in the plan’s becoming underfunded, the plan sponsor is required to make additional contributions. See David, 704 F.3d at 338; see also 26 U.S.C. § 412(a)(2)(A) (describing employer contributions necessary to reach minimum funding standard). And then, even if the plan sponsor is unable to contribute and the plan becomes unable to pay benefits, participants’ vested benefits are guaranteed by the PBGC up to a statutory level. See David, 704 F.3d at 338; see also 29 U.S.C. § 1322 (describing PBGC’s guarantee of benefits payments). Accordingly, for the Non-Transferee Class to establish a particularized, concrete, and actual or imminent injury, it must show more than the mere loss of Plan assets. It must show an effect on its members’ benefits payments. See Perelman, 919 F.Supp.2d at 517-18 (<HOLDING>). The Non-Transferee Class alleges that Verizon
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 holding that plan participants cannot establish standing to seek money damages where the plan has substantial surplus assets or the plan sponsor is financially capable of making up any losses suffered by the plan citing harley 284 f3d at 906 holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets 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 professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary