24; Brooks Dep. at 15-16.) In other words, plaintiffs explicitly seek “monetary relief’ (P1.0pp. 24) that will compensate them for the undercalculation of their benefits. ERISA provides that the only remedy available to plan participants suing PBGC for breach of fiduciary duty is “appropriate equitable relief,” 29 U.S.C. § 1303(f), and so plaintiffs’ entitlement to an award of greater benefits hinges on whether such relief may be considered equitable rather than legal. Claims for back benefits and for future payment of specified benefit amounts, even if characterized as claims for restitution or injunctive relief, apparently seek “legal” relief that is not available under § 1303(f). Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 210, 122 S.Ct. 708, 151 L.Ed.2d 635 (2002) (<HOLDING>); DePace v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 257
holding that obligation to pay pension benefits gave rise to a constructive trust relationship and obligation was not discharged in bankruptcy holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that appropriate remedy was to compute service credit for veterans in accordance with vrra rather than pursuant to employers pension plan and requiring retroactive pension plan payments to be made holding that general obligation to pay money under a disputed provision of the tax code was not a taking holding that plaintiffs seeking payments to which they are allegedly entitled under a pension plan are simply attempting to impose personal liability on defendants for a contractual obligation to pay money