With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that Defendant was entitled to a credit for taxes paid on the amount he originally received. See Clark v. Clark, No. D2976-86 (Sup.Ct.D.C. Apr. 21, 1995). 4 . On October 5, 1990, Defendant answered Plaintiff's complaint and also filed a counterclaim against his former wife. Defendant’s counterclaim asserted that Plaintiff was indebted to him for his interest in real property owned by them as tenants-in-common. He claimed that she had not accounted for past rental profits and that he was due his share of the value of the property from which he claims to have been ousted. 5 . The Court notes that the holding in Reese has been slightly modified by statute and case law, but with no effect on its application to this case. See Kayes v. Pacific Lumber Co., 51 F.3d 1449, 1454 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 301, 133

A: recognizing that in passing the pension annuitants protection act of 1994 publ no 103401 oct 22 1994 amending 29 usc  1132a congress clarified that former pension plan participants or beneficiaries of terminated plans do in fact have standing to sue in the case of a fiduciary breach involving the purchase of insurance contracts or annuities
B: holding under the exclusive civil enforcement provisions of  502a as set forth in 29 usc  1132a that a beneficiary may sue to recover benefits due under the plan to enforce the participants rights under the plan or to clarify rights to future benefits
C: holding that the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan
D: holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets
A.