A participant brought suit to recover losses to his 401(k) plan due to the employer?s failure to implement his investment directives. Contrasting the action with Russell, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that the misconduct alleged relates ?to the proper management, administration, and investment of fund assets, with an eye toward ensuring that the benefits authorized by the plan are ultimately paid to participants and beneficiaries? whereas the plaintiff in Russell ?received all of the benefits to which she was contractually entitled, but sought consequential damages arising from a delay in the processing of her claim.? Noting that the landscape in pension plans has changed from defined-benefit to defined-contribution plans, the Court went on to explain that ?fiduciary misconduct need not threaten the solvency of the entire plan to reduce benefits below the amount that participants would otherwise receive. Whether a fiduciary breach diminishes plan assets payable to all participants and beneficiaries, or only to persons tied to particular individual accounts, it creates the kind of harms that concerned the draftsmen of Section 409. Consequently, our references to the ?entire plan? in Russell, which accurately reflect the operation of Section 409 in the defined benefit context, are beside the point in the defined contribution context.? Hence, ?although Section 502(a)(2) does not provide a remedy for individual injuries distinct from plan injuries, that provision does authorize recovery for fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in a participant’s individual account.? See LaRue v. DeWolff Boberg & Associates,128 S.Ct. 1020 (2008).