"The court expressly stopped short of holding that [CIGNA v. Amara] required courts to impose 'make-whole' relief under the doctrine of surcharge, which would provide relief for damages suffered personally by beneficiaries. Instead, it focused exclusively on trust principles involving suits against fiduciaries.... [T]he court distinguished decisions from other circuits as merely recognizing the availability of surcharge claims after the [Amara] decision, but not stating that surcharge was available for make-whole relief for personal losses." [Gabriel v. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, No. 12-35458 (9th Cir. June 6, 2014)]