With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The risk of multiple recoveries is very real, indeed. At oral argument, the Funds pointed to Firestone v. Galbreath, 976 F.2d 279 (6th Cir.1992), as well as Witzman v. Gross, 148 F.3d 988 (8th Cir.1998), and argued that there was no risk of multiple recoveries because, under principles of trust law, the participants, as beneficiaries of a trust fund, could not bring suit. These cases are distinguishable. In both, the courts refused to allow a beneficiary to sue a tortfeasor for misconduct levied at the trust fund because the beneficiary was only indirectly injured. See Firestone, 976 F.2d at 286 (finding that the beneficiaries did not have standing to recover for a decrease in the trust corpus because the misconduct was visited upon the creator of the trust); Witzman, 148 F.3d at 990 (<HOLDING>). Under the theory of recovery being pressed

A: holding that trust beneficiaries have no authority to maintain an action as third party beneficiaries of contracts between the trustee and agents of the trustee concerning the internal affairs of the trust
B: holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal
C: holding that beneficiaries could not sue attorneys of the trust for legal malpractice because beneficiaries are not direct recipients of the attorneys services
D: holding that the settlor could divest the beneficiaries of their vested interests only by completely revoking the trust because she had limited her ability to eliminate the beneficiaries interests by including language in the trust stating that the interests of the beneficiaries  shall continue until this trust is revoked or terminated internal quotation marks omitted
C.