his account. Day was obligated to “control” the “disposition” of those funds for paying the plans’ insurance premiums. Instead, Day absconded with the funds. Because the disposition clause contains no “discretion” requirement, it is irrelevant whether Day exercised “discretion” in his thievery. “[A]ny authority or control” is enough. Therefore, in light of ERISA’s statutory text and structure, we conclude Day was a “fiduciary,” regardless of whether he possessed “discretionary authority or discretionary control” over the disposition of the plans’ assets. Our conclusion comports with the results reached by every Court of Appeals that has considered the issue. See David P. Coldesina, D.D.S., P.C., Empl. Profit Sharing & Trust v. Estate of Simper, 407 F.3d 1126, 1132-35 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Srein v. Frankford Trust Co., 323 F.3d 214,
holding that funds for an accountant were appropriately denied where defendant did not show that lack of an accountant prejudiced his case holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty where he alleged that the plan offered funds that charged higher fees than available alternatives that underperformed during the relevant time period and that were included in the plan because of improper influence by the plans trustee holding an accountant is a fiduciary under the disposition clause where he wrongfully disbursed the plans funds recognizing that benefit plans must designate a fiduciary to serve as the plan administrator holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language