With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". held that without other indicia of discretionary control, the power to limit the universe of funds available to a Plan by adding to or subtracting from an overall menu does not confer fiduciary status on a plan servicer. See Hecker, 556 F.3d at 583. In Hecker, an investment services company offered a 401(k) plan a limited menu of investment options. Because the parties’ contract expressly gave the plan the “final say” on which investment options would be included, the court held that the investment services company was not a fiduciary: “no authority ... holds that limiting funds automatically creates discretionary control sufficient for fiduciary status.” Id. The Court s the authority to change investment options did give rise to fiduciary status. See Charters, 583 F.Supp.2d at 199 (<HOLDING>); Haddock v. Nationwide Fin. Servs., 419

A: holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary
B: holding that plan servicer which provided 401k plan a menu of investment options was not a fiduciary because parties contract required servicer to give the plan notice of and opportunity to reject any changes to the menu
C: holding that service provider which offered a big menu of investment options from which 401k the plan trustee selected a smaller plan menu was not a fiduciary because provider did not have ultimate authority over which investments were included in the plans
D: holding that insurer was a fiduciary to a 401k plan because the insurer had the ability to substitute investment options and the plan had no meaningful opportunity to reject substitutions because of the penalty charges associated with doing so
D.