F.Supp.2d 121, 127 (D.Mass.2003) (“The fact that the Plan itself no longer exists does not bar recovery.”); Jackson v. Truck Drivers’ Union Local 42 Health and Welfare Fund, 933 F.Supp. 1124, 1136 (D.Mass.1996) (same); Gruber v. Hubbard, 675 F.Supp. 281, 284 (W.D.Pa.1987) (“To deny plaintiffs relief [on the basis of an argument that the plan no longer existed] would reward defendants for the thoroughness of their alleged mismanagement ... In the absence of a functioning plan, it is the class of beneficiaries and their rights under this plan which represent the interests of the plan for the purposes of [§ 1109].”). In light of these authorities, this Court finds as a matter of law that the dissolution of the Plan — -whether it occurred before or after the filing of this action— ca 995) (<HOLDING>); Milofsky v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 442 F.3d 311,
recognizing that plan participants should be able to access information about the plan administrators fiduciary duties from the plan administrators counsel holding that where plaintiffs alleged that the plan suffered significant losses and requested that fiduciaries make good to the plan the losses to the plan they need not seek to recover for all plan participants allegedly injured by the fiduciary breach holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets holding that a subclass of plan participants could sue where the remedy sought by plaintiffs would benefit the plan as a whole and  cure any harm that the plan suffered holding that plan participants cannot establish standing to seek money damages where the plan has substantial surplus assets or the plan sponsor is financially capable of making up any losses suffered by the plan citing harley 284 f3d at 906