they may give. Second, because section 1104(c) speaks in terms of a plan which permits control to a participant or a beneficiary, a participant’s or a beneficiary’s control under section 1104(e) stems from a plan’s specific provisions, not from elements which lie outside the plan’s structure and which may arguably amount to control in connection with a single transaction. Finally, section 1104(c) is akin to an exemption from or a defense to ERISA’s general rule, relieving fiduciaries in the appropriate circumstances of the liability to which they would otherwise be exposed under 29 U.S.C. § 1109. Accordingly, a fiduciary which seeks section 1104(e)’s protection bears the burden of showing its application. See Lowen v. Tower Asset Management, Inc., 829 F.2d 1209, 1215 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Donovan v. Cunningham, 716 F.2d 1455, 1467-68
holding under flsa 29 usc  216c holding under 29 usc  216c holding that the finding that entities constitute a single enterprise under 29 usc  203r is separate and distinct from whether an entity is an employer under 29 usc  203d holding that the authorization under 29 usc  1132a3 extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary party in interest to a transaction barred by 29 usc  1106a holding that the defendant is in the best position to prove and should bear the burden of establishing its entitlement to an exemption under 29 usc  1108 from 29 usc  1106b erisas prohibited transactions provision