Cir.1990) (citation omitted). To prevail on the motion, “the moving party must show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s position.” Rogers v. Fair, 902 F.2d 140, 143 (1st Cir.1990). If the movant satisfies this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce “sufficient evidence ... for a jury to return a verdict [in its favor.]” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2506, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). B. Fiduciary Status The key issue is whether MassMu-tual was acting as a fiduciary when it received revenue sharing payments in connection with its management of the Separate Investment Accounts., ERISA “extends fiduciary liability to functional fiduciaries—persons who act as fiduciar o, Inc., 74 F.3d 20, 21-22 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Prong two of subsection (i) is worded
holding that a person did not come within the ambit of subsection i merely by following the authorization of the plans named trustee to collect and to invest 130000 in a group of mortgages holding that following confirmation of the debtors chapter 11 plan the internal revenue service could collect a nondischargeable tax claim that was not listed in the irss bankruptcy claim holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee holding that us trustee did not become party merely by his involuntary appearance to quash a summons holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983