With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". LaSalle breached the fiduciary duty owed to the plan and may seek damages on behalf of the plan. LaSalle cites In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. ERISA Litig., 2002 WL 31431588 (N.D.Cal.2002), to stand for the proposition that a case he plan, they are granted the power by ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B) to file a claim to recover wrongfully denied benefits. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). The breach of fiduciary duty claim under section 502(a)(2) is simply an additional claim, not the way around a jurisdictional bar. Count III — Unlawful Plan Amendments Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claim for unlawful amendments must be dismissed because only Amsted, as the plan’s settlor, had the actual power to amend the plan. See Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 119 S.Ct. 755, 142 L.Ed.2d 881 (1999) (<HOLDING>). We read count III as to LaSalle as basically

A: holding that plan amendments are a settlor rather than a trustee function
B: holding that the trustee of a nominee trust functions more as an agent than as a true trustee
C: holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee
D: holding that treating trust rather than trustee as attorneys client is inconsistent with the law of trusts
A.