In suit by plan participants for breach of fiduciary duty, the injury-in-fact requirement under Article III was not met in the context of claims on behalf of the Plan as a whole under Section 502(a)(2). The court found, in this regard, that: “Even having determined that Plaintiffs were each part of one ERISA plan, individual injury would only be possible if Plaintiffs paid percentage contributions instead of the usual flat-rate co-payment or deductible, and this assumes that Ford and Axle would pass on any increase in reimbursements or administrative fees that may have resulted from BCBSM’s alleged wrongful negotiations,” which, in the Court’s opinion, was not sufficiently particularized nor concrete. However, “Plaintiffs need not demonstrate individualized injury to proceed with their claims for injunctive relief under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3). Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that BCBSM caused the injury they complain of in this case-specifically, breach of fiduciary duty by negotiating more favorable rates for BCN at the expense of the Ford and Axle plans administered by BCBSM. Finally, because we have determined that Ford and Axle sponsor single ERISA plans, any restitution of ill-gotten gains and other equitable relief available under 1132(a)(3) would be distributed to the single ERISA plans in which Plaintiffs participate.” See Loren v. Blue Cross, No. 06-2090, 2007 WL 2726704 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 2007).