payments that, based on plaintiffs’ testimony regarding their repeated conversations with Mr. Kees and Mr. Threlkeld, he knew would have reinstated plaintiffs’ coverage. He admits that he may have known that Mr. Threlkeld was mismanaging the accounts of the nursing home as early as May 2010 (T.T. 149:12-14). Mr. Kees breached his fiduciary duty of care to discharge plan administration duties “with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence ... that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiarity with such matters would use,” 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B), and that breach caused plaintiffs’ loss. Accordingly, Mr. Kees is personally liable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). See Silva v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 762 F.3d 711, 721-23, 724-26, 2014 WL 3896156, *8-9, *11-12 (8th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>); Kenseth v. Dean Health Plan, Inc., 722 F.3d
holding that monetary damages may be awarded in a  1132a3 claim because when sought as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty restitution is properly regarded as an equitable remedy because the fiduciary concept is equitable recognizing that plan participants should be able to access information about the plan administrators fiduciary duties from the plan administrators counsel holding that varity corp did not eliminate a private cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty when another potential remedy is available instead the district courts remedy is limited to such equitable relief as is considered appropriate holding that monetary compensation for a loss is available under  1132a3 if a plan participant shows that the harm re suited from the plan administrators breach of fiduciary duty because prior to the merger of law and equity this kind of monetary remedy against a trustee was exclusively equitable citing cigna corp v amara  us  131 sct 1866 179 led2d 843 2011 holding that in the context of title i varity corp did not eliminate a private cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty when another potential remedy is available