for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans, and by providing for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the Federal courts.” Id. at 355 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b)). The duty of a fiduciary to 'act with prudence includes a duty to “initially determine, and continue to monitor, the prudence of each investment option available to plan participants.” DiFelice v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 497 F.3d 410, 423 (4th Cir.2007) (emphasis omitted). Although the Fourth Circuit has not specifically addressed whether or not an excessive fees claim under ERISA can survive a motion to dismiss, other circuits have. Defendants rely on several ■ circuit court decisions dismissing excessive fees claims to support their motion to dismiss. See Loomis v. Exelon Corp., 658 F.3d 667 (7th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Renfro v. Unisys Corp., 671 F.3d 314, 327 (3d
holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan holding that plaintiffs did not plead fraud where the complaint only alleged a breach of fiduciary duty 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 bank which does no more than hold plan funds and generate reports is not a fiduciary holding no fiduciary breach where plaintiffs argued plan should only offer institutional funds