already accomplished or anticipated. Precedent supports this reading. In each decision cited by the parties or found by this Court where prejudgment interest has been awarded, the relief was predicated on a finding that a statutory or contractual breach occurred. See, e.g., Kerr v. Charles F. Vatterott & Co., 184 F.3d 938 (8th Cir.1999) (discussing the availability of prejudgment interest following a breach of fiduciary duty); Mansker v. TMG Life Ins. Co., 54 F.3d 1322 (8th Cir.1995) (awarding prejudgment interest following a breach of an ERISA plan); Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Industries, Inc., 783 F.2d 743 (8th Cir.1986) (allowing prejudgment interest following a breach of contract); Short v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 729 F.2d 567 (8th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Dependahl v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 653 F.2d
holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets holding that the son of a pension plan participant who had not been designated to receive any of his fathers pension benefits stood no closer to beneficiary status than any other person holding that although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage of the retirement pension benefits holding that the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan holding that an antiassignment clause in a pension plan is valid under  541c2 and that the pension benefits thus do not become property of the estate and may not be made subject to a pay order under section 1325c