compliance with that obligation has unfortunately become all too rare. The Court simply notes that Plaintiff's counsel does credit to himself, both as a member of the bar and an officer of this Court, through such actions. 5 . See also Fox v. Herzog Heine Geduld, Inc., 232 Fed.Appx. 104, 106 (3d Cir.2007); Goeres v. Charles Schwab & Co., 220 Fed.Appx. 663 (9th Cir.2007), certiorari denied — U.S. ---, 128 S.Ct. 2994, 171 L.Ed.2d 911 (2008); Todisco v. Verizon Comm’ns, 497 F.3d 95 (1st Cir.2007); Coan v. Kaufman, 457 F.3d 250 (2d Cir.2006); Calhoon v. TWA, 400 F.3d 593 (8th Cir.2005); Callery v. United States Life Ins. Co., 392 F.3d 401 (10th Cir.2004); Helfrich v. PNC Bank., Ky., Inc., 267 F.3d 477 (6th Cir.2001). But see Bowerman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 226 F.3d 574, 592 (2000) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Health Cost Controls of Ill., Inc. v.
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 constructive trust as appropriate equitable remedy holding that the reinstatement of the right to an election of benefits may be an appropriate equitable remedy under 29 usc  1132a3 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 claims for promissory estoppel may be pursued under  1132a3 even where no breach of fiduciary duty is alleged