The plaintiff, James LaRue, was a participant in a 401(k) plan, and alleges that, in 2001 and 2002, he directed DeWolff to make certain changes to the investments in his plan account, but that these directions were never carried out. Rejecting his 502(a)(2) claims, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found it difficult to characterize the remedy as anything other than personal. “He desires recovery to be paid into his plan account, an instrument that exists specifically for his benefit. The measure of that recovery is a loss suffered by him alone.” Then rejecting his claim for equitable restitution under 502(a)(3), the court observed that “Plaintiff does not allege that funds owed to him are in defendants’ possession, but instead that these funds never materialized at all. He therefore gauges his recovery not by the value of defendants’ nonexistent gain, but by the value of his own loss – a measure that is traditionally legal, not equitable.” LaRue v. Dewolff, Boberg & Associates, 450 F.3d 570 (4th Cir. 2006).