With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was no allegation that the losses put the plan in "at-risk status” under the statute, which is contested here, the court concluded that it was more important that the complaint did not allege that the plan sponsor "is financially compromised and thus unable to adequately fund the Plan so that it may meet its future obligations to pay all vested benefits.” Id. 14 . The Non-Transferee Class does cite cases regarding the per se ERISA violations listed in § 406, 29 U.S.C. § 1106. But these cases do not stand for the proposition that participants can sue for § 409 relief without showing particularized injury to themselves. Courts addressing § 406 claims still assess whether plaintiffs have constitutional standing. See, e.g., Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 102-03 (2d Cir.2011)

A: holding that the proceeds of a pension plan could be garnished after they had been paid out to the beneficiaries
B: holding that an individual plaintiff could not proceed under  1132a2 because it affords no remedies to individual beneficiaries
C: holding that plan beneficiaries had consl rational standing to bring  406 claim for injunctive relief although not for disgorgement or restitution which require particularized injury where beneficiaries could not show individual harm because they received entire amount of promised benefits
D: holding that beneficiaries of an estate lacked standing under rico to sue for an injury derivative of the estates injury
C.