Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
has established sufficient case law on the issues in the instant case. As was in Herman, the disputed issues in this case include: (1) whether the Plan was an ERISA-covered pan, (2) whether Holman was a fiduciary as defined by ERISA, and (3) whether Holman breached his duty under ERISA. The Sixth Circuit has defined when a person is a “fiduciary” under an ERISA plan. See, e.g., Seaway Food Town, Inc. v. Medical Mut. of Ohio, 347 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2003) (discussing ERISA fiduciary status); Hamilton v. Carell, 243 F.3d 992, 998 (6th Cir.2001) (same). Similarly, several Sixth Circuit cases have discussed whether a fiduciary has breached his duty to ERISA plan participants. See, e.g., Abbott v. Pipefitters Local Union No. 522 Hosp., Medical, and Life Ben. Plan, 94 F.3d 236 (6th Cir.1996) ; Berlin v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 858
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba
B. holding that plaintiffs did not plead fraud where the complaint only alleged a breach of fiduciary duty
C. holding that trustees fiduciary duty exists independent of any clause in trust agreement
D. holding that trustees did not breach their fiduciary duty by deciding to set independent contribution rates for each local union
E. holding that plan trustees do not breach their fiduciary duty by failing to reverse a companys decision to amend an erisa plan
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.