With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Inc., 898 F.2d 1096, 1100 (5th Cir.1990) (“We accord no deference to the [plan administrator’s] conclusions as to the controlling law, which involve statutory interpretation.”) ERISA’s anti-cutback rule provides, with certain exceptions not relevant here, that “[t]he accrued benefit of a participant under a plan may not be decreased by an amendment of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g)(1). The rule applies to the participant’s basic accrued benefit, as well as to accrued early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and optional forms of benefits. 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g)(2). Such benefits may only be eliminated or reduced by amendment on a prospective basis, i.e., with respect to benefits that have not yet accrued. See, e.g., Campbell v. BankBoston, 327 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). This case is unique because Plaintiffs are

A: holding that an erisa violation accrued each time faulty investment contracts were renewed because erisa fiduciaries had a continuing duty to review plan investments
B: holding that elimination of a future expected benefit that has not yet accrued does not constitute an erisa violation
C: holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa
D: holding that the claims to a statutory benefit had not yet vested when the legislature eliminated the benefit
B.