the plan, and Coan’s suit co 966, 973-74 (E.D.Mo.2010) (reasoning that participants adequately represented plan by naming multiple plaintiffs, those plaintiffs conceded they could only recover for the plan, and preclusion issues were not presently before the court), In re AEP ERISA Litig., No. C2-08-67, 2009 WL 3854943, at *1 (S.D.Ohio Nov. 17, 2009) (noting participant sought but was denied class certification), and Waldron v. Dugan, No. 07 C 286, 2007 WL 4365358, at *6-7 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 13, 2007) (declining to impose class- or derivative-action requirement on § 502(a)(2)). The most recent case to address Coan is Huizinga v. Genzink Steel Supply & Welding Co., where the court found no textual basis for the Coan holding. No. 1:10-CV-223, 2013 WL 4511291, at *8 (W.D.Mich. Aug. 23, 2013) (<HOLDING>), appeal dismissed, No. 13 -2273 (6th Cir. Jan.
holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that erisa permits suits to recover benefits only against the plan as an entity and thus the beneficiary had erred by suing her exhusbands employer and plan administrator when proper party would have been the benefits plan itself holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan 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 plaintiff is a plan participant and he is seeking to recover for the plan as a whole these are the only requirements on the face of the statute itself