With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claim time-barred, and in finding that he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact entitling him to surcharge and contract reformation on either his § 102(a) or § 404(a) claims. Because Osberg seeks the same relief under § 404(a) as under § 102(a), and because the timeliness of the § 404(a) claim is undisputed, we need not conclusively decide whether Osberg’s § 102(a) claim is subject to a three- or six-year statute of limitations to resolve the instant appeal. To survive summary judgment on his disclosure claims, Osberg was required to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his demand for “appropriate equitable relief’ — specifically, surcharge or reformation — under ERISA § 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). See CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S.Ct. at 1879-80 (<HOLDING>). We recently articulated the appropriate

A: recognizing those actions for monetary relief that we have characterized as equitable such as actions for disgorgement of improper profits
B: holding that state prisoner seeking only monetary damages in  1983 suit need not exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to  1997e if such remedies do not provide for the award of monetary relief
C: holding that monetary damages may be awarded in a  1132a3 claim because when sought as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty restitution is properly regarded as an equitable remedy because the fiduciary concept is equitable
D: recognizing surcharge and reformation as traditional equitable remedies that may allow for awarding monetary compensation based on misleading disclosures
D.