over the disposition of plan assets. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A)(i); IT Corp. v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 107 F.3d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir.1997). BCBST argues that it did not have effective control over the disposition of Plan assets because a low balance was maintained in the account it controlled. Deposits were made only in response to BCBST’s notices of the amounts to be drawn on the account the next day, and the resulting checks reduced the account balance to a nominal amount. On this record BCBST maintained sufficient control to qualify as a fiduciary. The case law makes no distinction based on the balances normally maintained in an account. Additionally, because Plaintiffs checked BCBST’s notices only for mathematical errors before transferring funds p. 147, 150 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>). Here, the only checks that BCBST drew on the
holding that  7403 requires compensation for every property interest that is taken in the process holding that a challenge to part b determinations in an order involving both part a and part b must begin in district court holding that interest on float is part of compensation holding constitutional a tax on a private citizens interest in housing on government property received as part of the private citizens compensation holding that where it was clear up to seven days of float might exist interest on float was contracted for compensation