With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court’s decision in Russell have determined that the dissolution of a plan should not bar subsequent suits by participants. See, e.g., Kling v. Fid. Mgmt. Trust Co., 2 13 (5th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (declining to dismiss claims by a subset of plan participants who sought to recover losses to a plan); LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Assocs., Inc., 458 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir.2006) (“[Liability under [§ 1132(a)(2) ] is not limited to losses that accrue to all plan participants — it is, however, limited to plan losses” (emphasis in original).). In permitting Plaintiffs to proceed, this Court is mindful that the Second Circuit has declined to allow lone plaintiffs or small groups of individuals to sue under § 1132(a)(2). See, e.g., Strom v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 202 F.3d 138, 149 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Lee v. Burkhart, 991 F.2d 1004, 1009 (2d

A: holding that a civil rights plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under fmla against individual individual is not employer subject to liability under the act
B: holding no individual liability under the adea
C: holding that an individual plaintiff could not proceed under  1132a2 because it affords no remedies to individual beneficiaries
D: holding that there is no individual liability under title vii
C.