breach of fiduciary duty under § 1132(a)(2). The court’s inquiry does not end here, however, because the question remains whether this limit on recovery applies to claims under § 1132(a)(3) as well as § 1132(a)(2). While there is a good deal of confusion surrounding this question, case law suggests that § 1132(a)(3) allows for individualized relief. See, e.g., Lee v. Burkhart, 991 F.2d at 1011 (rejecting § 1132(a)(3) claim on grounds that money damages are not recoverable, not on grounds that there is no individual right to recovery); Lorenzen v. Employees Retirement Plan, 896 F.2d 228, 230 (7th Cir.1990) (discussing in dicta that § 1132(a)(3)(B) may impose liability on a fiduciary that runs directly to the beneficiary); Bartucca v. Katy Indus., Inc., 668 F.Supp. 111, 113 (D.Conn.1987) (<HOLDING>). But see Horan v. Kaiser Steel Retirement
holding that russell does not prohibit an individual suit under  1132a3 holding statute does not prohibit victim from making a specific sentencing recommendation holding that the eleventh amendment does not prohibit the united states from prosecuting a claim of contribution holding that where technical consolidation does not occur and cases are joined merely for convenience each suit retains its individual nature and appeal in one suit is not precluded solely because the other suit is still pending before the district court holding individual defendants subject to suit