473 U.S. 134, 144, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985). Any recovery for violation of section 409 and 502(a)(2) “must be on behalf of the plan as a whole, rather than inuring to individual beneficiaries.” Horan v. Kaiser Steel Ret. Plan, 947 F.2d 1412, 1418 (9th Cir.1991). Defendants contend that Plaintiffs essentially seek individual relief, rather than relief for the Plan. Motion Syncor, at 12-18. The parties dispute whether a group of individuals within a plan, constituting less than all of the beneficiaries, may seek relief. Id. at 17; Opposition, at 9-11. The Courts that have refused to allow sub-classes of a plan to recover money damages have done so when the damages benefited only the individuals and not the plan. See, e.g., Matassarin v. Lynch, 174 F.3d 549, 566 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Horan, 947 F.2d at 1417-1418 (suit on behalf
recognizing that plan participants should be able to access information about the plan administrators fiduciary duties from the plan administrators counsel holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets 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 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 plaintiffs claims benefited only herself or at most the sixtyseven plan participants who had been offered lumpsum distributions