With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in Varity Corp. could not proceed under § 1132(a)(1) because they were no longer plan beneficiaries, nor under § 1132(a)(2), which does not provide relief for individual beneficiaries, so they “must rely on the third subsection, [§ 1132(a)(3)], or they ha[d] no remedy at all.” Id. at 515. The Court in Variety Corp. explained that “where Congress elsewhere provided adequate relief for a beneficiary’s injury, there will likely be no need for further equitable relief.” Id. Following Varity Corp., the majority of circuits that have decided this issue have held that a breach of fiduciary duty claim cannot stand where a plaintiff has an adequate remedy through a claim for benefits under § 1132(a)(1)(B). See, e.g., Korotynska v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 474 F.3d 101, 107 (4th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Antolik v. Saks, Inc., 463 F.3d 796, 803 (8th

A: holding plaintiff had no claim under  1132a3 because his grievance that benefits were denied is specifically addressed in  1132a1b
B: holding that an individual who brings a lawsuit pursuant to  1132a1b to challenge a denial of disability benefits does not also have a right to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under  1132a3
C: holding that  1132a1b affords the plaintiff adequate relief for her benefits claim and a cause of action under  1132a3 is thus not appropriate
D: holding that the reinstatement of the right to an election of benefits may be an appropriate equitable remedy under 29 usc  1132a3
C.