marks of legal relief that is unavailable under § 502(a)(3). See Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248, 255, 113 S.Ct. 2063, 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993) (“Although they often dance around the word, what petitioners seek is nothing other than compensatory damages—monetary relief for all losses [they] sustained as a result of the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Money damages are, of course, the classic form of legal relief.” (emphasis in original)). Perhaps in an effort the avoid that problem, the Majority recasts disgorgement as an “accounting for profits” for purposes of statutory standing, so that it falls within an exception to Great-West Life’s bar on § 502(a)(3) actions that seek to impose personal liability on a defendant. See Great-West Life, 534 U.S. at 214 n. 2, 122 S.Ct. 708 (<HOLDING>). There are two problems with that rhetorical
recognizing a limited exception for an accounting for profits a form of equitable restitution recognizing exception holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not recognizing such an exception holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses 