Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(“courts presume that ‘or’ is used in a statute disjunctively unless there is a clear legislative intent to the contrary”); see also American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language 873 (4th ed.2000) (defining “or” as “[ujsed to indicate ... [a]n alternative ...” (emphasis added)); Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 817 (10th ed.1996) (defining “or” as “a function word [used] to indicate an alternative ” (emphasis added)); VII Oxford English Dictionary 166 (1933) (defining “or” as “[a] particle co-ordinating two (or more) words, phrases, or clauses, between which there is an alternative ” (emphasis added)). Congress plainly framed § 1002(21)(A)(i) in the alternative, and it further bifurcated the subsection with the parallel inclusion of the verb “exerc 15, 1421 (9th Cir.1997) . While it is not necessary to our holding, we
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that one who is named in documents as plan administrator signs documents as plan administrator and assumes discretionary authority in the administration of the pension plan is a fiduciary
B. 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
C. recognizing that benefit plans must designate a fiduciary to serve as the plan administrator
D. holding a plan administrator is a fiduciary under the disposition clause where it wrongfully disbursed the plans funds
E. holding that even if a thirdparty administrator is not a fiduciary under erisa such an administrator still has standing  pursuant to   1331
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.