With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 270, 287 (3d Cir.1995) (internal citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff argues that Fidelity’s act causing the plan to disburse $1,200 of plan assets to itself as compensation for the DRO review constitutes a prohibited transaction because it was a fiduciary at the time of the disbursement. As previously discussed, Fidelity was a fiduciary only for purposes of administering the plan, not for purposes of negotiating or collecting its compensation. At the time of the disbursement, the fee structure was set and Fidelity lacked discretion to change it. What differentiates this case from eases in which we have held that Section 406(b) applied is the fact that Fidelity, at the time it collected the fee, had no actual control or discretion over the transaction at issue — t 1131 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). In short, ERISA prohibits none of the alleged

A: holding that even though the summary plan description did not include discretionary language the grant of discretionary authority in the plan controlled
B: holding that a plan sponsor was an erisa fiduciary to the extent that it was vested with and exercised discretionary control
C: holding that section 406b only governs a defendant service provider who was receiving agreedupon rates directly from a plan if that defendant had discretionary authority or control with respect to the rates agreed to by the plan sponsor
D: 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
C.