“While ERISA may have reflected Congress’s attempt to define available remedies, the overarching goal of the statute was to ensure that such relief was available in cases of fiduciary breaches…. As the United States’ brief in support of the plaintiff in Larue states, a decision denying standing could negatively-and unjustifiably-impact plan selections involving more than $3.3 trillion in retirement assets by preventing the Secretary of Labor, or another eligible plaintiff, from recovering losses if the breach primarily affected a single account.” Further, the cout found the result compelled by the plain language of the statute. “A fiduciary’s liability is not limited to plan losses that will ultimately redound to the benefit of all participants. Nor does the statute indicate that suit must be brought by a ‘sub-class’ of participants or as a class action…. The District Court concluded that a loss ‘to the plan’ meant that the plaintiffs had to seek compensation in a representative capacity for the entire plan. We are unable to think of any reason why the ability to sue to recover losses should turn on the number of plan participants allegedly affected by the breach; whether one, ten or 1,000 participants are affected, the loss occurs to the plan. Indeed, although the number of affected participants differs, the nature of the relief – the payment of money to the plan – is the same regardless of the number of participants to whom the recovered assets are allocated. If the plaintiffs are successful in their case, any assets recovered from the defendant would first be paid into the plans then allocated to their individual accounts, and ultimately paid to them in the form of benefits.” Tullis v. UMB Bank, 515 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2008).