Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 302 F.3d 18, 28 (2d Cir.2002) (“The ‘management or disposition’ language ... refers to the common transactions in dealing with a pool of assets [including] selecting investments.”) (quoting Johnson v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 19 F.3d 1184, 1189 (7th Cir.1994)). Some circuits have held that the exercise of any authority or control — discretionary or not — over management and disposition of plan assets satisfies prong two of subsection (i). See e.g., Leimkuehler v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 713 F.3d 905, 913 (7th Cir.2013) (“[I]nsofar as ‘management or disposition of assets’ is concerned, there is no separate requirement of discretionary authority or control”) (emphasis added); Briscoe v. Fine, 444 F.3d 478, 493 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). These cases may be perceived as being in
holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under  502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan holding that a party with contractually limited discretion was a functional fiduciary because he possessed and used the power to write checks on the erisa plan account holding that a plan sponsor was an erisa fiduciary to the extent that it was vested with and exercised discretionary control holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan