I. Finally, the defendants have not attempted to demonstrate, nor have we independently ascertained, how ASI has standing to bring a claim on behalf of its employees. Given the defendants’ burden to make such a showing, we conclude that this case is not an action brought by ASI on behalf of its employees. An issue warranting greater consideration with respect to the first prong of the Rice test is whether ASI is a fiduciary with respect to the Plan. “An ERISA fiduciary is ... anyone who has substantial control over the assets, management, or administration of an ERISA plan.” Health Cost Controls of Illinois, Inc. v. Washington, 187 F.3d 703, 709 (7th Cir.1999) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A)); see also Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 498-505, 116 S.Ct. 1065, 134 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Harold Ives Trucking Co. v. Spradley & Coker,
holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate holding that employer was acting as erisa fiduciary when it misled employees regarding security of their benefits holding that erisa authorizes former employees to sue for unpaid benefits whether under the plan as it is or as it should be once reformed holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa holding defendants were not liable under erisa because the alleged misstatements were made while acting in a corporate rather than erisa fiduciary capacity