With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". such an action. As previously noted, this action is governed by SEP-PAA, the short-lived ERISA amendment that existed before the PPA was enacted. Armco argues that individuals, in addition to the Section 4049 Trustee, may maintain actions for unfunded non-guaranteed pension benefits under SEPPAA. Armco contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because the Section 4049 Trustee’s claims are barred by the releases signed by the settlin Terminal Co., 752 F.2d 256, 259 (6th Cir.1985); Grimes v. Dayton-Walther Corp., 680 F.Supp. 1110, 1117 (S.D.Ohio 1987); In re M & M Trans. Co., 3 B.R. 722, 727 (S.D.N.Y.1980). Under the PPA, it is fairly settled that direct participant actions for unfunded non-guaranteed benefits are no longer permissible. See United Engineering, 839 F.Supp. at 1283 (<HOLDING>); accord In re Adams Hard Facing Co., 129 B.R.

A: holding that erisa preemption does not apply where the plan itself would not be liable even though a successful plaintiffs damages would be measured in part by the lost pension benefits the plaintiff would have received had he been a participant in the plan
B: holding that the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan
C: holding that an employees claim for wrongful discharge based on the employers desire to avoid contributing to or paying benefits under the employees pension fund is preempted by erisa even though the claims are asserted under tort theories not erisa and seek damages only in the form of lost wages mental anguish and punitive damages not benefits under the plan
D: holding that under the ppa allowing direct recoveries by employees would defeat the pension plan termination framework set out in erisa
D.