In law, a plaintiff can seek monetary damages or equitable relief. The latter is generally only available when money damages are insufficient, and it is harder to win equitable relief than money damages.
For example, in the Twitter/Elon case, there was a question as to whether Twitter could successfully sue Elon for the equitable remedy of "specific performance" (making someone perform a specific action). It would have been perhaps unprecedented to force a reluctant bidder to purchase a company against his will.
I find it interesting that these plaintiffs are going for equitable relief, when money damages would seemingly suffice. Just give the plaintiffs whatever money is due on their loans, which would then be used to extinguish the loans. I don't understand why they're going for an equitable remedy, which is harder to get. (For example, there is the "clean hands doctrine", which requires that one “who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” [1] This doctrine does not apply when plaintiffs merely seek money damages.)
1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clean_hands_doctrine#:~:text....