A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179, 194, 117 S.Ct. 1984, 138 L.Ed.2d 373 (1997). This reasoning would not apply to a decision to make or to continue making new employer contributions in the form of employer stock, which would remain a matter of plan design. But this reasoning applies to the management or control of the existing assets at the time of the AES transaction. See King v. National Human Resource Committee, Inc., 218 F.3d 719, 724 (7th Cir.2000) (treating plan amendment as plan sponsor’s non-fiduciary action not subject to fiduciary standards, but treating decision about investment of existing plan assets as subject to ERISA fiduciary standards); Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F.Supp. 955, 959-60 (N.D.Ohio 1998), ajfd sub nom. Chao v. Hall Holding Co., 285 F.3d 415 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Those existing Plan assets held in the form
holding that an esops purchase of stock at inflated prices with cash already transferred to the esop was an action involving management of assets and was subject to fiduciary standards rejecting the argument that the purchase was only the act of a plan sponsor recognizing cause of action where plaintiffs allege fraud in inducing not the purchase of the bonds but their retention after purchase holding that there was no presumption of a gift where the wifes money was used to make the purchase but title was placed in the name of the husband and finding the facts sufficient to establish a purchase money resulting trust in favor of the wife holding that a plan sponsor was an erisa fiduciary to the extent that it was vested with and exercised discretionary control holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the  instrument