retirement benefits risk authorizes plan participants to bring suit on behalf of their plan under these circumstances and the statute defines participants to include former employees who may become eligible to receive a benefit under a plan now the district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs are not planned participants within the meaning of a ressa because they are former employees who have received distributions of their benefits under the plans since the district court's order three courts of appeals have rejected this rationale the seventh third and sixth circuits have held that former employees are planned participants under the misrepresentations had harmed the plan or reduce their benefits and they would not have become entitled to additional benefits if they had prevailed on their claims the start of the third circuit's have shown that not apply where former employees allege imprudent investment of defined contribution plan as in this case in such a case if the plaintiffs prevail assets will be restored to the plan increasing the plaintiff's benefit panel can decide the truth course but we've already taken care of one of the underlying problems in murdoch which was the issue of whether a past employee cashed out has any standing and so we're of nationwide uniformally is valuable in their reasoning makes sense because their reasoning applies to a defined contribution plan where it is cloned applies only to  when you're pursuing them if it's under a defined benefit plan you have to be going for damages you know only got what you agreed that dollar figure that you got is the figure that that you will agree to get the end of the day here the dollar figure you agreed to is contingent upon the value of the plan as of the time you pull out so there's a major difference on the one hand you are then seeking damages extra contractual damages in this case you're not you're seeking benefits that but for safety they asked but for mismanagement but for think that's an admission that what is being sought is not a benefit otherwise you would bring in i don't understand then why specifically has a provision for serving a claim for benefits and if what is sought here is benefits which is what's critical in must be something other than the full panoply of relief that's available at law and so the relief needs to be equitable in nature it cannot be extra contractual damages which is what plaintiff is asserting here and there's another i think part they didn't do anything out there they just meet they just sat there knowing that their plan was going to terminate for over a year and at that point in time i guess they were waiting to see whether or not the market was going to rise or fall is to determine whether or not to bring a anyone be ever received which is a claim for benefits but they've knowledge that they received the full distribution of their benefits and now in response to the district court's ruling they're trying to change the claim complaint their complaint never grudged that they didn't receive full distribution of when you have a contribution plan rather than a defined benefit plan you can't possibly make that claim with a defined benefit plan right because the dollars were set fixed known in advance and you got it dealer and one of their reps registered representatives journaled weinberg is in essence what they're accused of here within the framework of is professional negligence in connection with the investment of plant plant assets i would submit that the question here under the law of the circuit is benefits versus damages not this distinction between defined benefit plan versus defined contribution plan which i think is a red herring under the the law of of the circuit this court clearly said that plan participants are former participants that received their full distribution of benefits under the plan last standing that was cited by with with approval for that proposition by the supreme court and firestone but that's where that little  i understand the semantics but i would submit that it's just that that really what they're seeking are damages that bottom they're not seeking benefits one thing that i could i could move to now is that this court has acknowledged specific and very expert testimony as to what is the plan and how it should have been invested i would submit that that is far from a question of just straight benefits and under the law as it stands in the circuit today i point that that the plaintiffs didn't raise this claim properly and that they haven't you know made it clear what it is they're asking for and that they have a colorable claim to benefits i would say is this number one this is not a claim who notes that the petitioner withdrew funds following the commencement of the litigation this court has always helps that if you have a benefit in your account at the time of the