out that “[njumerous courts have found that individual issues of reliance are not an issue in an ERISA § 502(a)(2) class action claim.” In re Aquila ERISA Litig., 237 F.R.D. 202, 209 (W.D.Mo. July 18, 2006) (citing eases and holding “the relevant detrimental reliance is that of the Plan, not the individual Plan participants”). The plaintiffs further argue that reliance should be presumed, pointing to cases finding dismissal inappropriate “where a breach of duty includes misrepresentations and omissions material to a decision by plan participants, which results in harm to the participants.” In re JDS Uniphase Corp. ERISA Litig., 2005 WL 1662131, *13, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17503, *43-44 (N.D.Cal. July 13, 2005). See also, In re AEP ERISA Litig., 327 F.Supp.2d 812, 833 (S.D.Ohio 2004) (<HOLDING>); In re Coca-Cola Enters., ERISA Litig., No.
holding that making intentional representations about the future of plan benefits may be an act of plan administration holding an allegation sufficient under rule 9b that the plan and the participants acting on behalf of the plan relied upon and are presumed to have relied upon defendants representations and nondisclosures to their detriment 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 plan administrator cannot support its argument on appeal with a fact not relied upon in its initial coverage determination 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