Whether (1) the Oregon District Court and
Ninth Circuit erred in applying the "primary
purpose" test rather than the "surrounding
circumstances" test to determine whether a written
"retirement" plan is governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), where
there existed no ERISA plan against which to
reference that plan in making this determination;
and (2) whether those Courts erred in their application of the "primary purpose test" in the event
that the test provided the appropriate analytic
framework under the circumstances of the case.

Whether the Oregon District Court and Ninth Circuit erred in applying the 'primary purpose' test rather than the 'surrounding circumstances' test to determine whether a written 'retirement' plan is governed by ERISA, where there existed no ERISA plan against which to reference that plan