With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 302 F.3d 18, 28 (2d Cir.2002) (“The ‘management or disposition’ language ... refers to the common transactions in dealing with a pool of assets [including] selecting investments.”) (quoting Johnson v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 19 F.3d 1184, 1189 (7th Cir.1994)). Some circuits have held that the exercise of any authority or control — discretionary or not — over management and disposition of plan assets satisfies prong two of subsection (i). See e.g., Leimkuehler v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 713 F.3d 905, 913 (7th Cir.2013) (“[I]nsofar as ‘management or disposition of assets’ is concerned, there is no separate requirement of discretionary authority or control”) (emphasis added); Briscoe v. Fine, 444 F.3d 478, 493 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). These cases may be perceived as being in

A: holding that a plan sponsor was an erisa fiduciary to the extent that it was vested with and exercised discretionary control
B: holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator
C: holding that a party with contractually limited discretion was a functional fiduciary because he possessed and used the power to write checks on the erisa plan account
D: holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under  502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan
C.