In consolidated class actions against HealthNet brought under ERISA with respect to the alleged manipulation of URC’s, the court of appeal approved of the Class Definition itself, but nevertheless remanded for further definition of the claims, issues or defenses certified for class treatment under Rule 23(c)(1)(B). The court observed that: “At the conclusion of this type of opinion, or in an accompanying certification order, the court typically states that it is certifying the following class…. or uses some equivalent language, followed by a block paragraph describing precisely those individuals to be included as part of the relevant class or classes. Although examples of common claims, issues, or defenses presented by the case may be discussed as part of the court’s commonality, typicality, or predominance analysis, certification orders and memoranda are most often devoid of any clear statement regarding the full scope and parameters of the claims, issues or defenses to be treated on a class basis as the matter is litigated.” ┬áThe court then concluded that Rule 23, as amended, “requires more specific and more deliberate treatment of the class issues, claims, and defenses than the practice described above has usually reflected. More specifically, in our view, the proper substantive inquiry for an appellate tribunal reviewing a certification order for Rule 23(c)(1)(B) compliance is whether the precise parameters defining the class and a complete list of the claims, issues, or defenses to be treated on a class basis are readily discernible from the text either of the certification order itself or of an incorporated memorandum opinion.” Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 453 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2006).