With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". did not provide any explanation of how demutualization proceeds can become an asset of a plan that is defunct and has no assets. Consequently, it appears doubtful that the case was correctly decided. We reject the Northern District of Illinois's analysis, and instead follow the 2003 DOL opinion, which addresses how to treat demu-tualization proceeds purchased with the funds of a defunct pension plan. See Dep't of Labor, Office of Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs Op. No.2003-05A, 2003 WL 1901900 (Apr. 10, 2003). ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent, as I disagree with the reasoning and the outcome of the majority opinion. I believe this case is foreclosed by Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 440-41, 119 S.Ct. 755, 142 L.Ed.2d 881 (1999) (<HOLDING>). This case involves a defined benefit plan.

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: recognizing that pension plan administrators have the ability to fashion their own plan formulas
C: holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets
D: holding that plan participants cannot establish standing to seek money damages where the plan has substantial surplus assets or the plan sponsor is financially capable of making up any losses suffered by the plan citing harley 284 f3d at 906
C.