With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.Ct. 2180. Nothing in the record suggests Kolt was likely to be favored by Longaberger, and thus we assume Kolt is not a "party in interest” for purposes of this litigation. The reasoning in Harris Trust, however, supports a finding that Kolt is a proper party defendant. See Bombardier, 354 F.3d at 353-54 (stating "the Supreme Court's reasoning in Harris Trust influences us to conclude today that § 502(a)(3) authorizes a cause of action against a non-fidu 202 F.Supp.2d 461, 465 (E.D.N.C.2002) (indicating that "the Court would find a cause of action lies [under section 502(a)(3)] where there are allegations of attorney wrongdoing or his intentional effort to 'enable' plan participants to avoid plan provisions.”); Greenwood Mills, Inc. v. Burris, 130 F.Supp.2d 949, 960 (M.D.Tenn.2001)

A: holding that a lawyer who is fully aware of his clients obligation under an erisa plan to honor the subrogation interest of his employer may be held liable under section 502a3 of erisa
B: holding that only members of the enumerated classes have standing to bring a civil action under erisa section 502a3
C: holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan
D: holding that claims for equitable relief under  502a3 are only available when a plaintiff has no other relief under erisa
A.