Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
recommendations respecting plan administration is not indicative of fiduciary status. Toomey, 855 F.Supp. at 24; 29 C.F.R. § 2509.75-8(D-2). The Court concludes, therefore, that John Hancock’s performance of plan design services lacks the discretionary authority in the administration of an employee benefit plan necessary to qualify it as a fiduciary under ERISA. Turning to an analysis of the other services John Hancock provides to the Plan, the Court recognizes that urging the purchase of an insurance company’s plan services does not make that company a fiduciary with respect to those services. American Fed’n of Unions v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 841 F.2d 658, 664 (5th Cir.1988); see also Consolidated Beef Indus. v. New York Life Ins. Co., 949 F.2d 960, 964-65 (8th Cir.1991) , cert. denied, 503 U.S. 985, 112 S.Ct. 1670,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when employers serve as plan administrators they assume the role of fiduciary under erisa
B. holding that plan trustees do not breach their fiduciary duty by failing to reverse a companys decision to amend an erisa plan
C. 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
D. holding that salesman of companys financial products not fiduciary to erisa plan
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.