party to bring a civil action to obtain “other appropriate equitable relief’ to address violations of the terms of a plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2). The Court in Mertens recognized restitution as an appropriate equitable form of relief. — U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 2069. In order “to be entitled to restitution a party must show not only that there was unjust enrichment, but also that the person to be charged had wrongfully secured a benefit, or had passively received one which it would be unconscionable for him to retain.” Geller v. County Line Auto Sales, Inc., No. CV-94-3123, 1995 WL 313123, at *4, 1995 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 8629, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 1995) (citing 22 N.Y.Jur.2d Contracts § 449.); see also Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. Weitz, 913 F.2d 1544, 1548 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>) Thus, both Roma Inc. and Joan B. Roma could be
holding that erisa employee benefits plan was subrogated to all claims by covered individual against third party for all payments made by the plan holding that payments made by third parties on behalf of debtors are disbursements notwithstanding the debtors lack of control over the funds holding that suits by fiduciaries against third parties wrongfully in receipt of payments preserves the integrity erisagoverned funds  and is consonant with the general goals of erisa holding that directors and officers are fiduciaries holding that the contract disputes act preserves admiralty jurisdiction in the federal district courts for suits arising out of maritime contracts