In a case brought by a surviving beneficiary whose deceased spouse had been erroneously advised by his employer that he would be, and was, fully covered, upon switching to a new group life policy, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal reconciles Sereboff with Great-West as “confirming” that “the sine qua nonof restitutionary recovery available under Section 502(a)(3) is a defendant’s possession of the disputed res.” The Court then rejected the argument that, as under traditional principles of equity, relief from a breaching fiduciary is broader under ERISA than the relief available from a non-fiduciary. “There is no textual argument for drawing this distinction under ?502(a)(3). Only the nature of the claim and the relief sought-not the status of the litigants-determine the scope of available Section 502(a)(3) recovery.” A defendant’s possession of the disputed res, the court continued, is “central to the notion of a restitutionary remedy, which was conceived not to assuage a plaintiff’s loss, but to eliminate a defendant’s gain.” Because the employer never maintained possession of plaintiff’s insurance proceeds, the court denied equitable restitution in the form of a constructive trust or equitable lien. See Amschwand v. Sperion Corp., 505 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2007).