of plan beneficiaries. Defendants’ decision to create MCC and to transfer certain assets to it, for example, was not by itself a violation of ERISA. It may have been unwise or bad business, but that is not the same thing as a breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs’ proof here, however, goes beyond mere business decisions on the part of defendants. “[Misleading communications to plan participants regarding plan administration ... will support a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.” Berlin v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 858 F.2d 1154, 1163 (6th Cir.1988). “[A] fiduciary may not materially mislead those to whom the duties of loyalty and prudence described in 29 U.S.C. § 1104 are owed.” Ibid. See also Rosen v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, 637 F.2d 592, 600 n. 11 (3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 898, 102 S.Ct. 398, 70
holding that a plan participant or beneficiary may not recover extracontractual damages in an erisa suit for breach of fiduciary duty under  502a2 and 409a only the plan may recover damages in such cases holding that plan trustees do not breach their fiduciary duty by failing to reverse a companys decision to amend an erisa plan holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan holding a fiduciary is under a duty to communicate material facts to a plan beneficiary holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under  502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan