleftalloftheavoidable h lossesduetoChibaro'sfiduciarybreachesontheremaining d participants.Importantly,thevastmajority(92%)oftheassets  thatwouldhavebeenlefttoabsorbthelossesfromChibaro's l fiduciarybreachesbelongedtoChibarohimself.Itwouldnothave h beeninequitableforhimtobearthebruntofthelosseshe  wrongfullycaused.( #  9         p   ` Whatevertheforceofdefendants'argumentaboutthe  clauseintheabstract,defendantsactedasthoughitpermitted \ unlimitedretentionofassets,keepingtheassetsofdeparting X participantsfornearlytwoyearsandperformingatotaloffive   valuations.Theclausemaynotreasonablybereadthatway. `    III.  \    Attorneys'FeesandPrejudgmentInterest   (Plaintiff'sCrossAppeal)   3? ` Janeiro'scrossappealchallengesthedistrictcourt's :  denialofattorneys'feesandprejudgmentinterest.  6 A. ` Attorneys'Fees   ` ERISAprovidesthatattorneys'feesareavailableinthe > court'sdiscretion.See29U.S.C.1132(g)(1).Wereviewthe : denialofattorneys'feesonlyforabuseofdiscretion,  "_disturb[ing_]suchrulingsonlyiftherecordpersuadesusthatthe B trialcourt'indulgedaseriouslapseinjudgment.'"Cottrillv. > Sparrow,Johnson&_Ursillo_,Inc.,100F.3d220,223(1stCir.1996)  (quotingTexacoP.R.,Inc.v._Dep't_ԀofConsumerAffairs,60F.3d F ! 867,875(1stCir.1995)).Weseenoabuseofdiscretion. !B#  ` Webeginbynotingthat"inanERISAcase,aprevailing #% plaintiffdoesnot,merelybyprevailing,createapresumptionthat J% ' heorsheisentitledtoafee-shiftingaward."Id.at226.This  isanareaoflawthatshouldbe,andis,flexible.Id.at22526. \  ` Although"feeawardsunderERISAarewholly X discretionary,"thiscourthaslistedfivefactorsthatordinarily   shouldguidethedistrictcourt'sanalysis: `  ` ` (1)thedegreeofculpabilityorbadfaith  \  attributabletothelosingparty;(2)the  2  depthofthelosingparty'spocket,i.e.,his   orhercapacitytopayanaward;(3)the   extent(ifatall)towhichsuchanaward d  woulddeterotherpersonsactingundersimilar :  circumstances;(4)thebenefit(ifany)that `  thesuccessfulsuitconfersonplan 6 participantsorbeneficiariesgenerally;and   (5)therelativemeritoftheparties'  positions. h Ѐ` ` qCottrill,100F.3dat225.Thislistisillustrative,not d exhaustive,id.;nosinglefactoris_dispositive_;andindeed,not  everyfactorinthelistmustbeconsideredineverycase._Twomey_ l v.DeltaAirlinesPilotsPensionPlan,328F.3d27,33(1stCir. h 2003).   ` Asforthefirstfactor,thedistrictcourtwasnot p  obligedtofindthatdefendantsactedwithanespeciallyhigh !l" degreeofculpability.Itwasplausible,inevaluatingwhetherto "$ awardattorneys'fees,tofindthatChibarosubjectivelythoughthe t$& wasentitledtoadministertheplanashedid.  &p!(  ` Analyzingthesecondfactor,thedistrictcourtexpressed '#*  alegitimateconcernthatthe_plan's_Ԁassetswerequitemodestand x)$, werealreadysubjecttoabenefitsawardcomprisingatleasttwo  fifths,andperhapsasmuchastwothirds,ofthetotalassets.# #  10       \   ` JaneiroaddsthateventhoughXXXX"thedistrictcourtruled X infavorofUSPAandDr.ChibaroastoDr.Janeiro'sclaimsagainst   them," #XXXX#Chibaro'sandtheUSPA'sassetsshouldstillbefairgame `  foranawardofattorneys'fees,becausetheywerethekeyplayers  \  throughwhichthetwoplansacted.Janeirocitesnoauthorityfor   treatingtheUSPAandChibaroas"losingparties"forpurposesof d  attorneys'feesonabenefitsclaimthatsucceededonlyagainstthe `  plans. #  11      ׀Inanyevent,nomatterwhoseandhowplentifulwerethe   assetsavailableforanawardofattorneys'fees,thisfactorwould h meanlittle."Aninabilitytoaffordattorneys'feesmaycounsel d againstanaward,butthecapacitytopay,byitself,doesnot  justifyanaward."Cottrill,100F.3dat227(citationomitted). \  ` Turningtothethirdfactor,thedistrictcourt X determinedthatthebenefitsawarditselfwaslargeenoughtodeter   similarmisconduct,andthatanawardofattorneys'feeswas `  unnecessaryforthatpurpose. Janeiroarguesthatdenyingfees  \  sendsthewrongmessagetothe"ERISAcommunity"andinvitesplan   administratorsto"playfastandloose"withplantermsandwith d  departingparticipants'money. Thedistrictcourt,whichviewed `  theevidenceinthiscasefirsthand,disagreed,andwehaveno   basisforrejectingitsconclusion.Seeid. h  ` Thefourthfactoris"thebenefit(ifany)thatthe d successfulsuitconfersonplanparticipantsorbeneficiaries  generally."Id.at225.Nothinginthedistrictcourt's l considerationofthisfactorrequiredadifferentresult. h  ` Fifthandfinally,thedistrictcourtstressedthat"this  [was]aclosecaseusingadenovostandard." Indeed,thejudge p  stated,itwasoneofthemostdifficultcaseshehadeverdecided. !l" Cf.id.at227("Theveryfactthatanexperiencedtrialjudge "$ originallyfoundinthedefendants'favorarguesforafindingthat t$& thedefendantshadareasonablebasisfor[theirposition],even  &p!( thoughthiscourtultimatelyruledagainstthem.").Thestandard '#*  ofreviewtoapplytodefendants'decisiontorevaluewasnotan x)$, openandshutquestion,norwasthecorrectnessofthedecision  itself. \   ` Thedistrictcourt,inshort,didnotabuseits X discretionindenyingJaneiroattorneys'fees.       =  XXd XXd=B. ` PrejudgmentInterest  `   ` XXXXJaneiroseeksprejudgmentinterestonthe$195,036hewon  \  inthedistrictcourt,andonthe$456,644hewaspaidinthefall   of2002,totheextentthatpaymentwasalsolate. #XXXX*#Thedistrict d  courtdeniedanyaward,sayingthatit"_reach[ed_]thesame `  conclusion"asitreachedwithrespecttoattorneys'fees,for   "muchthesame"reasons. Thecourtdidsingleoutone h considerationtheeffectanawardofinterestwouldhaveonthe d planbutdidnototherwiseelaborate.    ` Althoughthereisnospecificstatutoryprovisionfor l prejudgmentinterestinmostERISAcases,suchawards,like h attorneys'fees,are"available,butnotobligatory."Id.at223.  WereviewthedenialofprejudgmentinterestinERISAcasesonly p  forabuseofdiscretion._$ #  12      _ԀId. !l"  ` Janeirowaswrongfullydeprivedoftheuseofmoneyfor "$ asubstantiallengthoftime,andprejudgmentinterestwouldmake t$& himwholeastothatharm,seeWestVirginiav.UnitedStates,479  U.S.305,310n.2(1987),whichwould"serve[]ERISA'sremedial \ objectives,"Cottrill,100F.3dat224.ButCongress'sdesireto X protectemployeebenefitsisnotERISA'sonlypurpose.Varity   Corp.,516U.S.at497.Further,prejudgmentinterest"isnot `  granted'accordingtoarigidtheoryofcompensationformoney  \  withheld,butisgiveninresponsetoconsiderationsoffairness.'"   _Whitfield_v._Lindemann_,853F.2d1298,1306(5thCir.1988) d  (quoting_Blau_v.Lehman,368U.S.403,414(1962));seealso_Blau_, `  368U.S.at414(interest"isdeniedwhenitsexactionwouldbe   inequitable"(internalquotationmarkomitted)(quotingBd.of h _Comm'rs_v.UnitedStates,308U.S.343,352(1939))). d  ` Here,thedistrictcourtwas,first,concernedabouthow  anawardofinterestwouldaffecttheplan.Thebenefitsclaim l itselfwasquitesubstantialinlightofthetotalplanassets.  h Cf._Goya_ԀFoods,Inc.v._Wallack_Ԁ_Mgmt_.Co.,290F.3d63,80(1st  Cir.2002)(districtcourtfreeto"decidetoleavewellenough p  alone"whereunderlyingmonetarysanctionforcontemptwasitself !l" "asubstantialamountofmoney").Thecourtalsothoughtthe "$ ordinaryattorneys'feesfactorspertinent.These factorsmight t$& notbeautomaticallyapplicableinallprejudgmentinterestcases.  &p!(  ButJaneirodoesnotarguethatthesefactorswereimpermissible '#* considerations,% #  13      ׀and,asexplainedaboveintheattorneys'fees   discussion,weseenothingwrongwithhowthecourtassessedthem \ inlightofthefactsofthiscase.Thedistrictcourtdidnot X abuseitsdiscretionindenyinganawardofprejudgmentinterest.     IV. `  Conclusion  \  P ` Thedistrictcourt'sanalysisofthiscasewascareful   andfair.Itsjudgment,awardingplaintiff$195,036onthe d  benefitsclaimanddenyinghimanawardofattorneys'feesand `  prejudgmentinterest,isaffirmed.Thepartiesshallbeartheir   owncostsandattorneys'feesonappeal.