With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on the holding in Provident Bank. First, the argument against a finding of fiduciary status was submitted in that case by a plaintiff who was seeking to overturn a finding that his state law claim could be removed to federal court. In other words, the posture of the party submitting the argument was not that of a bank or some other funds’ custodian, and it is plausible to think that the argument was not fully briefed to the appellate court from the perspective of a party in a position similar to that of National City herein. Second, other circuit courts which have considered the argument from the perspective of the funds custodian have ruled that a mere custodian of ERISA plan funds is not a fiduciary thereto. See Beddall v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 20 (1st Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Arizona State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund

A: holding that a bank which does no more than hold plan funds and generate reports is not a fiduciary
B: holding greatwest bars a plan fiduciary seeking enforcement of a subrogation clause from settlement funds already received but does not bar a lien on specific funds yet to be received
C: 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
D: holding a bank is a fiduciary under the disposition clause where it wrongfully disbursed the plans funds
A.