Proposed Exemptions; BNP Paribas S.A., (BNP Paribas) and Its French Affiliates (the French Affiliates), 25601-25614 [05-9577]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
Issued: May 10, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–9573 Filed 5–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–539]
In the Matter of Certain Tadalafil or Any
Salt or Solvate Thereof, and Products
Containing Same; Notice of
Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Institution of investigation
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a
complaint was filed with the U.S.
International Trade Commission on
April 8, 2005, under section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Lilly ICOS LLC
of Wilmington, Delaware. A letter
supplementing the complaint was filed
on April 27, 2005. The complaint, as
supplemented, alleges violations of
section 337 in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain tadalafil or
any salt or solvate thereof, and products
containing same, by reason of
infringement of claims 1–4, 6–8, and
12–13 of U.S. Patent No. 5,859,006. The
complaint further alleges that there
exists an industry in the United States
as required by subsection (a)(2) of
section 337.
The complainant requests that the
Commission institute an investigation
and, after the investigation, issue a
permanent general exclusion order and
permanent cease and desist orders.
ADDRESSES: The complaint and
supplemental letter, except for any
confidential information contained
therein, are available for inspection
during official business hours (8:45 a.m.
to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room
112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone
202–205–2000. Hearing impaired
individuals are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons
with mobility impairments who will
need special assistance in gaining access
to the Commission should contact the
Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
accessing its Internet server at https://
www.usitc.gov. The public record for
this investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay
H. Reiziss, Esq., Office of Unfair Import
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, telephone 202–205–2579.
Authority: The authority for
institution of this investigation is
contained in section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, and in section
210.10 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10
(2004).
Scope of Investigation: Having
considered the complaint, the U.S.
International Trade Commission, on
May 9, 2005, Ordered that—
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, an investigation be instituted
to determine whether there is a
violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of
section 337 in the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after
importation of certain tadalafil or any
salt or solvate thereof, or products
containing same, by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims
1–4, 6–8, and 12–13 of U.S. Patent No.
5,859,006, and whether an industry in
the United States exists as required by
subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
(2) For the purpose of the
investigation so instituted, the following
are hereby named as parties upon which
this notice of investigation shall be
served:
(a) The complainant is—
Lilly ICOS LLC, 1209 Orange Street,
Wilmington, DE 19801.
(b) The respondents are the following
companies alleged to be in violation of
section 337 and upon which the
complaint is to be served:
Pharmacy4u.us, Attn: Dave Fox, 166 W.
44th Street, New York, NY 10282,
Santovittorio Holdings Ltd,
d/b/a Inhousepharmacy.co.uk.
Apartado 6–6305 El Dorado, El Dorado,
Panama, Expressgeneric, 722 8th
Cross, 11th Main H.A.L. 2nd Stage,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008 IN.
India, Stop4rx, Box 1246 Port-au-Prince,
Port-au-Prince, FE 123182, Haiti.
Cutprice Pills, c/o Domains By Proxy,
Inc., 15111 N. Hayden Road, Suite
160, PMB353, Scottsdale, AZ 85260.
Allpills.us, Attn: Gerard Gibson,
Madisson 12, Beverly Hills, CA
90210.
Generic Cialis Pharmacy, Del Parque
Central 200 N, Managua, Nicaragua,
Rx Mex-Com, S.A. de C.V., Avenida
Lazaro Cardenas #4207, Colonia Las
Brisas, Monterrey 64780, Mexico.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25601
Budget Medicines Pty Ltd., 2 Brierwood
Place, French’s Forest, Sydney, 2068,
Australia.
www.nudewfds.info, 838 Camp Street,
Apartment C, New Orleans, LA 70130.
(c) Jay H. Reiziss, Esq., Office of Unfair
Import Investigations, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500
E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington,
DC 20436, who shall be the
Commission investigative attorney,
party to this investigation; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted,
the Honorable Charles E. Bullock is
designated as the presiding
administrative law judge.
Responses to the complaint and the
notice of investigation must be
submitted by the named respondents in
accordance with section 210.13 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to
19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such
responses will be considered by the
Commission if received no later than 20
days after the date of service by the
Commission of the complaint and the
notice of investigation. Extensions of
time for submitting a response to the
complaint will not be granted unless
good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely
response to each allegation in the
complaint and in this notice may be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the
right to appear and contest the
allegations of the complaint and to
authorize the administrative law judge
and the Commission, without further
notice to the respondent, to find the
facts to be as alleged in the complaint
and this notice and to enter both an
initial determination and a final
determination containing such findings,
and may result in the issuance of a
limited exclusion order or a cease and
desist order or both directed against
such respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: May 9, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–9574 Filed 5–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
[Application No. D–11249, et al.]
Proposed Exemptions; BNP Paribas
S.A., (BNP Paribas) and Its French
Affiliates (the French Affiliates)
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Labor.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
25602
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
Notice of proposed exemptions.
SUMMARY: This document contains
notices of pendency before the
Department of Labor (the Department) of
proposed exemptions from certain of the
prohibited transaction restrictions of the
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (the Act) and/or the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
Written Comments and Hearing
Requests
All interested persons are invited to
submit written comments or requests for
a hearing on the pending exemptions,
unless otherwise stated in the Notice of
Proposed Exemption, within 45 days
from the date of publication of this
Federal Register Notice. Comments and
requests for a hearing should state: (1)
The name, address, and telephone
number of the person making the
comment or request, and (2) the nature
of the person’s interest in the exemption
and the manner in which the person
would be adversely affected by the
exemption. A request for a hearing must
also state the issues to be addressed and
include a general description of the
evidence to be presented at the hearing.
ADDRESSES: All written comments and
requests for a hearing (at least three
copies) should be sent to the Employee
Benefits Security Administration
(EBSA), Office of Exemption
Determinations, Room N–5649, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Attention: Application No. ___, stated in
each Notice of Proposed Exemption.
Interested persons are also invited to
submit comments and/or hearing
requests to EBSA via e-mail or FAX.
Any such comments or requests should
be sent either by e-mail to:
‘‘moffitt.betty@dol.gov’’, or by FAX to
(202) 219–0204 by the end of the
scheduled comment period. The
applications for exemption and the
comments received will be available for
public inspection in the Public
Documents Room of the Employee
Benefits Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N–1513,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of the proposed exemptions
will be provided to all interested
persons in the manner agreed upon by
the applicant and the Department
within 15 days of the date of publication
in the Federal Register. Such notice
shall include a copy of the notice of
proposed exemption as published in the
Federal Register and shall inform
interested persons of their right to
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
comment and to request a hearing
(where appropriate).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed exemptions were requested in
applications filed pursuant to section
408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in
accordance with procedures set forth in
29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR
32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).
Effective December 31, 1978, section
102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of
1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred
the authority of the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue exemptions of the type
requested to the Secretary of Labor.
Therefore, these notices of proposed
exemption are issued solely by the
Department.
The applications contain
representations with regard to the
proposed exemptions which are
summarized below. Interested persons
are referred to the applications on file
with the Department for a complete
statement of the facts and
representations.
BNP Paribas S.A., (BNP Paribas) and Its
French Affiliates (the French Affiliates)
Located in Paris, France
[Application No. D–11249]
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering
granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of the Act
and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and
in accordance with the procedures set
forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, subpart B (55
FR 32836, 32847, August 10,1990).1
Section I. Covered Transactions
A. If the exemption is granted, the
restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A)
through (D) of the Act and the sanctions
resulting from the application of section
4975 of the Code, by reason of section
4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code,
shall not apply to any purchase or sale
of a security between BNP Paribas, a
bank established under the laws of
France and any French Affiliate or
branch of BNP Paribas which is a bank
regulated by the Commission Bancaire
(CB) or a broker-dealer holding a
securities dealers license issued by the
´
´
Comite des Etablissements de Credit et
des Enterprises d’Investissement
´
(CECEI) or registered with the Autorite
´
des Marches Financiers (AMF) (each, a
BNP Entity), and employee benefit plans
(the Plans) with respect to which the
BNP Entity is a party in interest,
1 For purposes of this proposed exemption,
references to provisions of Title I of the Act, unless
otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding
provisions of the Code.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
including options written by a Plan or
the BNP Entity, provided that the
following conditions and the General
Conditions of Section II, are satisfied:
(1) The BNP Entity customarily
purchases and sells securities for its
own account in the ordinary course of
its business as a bank or broker-dealer,
as the case may be;
(2) The terms of any transaction are at
least as favorable to the Plan as those
which the Plan could obtain in a
comparable arm’s length transaction
with an unrelated party; and
(3) Neither the BNP Entity nor any of
its affiliates has discretionary authority
or control with respect to the
investment of the Plan assets involved
in the transaction, or renders investment
advice (within the meaning of 29 CFR
2510.3–21(c)) with respect to those
assets, and the BNP Entity is a party in
interest or disqualified person with
respect to the Plan assets involved in
the transaction solely by reason of
section 3(14)(B) of the Act or section
4975(e)(2)(B) of the Code, or by reason
of a relationship to a person described
in such sections. For purposes of this
paragraph, the BNP Entity shall not be
deemed to be a fiduciary with respect to
Plan assets solely by reason of providing
securities custodial services for a Plan.
B. If the exemption is granted, the
restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A)
through (D) and 406(b)(2) of the Act and
the sanctions resulting from the
application of section 4975 of the Code,
by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A)
through (D) of the Code, shall not apply
to any extension of credit to a Plan by
a BNP Entity to permit the settlement of
securities transactions, regardless of
whether they are effected on an agency
or a principal basis, or in connection
with the writing of options contracts,
provided that the following conditions
and the General Conditions of Section
II, are satisfied:
(1) The BNP Entity is not a fiduciary
with respect to the Plan assets involved
in the transaction, unless no interest or
other consideration is received by the
BNP Entity or any of its affiliates in
connection with such extension of
credit; and
(2) Any extension of credit would be
lawful under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the 1934 Act),
and any rules or regulations thereunder,
if the 1934 Act, rules or regulations
were applicable and is lawful under
applicable foreign law.
C. If the exemption is granted, the
restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A)
through (D) of the Act and the sanctions
resulting from the application of section
4975 of the Code, by reason of section
4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code,
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
shall not apply to the lending of
securities that are assets of a Plan to a
BNP Entity, provided that the following
conditions and the General Conditions
of Section II are satisfied:
(1) Neither the BNP Entity nor any of
its affiliates has discretionary authority
or control with respect to the
investment of Plan assets involved in
the transaction, or renders investment
advice (within the meaning of 29 CFR
2510.3–21(c)) with respect to those
assets;
(2) The Plan receives from the BNP
Entity, either by physical delivery or by
book entry in a securities depository
located in the U.S., by the close of
business on the day on which the
securities lent are delivered to the BNP
Entity, collateral consisting of U.S.
currency, securities issued or
guaranteed by the U.S. Government or
its agencies or instrumentalities, or
irrevocable U.S. bank letters of credit
issued by persons other than the BNP
Entity (or any of its affiliates), or any
combination thereof having, as of the
close of business on the preceding
business day, a market value (or, in the
case of letters of credit, a stated amount)
equal to not less than 100 percent of the
then market value of the securities lent.
All collateral shall be held in U.S.
dollars, or dollar denominated securities
or bank letters of credit and shall be
held in physical or book entry form in
the United States.
(3) The loan is made pursuant to a
written loan agreement (the Loan
Agreement), which may be in the form
of a master agreement covering a series
of securities lending transactions, and
which contains terms at least as
favorable to the Plan as those the Plan
could obtain in an arm’s length
transaction with an unrelated party;
(4) In return for lending securities, the
Plan either (a) receives a reasonable fee
which is related to the value of the
borrowed securities and the duration of
the loan, or (b) has the opportunity to
derive compensation through the
investment of cash collateral. In the
latter case, the Plan may pay a loan
rebate or similar fee to the BNP Entity,
if such fee is not greater than the Plan
would pay an unrelated party in a
comparable arm’s length transaction
with an unrelated party;
(5) The Plan receives at least the
equivalent of all distributions made to
holders of the borrowed securities
during the term of the loan, including,
but not limited to, cash dividends,
interest payments, shares of stock as a
result of stock splits and rights to
purchase additional securities that the
Plan would have received (net of tax
withholdings) had it remained the
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
record owner of such securities. Where
dividends and other distributions on
foreign securities payable to a lending
Plan are subject to foreign tax
withholdings, the BNP Entity will put
the Plan back in at least as good a
position as it would have been in had
it not lent the securities;
(6) If the market value of the collateral
as of the close of trading on a business
day falls below 100% of the market
value of the borrowed securities as of
the close of trading on that day, the BNP
Entity delivers additional collateral, by
the close of business on the following
business day, to bring the level of the
collateral back to at least 100% of the
market value of all the borrowed
securities as of such preceding day.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, part of
the collateral may be returned to the
BNP Entity if the market value of the
collateral exceeds 100% of the market
value of the borrowed securities, as long
as the market value of the remaining
collateral equals at least 100% of the
market value of the borrowed securities;
(7) Prior to entering into a Loan
Agreement, the BNP Entity furnishes to
the independent Plan fiduciary, who is
making decisions on behalf of the Plan
with respect to the lending of securities:
(a) The most recent available audited
and unaudited statements of its
financial condition, (b) the most recent
available unaudited statement of its
financial condition (if more recent than
the audited statement), and (c) a
representation by the BNP Entity that, as
of each time it borrows securities, there
has been no material adverse change in
its financial condition since the date of
the most recently furnished financial
statement that has not been disclosed to
the Plan fiduciary. Such representation
may be made by the BNP Entity’s
agreeing that each loan of securities
shall constitute a representation that
there has been no such material adverse
change;
(8) The Loan Agreement and/or any
securities loan outstanding may be
terminated by the Plan at any time,
whereupon the BNP Entity delivers
certificates for securities identical to the
borrowed securities (or the equivalent
thereof in the event of reorganization,
recapitalization or merger of the issuer
of the borrowed securities) to the Plan
within (a) the customary delivery period
for such securities, (b) five business
days, or (c) the time negotiated for such
delivery by the Plan and the BNP Entity,
whichever is lesser, or, alternatively,
such period as permitted by Prohibited
Transaction Class Exemption (PTCE)
81–6 (46 FR 7527, January 23, 1981, as
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25603
amended at 52 FR 18754, May 19, 1987),
as it may be amended or superseded; 2
(9) In the event that the loan is
terminated and the BNP Entity fails to
return the borrowed securities or the
equivalent thereof within the time
described in paragraph (8) above, then
the Plan may purchase securities
identical to the borrowed securities (or
their equivalent as described above) and
may apply the collateral to the payment
of the purchase price, any other
obligations of the BNP Entity under the
Loan Agreement, and any expenses
associated with the sale and/or
purchase. The BNP Entity is obligated to
pay to the Plan the amount of any
remaining obligations and expenses not
covered by the collateral (the value of
which shall be determined as of the date
the borrowed securities should have
been returned to the Plan), plus interest
at a reasonable rate, as determined in
accordance with an independent market
source. If replacement securities are not
available, the BNP Entity will pay the
Plan an amount equal to (a) the value of
the securities as of the date such
securities should have been returned to
the Plan, plus (b) all the accrued
financial benefits derived from the
beneficial ownership of such borrowed
securities as of such date, plus (c)
interest at a reasonable rate determined
in accordance with an independent
market source from such date to the date
of payment. The amounts paid shall be
reduced by the amount or value of the
collateral determined as of the date the
borrowed securities should have been
returned to the Plan. The BNP entity is
obligated to pay, under the terms of the
Loan Agreement, and does pay, to the
Plan, the amount of any remaining
obligations and expenses not covered by
the collateral, plus interest at a
reasonable rate. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the BNP Entity may, in the
event it fails to return borrowed
securities as described above, replace
non-cash collateral with an amount of
cash not less than the then current
market value of the collateral, provided
that such replacement is approved by
the independent Plan fiduciary; and
(10) The independent Plan fiduciary
maintains the situs of the Loan
Agreement in accordance with the
indicia of ownership requirements
under section 404(b) of the Act and the
2 PTCE 81–6 provides an exemption under certain
conditions from section 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of
the Act and the corresponding provisions of section
4975(c) of the Code for the lending of securities that
are assets of an employee benefit plan to a U.S.
broker-dealer registered under the 1934 Act (or
exempted from registration under the 1934 Act as
a dealer in exempt Government securities, as
defined therein).
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
25604
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
regulations promulgated under 29 CFR
2550.404(b)–1. However, the BNP Entity
shall not be subject to the civil penalty,
which may be assessed under section
502(i) of the Act, or to the taxes imposed
by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code,
if the independent Plan fiduciary fails to
comply with the requirements of 29 CFR
2550.404(b)–1.
If the BNP Entity fails to comply with
any condition of this exemption in the
course of engaging in a securities
lending transaction, the Plan fiduciary
which caused the Plan to engage in such
transaction shall not be deemed to have
caused the Plan to engage in a
transaction prohibited by section
406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of the Act
solely by reason of the failure on the
part of the BNP Entity to comply with
the conditions of the exemption.
Section II. General Conditions
A. The BNP Entity is a registered
broker-dealer or bank subject to
regulation by a governmental agency, as
described in Section III.B, and is in
compliance with all applicable rules
and regulations thereof in connection
with any transactions covered by this
exemption.
B. The BNP Entity, in connection with
any transactions covered by this
exemption, is in compliance with all
requirements of Rule 15a–6 of the 1934
Act, and Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) interpretations
thereof, providing foreign affiliates a
limited exemption from U.S. brokerdealers registration requirements (17
CFR 240.15a–6).
C. Prior to the transaction, the BNP
Entity enters into a written agreement
with the Plan in which the BNP Entity
consents to the jurisdiction of the courts
of the United States for any civil action
or proceeding brought in respect of the
subject transactions.
D. Each BNP Entity located in the
United States is fully responsible for
any judgment rendered by a United
States court against BNP Paribas, and
the U.S. assets of BNP Paribas,
including those of any BNP Entities
located in the U.S., are subject to the
enforcement of any such judgment.
E. The BNP Entity maintains, or
causes to be maintained, within the
United States for a period of six years
from the date of the covered
transactions, such records as are
necessary to enable the persons
described in paragraph F. of this Section
II to determine whether the conditions
of this exemption have been met, except
that:
(1) If the records necessary to enable
the persons described in paragraph F. to
determine whether the conditions of the
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
exemption have been met are lost or
destroyed prior to the end of such year
period, due to circumstances beyond the
control of the BNP Entity, then no
prohibited transaction will be
considered to have occurred solely on
the basis of the unavailability of those
records; and
(2) No party in interest, other than the
BNP Entity and its affiliates, shall be
subject to the civil penalty that may be
assessed under section 502(i) of the Act
or to the taxes imposed by section
4975(a) and (b) of the Code if the
records are not maintained or are not
available for examination as required by
paragraph F. of this Section II.
F. Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (a)(2) and (b) of section 504
of the Act, the BNP Entity makes the
records referred to above in paragraph E.
of this Section II, unconditionally
available for examination during normal
business hours at their customary
location to the following persons or an
authorized representative thereof:
(1) The Department, the Internal
Revenue Service or the SEC;
(2) Any fiduciary of a participating
Plan;
(3) Any contributing employer to a
Plan;
(4) Any employee organization any of
whose members are covered by a Plan;
and
(5) Any participant or beneficiary of a
Plan.
However, none of the persons
described above in paragraphs (2)–(5) of
this paragraph F. shall be authorized to
examine trade secrets of the BNP Entity,
or any commercial or financial
information which is privileged or
confidential.
G. Prior to any Plan’s approval of any
transaction with a BNP Entity, the Plan
is provided with copies of the proposed
and final exemption with respect to the
exemptive relief granted herein.
Section III. Definitions
For purposes of this proposed
exemption,
A. The term ‘‘affiliate’’ of another
person shall include:
(1) Any person directly or indirectly,
through one or more intermediaries,
controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with such other
person;
(2) Any officer, director, or partner,
employee or relative (as defined in
section 3(15) of the Act) of such other
person; and
(3) Any corporation, partnership or
other entity of which such other person
is an officer, director or partner. (For
purposes of this definition, the term
‘‘control’’ means the power to exercise
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a controlling influence over the
management or policies of a person
other than an individual.)
B. The term ‘‘BNP Entity’’ shall mean
BNP Paribas or any branch or affiliate
thereof that is a broker-dealer or bank
subject to regulation by the (1) CB or (2)
AMF.
C. The term ‘‘security’’ shall include
equities, fixed income securities,
options on equity and on fixed income
securities, government obligations, and
any other instrument that constitutes a
security under U.S. securities laws. The
term ‘‘security’’ does not include swap
agreements or other notional principal
contracts.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. BNP Paribas, which maintains its
principal offices in Paris, France, is a
publicly-held French bank that operates
primarily in France. BNP Paribas has
additional activities in major banking
and securities markets worldwide.
Through its branch offices and affiliates,
BNP Paribas provides a full line of
depository, lending and investment
services to a broad base of clients and
is engaged in a wide range of banking,
financial and related activities. As of
December 31, 2004, BNP Paribas had
consolidated assets of Euro 905.9 billion
($1.231 trillion) and stockholders equity
of Euro 30.2 billion ($41.02 billion). As
of close of business on March 29, 2005,
BNP Paribas had a market capitalization
of over Euro 49 billion (over $63
billion). The banking activities of BNP
Paribas and its French Affiliates are
regulated by CB. The securities
activities of BNP Paribas are regulated
by the AMF.
As of December 31, 2004, BNP Paribas
reported that its presence in the United
States (excluding Banc West
Corporation and its subsidiaries) was
valued in excess of $185 billion.
Because it is a single legal entity acting
through various branches and other
subsidiaries in various locations,
including the United States, BNP
Paribas states that each U.S.-based BNP
Entity would be fully responsible for
any judgment rendered by a U.S. court
against BNP Paribas, and the U.S. assets
of BNP Paribas, including those of any
BNP Entities, located in the U.S., would
likely be subject to the enforcement of
any such judgment.3
3 Alternatively, BNP Paribas has advised that if a
judgment by a U.S. court is rendered against a
French Affiliate, the judgment would be enforceable
in France if the suing party has obtained an
exequatur (enforcement order) from a French court.
Before it issues an exequatur, the French court must
determine that the judgment of the U.S. court has
satisfied the following requirements: (a) The court
must have subject-matter and personal jurisdiction
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
2. BNP Paribas seeks prospective
exemptive relief from the Department to
permit certain principal transactions,
extensions of credit, and securities
borrowing transactions between
employee benefit plans subject to the
Act and BNP Paribas acting through its
French Affiliates and French branches.
The proposed exemption would solely
cover transactions affected by BNP
Paribas and its French Affiliates that are
located in France and regulated by the
CB or AMF. Aside from BNP Paribas,
such French Affiliates currently include
BNP Paribas Arbitrage of Paris, France
´
which is regulated by the Autorite de
´
Marches Financiers of France.
BNP Paribas requests an individual
exemption on behalf of itself, its French
Affiliates, and others, which may in the
future, be subject to governmental
regulation in France, to engage with
Plans in the securities transactions
described herein because such entities
may be parties in interest with respect
to the Plans under the Act, by virtue of
being fiduciaries (for assets of the Plans
other than those involved in the
transactions) or service providers to
such Plans, or by virtue of their
relationships to such fiduciaries or
service providers.
3. BNP Paribas is subject to
regulations established by the CB and
the AMF governing minimum
capitalization, reporting requirements,
periodic examinations, client money
and safe custody rules and books and
records requirements with respect to
client accounts. These regulations and
the regulations established by the SEC
share a common objective of protecting
investors through regulation of the
securities industry. The regulations of
the CB and the AMF require BNP
Paribas to maintain a positive tangible
net worth and be able to meet its
obligations as they may fall due. These
rules establish comprehensive financial
resource and reporting and disclosure
requirements regarding capital
adequacy. In addition, the regulations
impose requirements with respect to
risk management, internal controls and
transaction reporting and record
keeping and require such records to be
produced at the request of the CB and
the AMF. Finally, these regulations
over the litigation; (b) the court proceedings must
have been properly followed (i.e., the proceedings
must have conformed to basic French legal notions
of fundamental fairness and due process): (c) The
court must have used the correct choice of law; (d)
enforcement of the judgment must be consistent
with French law; and (e) the substance of the
judgment must not be directly contrary to French
law. According to BNP Paribas, judgments from
U.S. courts typically satisfy these five requirements
and French courts rarely have refused to grant
exequaturs to enforce U.S. judgments.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
impose potential fines and penalties,
which establish a comprehensive
disciplinary framework.
4. In addition to the requirements and
protections imposed under the
regulations of the CB and the AMF, BNP
Paribas will comply with all applicable
provisions of Rule 15a–6 of the 1934
Act, as amended. In lieu of registration
with the SEC, Rule 15a–6 provides an
exemption from SEC broker-dealer
registration for a foreign broker-dealer
that induces or attempts to induce the
purchase or sale of any security
(including over-the-counter equity and
debt options) by a ‘‘U.S. institutional
investor’’ or a ‘‘major U.S. institutional
investor,’’ provided that the foreign
broker-dealer, among other things,
enters into these transactions through a
U.S. registered broker or dealer
intermediary.
The term ‘‘U.S. institutional
investor’’, as defined in Rule 15a–
6(b)(7), includes an employee benefit
plan within the meaning of the Act if:
(a) The investment decision is made
by a plan fiduciary, as defined in
section 3(21) of the Act, which is either
a bank, savings and loan association,
insurance company or registered
investment adviser, or
(b) The employee benefit plan has
total assets in excess of $5 million, or
(c) The employee benefit plan is a
self-directed plan with investment
decisions made solely by persons that
are ‘‘accredited investors,’’ as defined in
Rule 501(a)(1) of Regulation D of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The term ‘‘major U.S. institutional
investor’’ is defined in Rule 15a–6(b)(4),
as any entity that owns or controls (or,
in the case of an investment adviser, has
under management) in excess of $100
million aggregate financial assets.4 BNP
Paribas represents that the
intermediation of the U.S. registered
broker or dealer imposes upon the
foreign broker-dealer the requirement
that the securities transaction be
effected in accordance with a number of
U.S. securities laws and regulations
applicable to U.S. registered brokerdealers.
5. BNP Paribas represents that under
Rule 15a–6 of the 1934 Act, a foreign
broker-dealer that induces or attempts to
induce the purchase or sale of any
security by a U.S. institutional or major
institutional investor in accordance
with Rule 15a–6 must, among other
things:
4 Note that a SEC No-Action Letter has expanded
the categories of entities that qualify as ‘‘major U.S.
institutional investors.’’ See SEC No-Action Letter
issued to Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton on
April 9, 1997 (the April 9, 1997 No-Action Letter).
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25605
(a) Provide written consent to service
of process for any civil action brought
by, or proceeding before the SEC or selfregulatory organization;
(b) Provide the SEC with any
information or documents within its
possession, custody or control, any
testimony of any such foreign associated
persons, and any assistance in taking
the evidence of other persons, wherever
located, that the SEC requests and that
relates to transactions effected pursuant
to the Rule;
(c) Rely on the U.S. registered broker
or dealer through which the principal
transactions with the U.S. institutional
and major institutional investors are
effected to (among other things):
(1) Effect the transactions, other than
negotiating their terms;
(2) Approve foreign associated
personnel that contact U.S. investors to
verify that such individuals are not
subject to a ‘‘statutory disqualification’’,
as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the
1934 Act or the non-U.S. equivalent of
such disqualification (e.g., expulsion or
suspension by a securities regulator).
(3) Issue all required confirmations
and statements;
(4) As between the foreign brokerdealer and the U.S. registered broker or
dealer, extend or arrange for the
extension of credit in connection with
the transactions;
(5) Maintain required books and
records relating to the transactions,
including those required by Rules 17a–
3 (Records to be Made by Certain
Exchange Members) and 17a–4 (Records
to be Preserved by Certain Exchange
Members, Brokers and Dealers) of the
1934 Act; 5
(6) Receive, deliver, and safeguard
funds and securities in connection with
the transactions on behalf of the U.S.
institutional investor or major U.S.
institutional investor in compliance
with Rule 15c3–3 (Customer
Protection—Reserves and Custody of
Securities) of the 1934 Act; 6 and
(7) Participate in all oral
communications (e.g., telephone calls),
subject to certain exceptions, between
the foreign associated person and the
U.S. institutional investor (not the major
5 BNP Paribas represents that all such
requirements relating to recordkeeping of principal
transactions would be applicable to any BNP Entity
in a transaction that would be covered by this
proposed exemption.
6 Under certain circumstances described in the
April 9, 1997 Letter, (e.g., clearance and settlement
transactions), there may be direct transfers of funds
and securities between a Plan and a BNP Entity.
Please note that in such situations (as in other
situations covered by Rule 15a–6), the U.S. brokerdealer will not be acting as a principal with respect
to any duties it is required to undertake pursuant
to Rule 15a–6.
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
25606
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
U.S. institutional investor), and
accompany the foreign associated
person on all visits with U.S.
institutional investors. By virtue of this
participation, the U.S. registered brokerdealer would become responsible for the
content of all these communications.
Description of the Exemption
Transactions
6. The exemption will apply to
transactions involving principal
transactions, extensions of credit and
securities borrowing transactions that
would be exempt under Prohibited
Transaction Class Exemption 75–1
(PTCE 75–1, 40 FR 50845, October 31,
1975) and Prohibited Transaction Class
Exemption 81–6 (PTCE 81–6, 46 FR
7527, January 23, 1981, amended at 52
FR 18754, May 19, 1987) but for the fact
that BNP Paribas and its French
Affiliates are not supervised by the U.S.
government or registered under the
Securities Exchange Act in the manner
required under PTCE 75–1 and PTCE
81–6.
The exemption will be applicable
only to transactions effected by BNP
Paribas or any affiliated French brokerdealers holding a securities dealers
license issued by the CECEI or subject
to the rules and regulations of the CB
and the AMF and compliant with Rule
15a–6.
Principal Transactions
7. BNP Paribas represents that in the
ordinary course of business, it
customarily operates as a trader, dealer
and market maker in securities markets
wherein it purchases and sells securities
for its own account and engages in
purchases and sales of securities with
its clients. Such trades are referred to as
principal transactions. Part II of PTCE
75–1 provides exemptive relief from
section 406(a) of the Act and section
4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code for
principal transactions between plans
and U.S. banks and broker-dealers
which are registered under the 1934 Act
and are parties in interest with respect
to such plans, provided all requirements
stated in part II are satisfied. In the
absence of an exemption for principal
transactions, such as PTCE 75–1, those
responsible for trading activities on
behalf of plan investors would be
prevented from engaging in transactions
with those broker-dealers and banks that
provide the markets for the securities
and are most capable of handling such
transactions. Like the U.S. dealer
markets, international equity and debt
markets, including the options markets,
are no less dependent on a willingness
of dealers to trade as principals.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
Over the past decade, plans have
increasingly invested in foreign equity
and debt securities, including foreign
government securities. Plans seeking to
enter into such investments may wish to
increase the number of trading partners
available to them by trading with
foreign banks, such as BNP Paribas and
certain of its French Affiliates. However,
where BNP Paribas or certain of its
French Affiliates provide services to
such Plans which are covered by the
Act, principal transactions with BNP
Paribas or certain of its French Affiliates
would be prohibited by the Act. Thus,
the exemptive relief afforded U.S. banks
and U.S. broker-dealers by PTCE 75–1
would not be available with respect to
BNP Paribas because that class
exemption is limited to (a) banks
supervised by the U.S. or a State thereof
and (b) broker-dealers registered with
the SEC under the 1934 Act.7 The
business carried out by BNP Paribas and
its French Affiliates is not so supervised
or registered.
Because of the conditions of PTCE
75–1 which require that a bank be
supervised by the U.S. or a U.S. State
and a broker-dealer be registered with
the SEC, BNP Paribas is prevented from
engaging in principal transactions with
Plans with respect to which it is a party
in interest. This is so even though BNP
Paribas is subject to the stringent
regulations of the CB and AMF, and it
is able to satisfy the Rule 15a–6
requirements for an exemption from
registration under the Securities
Exchange Act. Accordingly, BNP
Paribas is requesting an individual
exemption to permit it and its French
Affiliates (collectively referred to herein
as the BNP Entities) to engage in
principal transactions with Plans under
the terms and conditions set forth
herein, which are equivalent to those set
forth in PTCE 75–1.
The BNP Entities will comply with all
conditions set forth in PTCE 75–1 other
than the condition to be a U.S. bank or
registered broker-dealer under the
Securities Exchange Act. With respect to
principal transactions, the BNP Paribas
entities will engage in such transactions
only where (a) BNP Paribas or the
relevant French Affiliates are not a
fiduciary with respect to the transaction
(in other words, the BNP Entity will
have no discretionary authority or
control with respect to the investment of
7 The Department notes that the proposed
principal transactions are subject to the general
fiduciary responsibility provisions of part 4 of Title
I of the Act. Section 404(a) of the Act requires,
among other things, that a fiduciary of a plan act
prudently and solely in the interest of the
participants and beneficiaries of a plan, when
making investment decisions on behalf of the plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a Plan’s assets involved in a principal
transaction or render investment advice
(within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3–
21(c)) with respect to those assets.); (b)
the BNP Entity will customarily
purchase and sell securities for its own
account in the ordinary course of
business as a bank or broker-dealer; (c)
the transaction will be at least as
favorable to the Plan as an arm’s length
transaction with an unrelated party
would be; and (d) the BNP Entity will
be a party in interest or a disqualified
person with respect to the Plan assets
involved in a principal transaction
solely by reason of section 3(14)(B) of
the Act or section 4975(e)(2)(B) of the
Code (i.e., a service provider to the
Plan), or by reason of a relationship to
such a person as described in such
sections.
Extensions of Credit
8. BNP Paribas represents that a
normal part of the execution of
securities transactions by broker-dealer
on behalf of clients, including Plans, is
the extension of credit to clients so as
to permit the settlement transactions in
the customary settlement period. Such
extensions of credit are also customary
in connection with the writing of option
contracts.
BNP requests that the proposed
exemption include relief for extensions
of credit to the Plans by the BNP
Entities in the ordinary course of their
purchases or sales of securities,
regardless of whether they are effected
on an agency or a principal basis, or in
connection with the writing of options
contracts. In this regard, an exemption
for such extensions of credit is provided
under PTCE 75–1, Part V, only for
transactions between Plans and U.S.
registered broker or dealers.8
Under the conditions of this proposed
exemption, as in PTCE 75–1, part V,
BNP Paribas and its French Affiliates
may not be fiduciaries with respect to
the Plan assets involved in the
transaction. However, an exception to
such condition would be provided
herein, as in PTCE 75–1, if no interest
or other consideration is received by the
BNP Entity or an affiliate thereof, in
connection with any such extension of
credit. In addition, the extension of
credit must be lawful under the 1934
Act and any rules or regulations
thereunder, if the 1934 Act rules or
regulations were applicable, and such
8 PTCE 75–1, part V, provides an exemption,
under certain conditions, from section 406 of the
Act and section 4975(c)(1) of the Code, for
extensions of credit, in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities, between employee
benefit plans and U.S. registered broker-dealers that
are parties in interest with respect to such plans.
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
extension of credit must not be a
prohibited transaction under section
503(b) of the Code. If the 1934 Act
would not be applicable, the extension
of credit must still be lawful under
applicable French law, where BNP
Paribas and its French Affiliates are
domiciled.
Securities Lending
9. BNP Paribas or its French Affiliates,
acting as principals, actively engage in
the borrowing and lending of securities,
typically foreign securities, from various
institutional investors, including
employee benefit plans.
Accordingly, BNP Paribas requests an
exemption for securities lending
transactions between the BNP Entities
and the Plans under terms and
conditions equivalent to those required
in PTCE 81–6 (46 FR 7527, January 23,
1981, as amended at 52 FR 18754, May
19, 1987). Because PTCE 81–6 provides
an exemption only for U.S. registered
broker-dealers and U.S. banks, the
securities lending transactions at issue
would fall outside the scope of relief
provided by PTCE 81–6.
10. BNP Paribas or its French
Affiliates utilize borrowed securities
either to satisfy their own trading
requirements or to re-lend to other
broker-dealers and entities which need
a particular security for a certain period
of time. As described in the Federal
Reserve Board’s Regulation T, borrowed
securities are often used to meet
delivery obligations in the case of short
sales or the failure to receive securities
that a broker-dealer is required to
deliver. BNP Paribas represents that
foreign broker-dealers are those brokerdealers most likely to seek to borrow
foreign securities. Thus, the requested
exemption will increase the lending
demand for such securities, providing
the Plans with increased securities
lending opportunities, which will earn
such Plans additional rates of return on
the borrowed securities (as discussed
below).
11. An institutional investor, such as
a pension fund, lends securities in its
portfolio to a broker-dealer or bank in
order to earn a fee while continuing to
enjoy the benefits of owning the
securities, (e.g., from the receipt of any
interest, dividends, or other
distributions due on those securities
and from an appreciation in the value of
the securities). The lender generally
requires that the securities loan be fully
collateralized, and the collateral usually
is in the form of cash, irrevocable bank
letters of credit, or high quality liquid
securities, such as U.S. Government or
Federal Agency obligations.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
12. With respect to the subject
securities lending transactions, BNP
Paribas or its French Affiliates will have
no discretionary authority or control
with respect the investment of the Plan
assets involved in the transaction, or
render investment advice (within the
meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3–21(c)) with
respect to those assets.
13. By the close of business on the
day the loaned securities are delivered,
the Plan will receive from the BNP
Entity (by physical delivery book entry
in a securities depository, wire transfer,
or similar means) collateral consisting of
cash, securities issued or guaranteed by
the U.S. Government or its agencies or
instrumentalities, irrevocable U.S. bank
letters of credit issued by person other
than the BNP Entity or an affiliate of
thereof, or any combination thereof. All
collateral will be in U.S. dollars, or
dollar-denominated securities or bank
letters of credit, and will be held in the
United Sates. The collateral will have,
as of the close of business on the
business day preceding the day it is
posted by the BNP Entity, a market
value equal to at least 100% of the then
market value of the loaned securities
(or, in the case of letter of credit, a
stated amount equal to same).
14. The loan will be made pursuant to
a written Loan Agreement, which may
in the form of a master agreement
covering a series of securities lending
transactions between the Plan and the
BNP Entity. The terms of the Loan
Agreement will be at least as favorable
to the Plan as those the Plan could
obtain in a comparable arm’s length
transaction with an unrelated party. The
Loan Agreement will also contain a
requirement that the BNP Entity pay all
transfer fees and transfer taxes relating
to the securities loans.
15. In return for lending securities,
the Plan will either (a) receive a
reasonable fee, which is related to the
value of the borrowed securities and the
duration of the loan, or (b) have the
opportunity to derive compensation
through the investment of cash
collateral. Where the Plan has that
opportunity, the Plan may pay a loan
rebate of similar fee to the BNP Entity,
if such fee is not greater than what the
Plan would pay in comparable arm’s
length transaction with an unrelated
party. Earnings generated by non-cash
collateral will be returned to the BNP
Entity. The Plan will be entitled to at
least the equivalent of all distributions
on the borrowed securities made during
the term of the loan. Such distributions
will include cash dividends, interest
payments, shares of stock as a result of
stock splits, and rights to purchase
additional securities, that the Plan
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25607
would have received (net of any
applicable tax withholdings) had it
remained the record owner of such
securities.
16. If the market value of the
collateral as of the close of trading on a
business day falls below 100 percent of
the market value of the borrowed
securities as of the close of trading on
that day, the BNP Entity will deliver
additional collateral, by the close of
business on the following business day,
to bring the level of collateral back to at
least 100 percent. However, if the
market value of the collateral exceeds
100 percent of the market value of the
borrowed securities, the BNP Entity may
require the Plan to return part of the
collateral to reduce the level of the
collateral to 100 percent.
17. Before entering into a Loan
Agreement, the BNP Entity will furnish
to the independent Plan fiduciary (a) the
most recent available audited statement
of the BNP Entity’s financial condition,
(b) the most recent available unaudited
statement of its financial condition (if
more recent than the audited statement),
and (c) a representation that, at the time
the loan is negotiated, there has been no
material adverse change in its financial
condition that has not been disclosed
since the date of the most recent
financial statement furnished to the
independent Plan fiduciary. Such
representation may be made by the BNP
Entity agreeing that each loan of
securities shall constitute a
representation that there has been no
such material adverse change.
18. The Loan Agreement and/or any
securities loan outstanding may be
terminated by the Plan at any time,
whereupon the BNP Entity will deliver
certificates for securities identical to the
borrowed securities (or the equivalent
thereof in the event of reorganization,
recapitalization, or merger of the issuer
of the borrowed securities) to the Plan
within (a) the customary delivery period
for such securities, (b) five business
days, or (c) the time negotiated for such
delivery by the Plan and the BNP Entity,
whichever is least, or, alternatively,
such period as permitted by PTE 81–6,
as it may be amended or superseded. In
the event the loan is terminated and the
BNP Entity fails to return the borrowed
securities or the equivalent thereof with
the designated time, the Plan will have
certain rights under the Loan Agreement
to realize upon the collateral. The Plan
may purchase securities identical to the
borrowed securities, or the equivalent
thereof, and may apply the collateral to
the payment of the purchase price, any
other obligations of the BNP Entity
under the Loan Agreement, and any
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
25608
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
expenses associated with replacing the
borrowed securities.
The BNP Entity is obligated to pay to
the Plan the amount of any remaining
obligations and expenses not covered by
the collateral (the value of which shall
be determined as of the date the
borrowed securities should have been
returned to the Plan), plus interest at a
reasonable rate as determined in
accordance with an independent market
source. If replacement securities are not
available, the BNP Entity will pay the
Plan an amount equal to (a) the value of
the securities as of the date such
securities should have been returned to
the Plan, plus (b) all the accrued
financial benefits derived from the
beneficial ownership of such borrowed
securities as of such date, plus (c)
interest at a reasonable rate determined
in accordance with an independent
market source from such date to the date
of payment. The amounts paid shall be
reduced by the amount or value of the
collateral determined as of the date the
borrowed securities should have been
returned to the Plan. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the BNP Entity may, in
the event it fails to return borrowed
securities as described above, replace
non-cash collateral with an amount of
cash not less than the then current
market value of the collateral, provided
that such replacement is approved by
the lending independent Plan fiduciary.
19. The independent Plan fiduciary
will maintain the situs of the Loan
Agreement in accordance with the
indicia of ownership requirement under
section 404(b) of the Act and the
regulations promulgated under 29 CFR
2550.404(b)–1.9
20. In summary, BNP Paribas
represents that the subject transactions
will satisfy the statutory criteria for an
exemption under section 408(a) of the
Act for the following reasons:
(a) With respect to principal
transactions effected by the BNP
Entities, the proposed exemption will
enable the Plans to realize the same
benefits of efficiency and convenience
which derive such Plans could derive
from principal transactions executed by
U.S. registered broker-dealers or U.S.
Banks, pursuant to PTCE 75–1, part II;
(b) With respect to extensions of
credit by the BNP Entities in connection
with purchases or sales of securities, the
proposed exemption will enable the
BNP Entities and the Plans to extend
credit in the ordinary course of business
to effect agency or principal transactions
9 Section 404(b) of the Act states that no fiduciary
may maintain the indicia of ownership of any assets
of a plan outside the jurisdiction of the district
courts of the United States, except as authorized by
regulation by the Secretary of Labor.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
within the customary three-day
settlement period, or in connection with
the writing of options contracts for
transactions between Plans and U.S.
registered broker-dealers, pursuant to
PTCE 75–1, part V;
(c) With respect to securities lending
transactions effected by the BNP
Entities, the proposed exemption will
enable the Plans to realize a low-risk
return on securities that otherwise
would remain idle, as in securities
lending transactions between plans and
U.S. registered broker-dealers or U.S.
Banks, pursuant to PTCE 81–6; and
(d) The proposed exemption will
provide the Plans with virtually the
same terms and conditions upon the
transactions executed by the BNP
Entities as those imposed on U.S. banks
and U.S. registered, pursuant to PTCE
75–1 and PTCE 81–6.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of proposed exemption will be
provided to all interested persons by
first class mail within 4 days of
publication of the notice of pendency in
the Federal Register. Such notice shall
include a copy of the notice of
pendency of the exemption as published
in the Federal Register and a
supplemental statement, as required
pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2), which
will inform interested persons of their
right to comment on the proposed
exemption and/or to request a hearing.
Comments and hearing requests are due
within 34 days of the date of publication
of the proposed exemption in the
Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Silvia Quezada of the Department,
telephone (202) 693–8553. (This is not
a toll-free number.)
Best Business Products Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan (the ESOP)
Located in Sioux Falls, SD
[Exemption Application No. D–11305]
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering
granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (the Act) and section 4975(c)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the
Code), and in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part
2570, Subpart B, 55 FR 32836, 32847
(August 10, 1990).10 If the exemption is
granted, the restrictions of sections
406(a)(1)(A) through (D), 406(b)(1), and
10 For purposes of this exemption, references to
specific provisions of Title I of the Act, unless
otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding
provisions of the Code.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions
resulting from the application of section
4975, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A)
through (E) of the Code, shall not apply,
effective July 7, 2004, to: (1) The
purchase from the ESOP by Best
Business Products, Inc. (BBP), a party in
interest with respect to the ESOP, of
shares of the voting common stock of
BBP (the Stock) which were allocated to
the accounts of the participants in the
ESOP; and (2) the transfer to BBP of
shares of the Stock which were held by
the ESOP in a suspense account in
exchange for the assumption by BBP of
the ESOP’s obligation to pay the balance
of a note (the Note) to Betty B. Best (Ms.
Best), a party in interest with respect to
the ESOP; provided that prior to
entering into the subject transactions: (a)
An independent fiduciary (the
Independent Fiduciary) was responsible
for each of the transactions, and in
accordance with the fiduciary
provisions of the Act, reviewed,
analyzed, and determined that the ESOP
should enter into each of the
transactions; (b) the Independent
Fiduciary reviewed, negotiated, and
approved the terms of each of the
transactions, and determined on behalf
of the ESOP and solely in the interest of
the ESOP, its participants, and
beneficiaries that the terms of each of
the transactions were fair and
reasonable; (c) the Independent
Fiduciary monitored compliance with
the terms of each of the transactions by
the parties; (d) an independent qualified
appraiser determined the fair market
value of the Stock as of the date each of
the transactions were entered; and (e)
the ESOP incurred no fees,
commissions, or other charges or
expenses as a result of its participation
in each of the transactions.
Effective Date: If the proposed
exemption is granted, the exemption
will be effective July 7, 2004.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. BBP, a South Dakota Corporation,
located in Sioux Falls, SD, sells, installs,
and services electronic office equipment
and sells related supplies to customers
throughout the state of South Dakota
and in southwestern Minnesota. It is
represented that BBP has, at all relevant
times, been taxed pursuant to
subchapter ‘‘S’’ tax provisions of the
Code. As of December 31, 2003, BBP
had $5.7 million in assets, $1.9 million
in liabilities, and $3.8 million in
shareholder equity.
Ms. Best is the major shareholder of
BBP, the President of BBP, and the sole
director of BBP. As such, Ms. Best is a
party in interest with respect to the
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
ESOP, pursuant to section 3(14)(E) and
3(14)(H) of the Act.
2. For the benefit of its eligible
employees and their beneficiaries, BBP
adopted the ESOP, effective January 1,
1997, as an employee stock ownership
plan, as amended and restated from
time to time, to meet the requirements
of the Act and the Code. As an employer
any of whose employees are covered by
the ESOP, BBP is a party in interest with
respect to the ESOP, pursuant to section
3(14)(C) of the Act.
On December 31, 1997, BBP entered
into a trust agreement with the First
National Bank in Sioux Falls (the Bank),
a South Dakota Banking Corporation, in
which the Bank agreed to serve as the
trustee of the assets of the ESOP. As a
trustee, the Bank is a fiduciary and party
in interest with respect to the ESOP,
pursuant to section 3(14)(A) of the Act.
It is represented that the Bank served in
this capacity as trustee until replaced by
Ms. Best on December 19, 2001. Since
that time, Ms. Best has been the sole
trustee of the assets of the ESOP held in
the trust. As a trustee, Ms. Best is a
fiduciary and party in interest with
respect to the ESOP, pursuant to section
3(14)(A) of the Act.
As of July 7, 2004, the date the subject
transactions were entered, there were 71
participants and beneficiaries in the
ESOP. As of December 31, 2003, the
aggregate fair market value of the total
assets available to pay benefits to
participants in the ESOP was $822,889.
As of the same date, the value of the
ESOP’s assets, after subtracting
liabilities was $338,681.
3. On June 12, 1998, it is represented
that an Amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation of BBP was adopted
which combined two classes of shares
(voting and non-voting) into a single
class of shares of voting common stock
and which authorized a stock dividend
converting each single share of common
stock then outstanding into 100 shares.
It is represented that in July 1998, there
were 181,100 shares of Stock issued and
outstanding of which Ms. Best was the
sole shareholder.
It is represented that the Stock that is
the subject of this exemption (i.e. the
voting common stock of BBP) is the only
class of stock authorized or issued by
BBP. The Stock is not publicly traded.
4. On July 17, 1998, the ESOP
purchased a block of Stock from Ms.
Best for a purchase price of $2.6 million
dollars.11 As a result of this transaction,
11 The applicant maintains that the statutory
exemption, pursuant to section 408(e) of the Act,
provided relief for the 1998 purchase by the ESOP
of the block of Stock from Ms. Best, where the
shares of the Stock are qualifying employer
securities, as defined in section 407(d)(5) of the Act,
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
of the 181,100 shares of Stock issued
and outstanding, Ms. Best retained
ownership to 126,770 shares, and the
ESOP acquired 54,330 shares of the
Stock, representing approximately 70
percent (70%) and approximately 30
percent (30%), respectively of the equity
of BBP. It is represented that the
acquisition of the block of Stock by the
ESOP provided equity ownership to
employees so that such employees had
a direct stake in the success of BBP.
On July 17, 1998, the ESOP acquired
title to the block of Stock (54,330 shares)
in exchange for a loan (the Loan) 12 in
the amount of $2.6 million dollars,
representing the entire purchase price
for such block of Stock. The Loan was
evidenced by a non-recourse Note
payable to Ms. Best. The Note was
payable in annual installments of
principal and interest over a period of
ten (10) years, beginning September 1,
1998. The interest rate applied to the
outstanding balance on the Note was the
prime interest rate in effect from time to
time as published by the ‘‘Wall Street
Journal.’’ Payment of the Loan was
secured by a pledge to Ms. Best of a
security interest in the block of Stock
purchased by the ESOP. In addition,
BBP guaranteed payment of the Note.
5. In a letter dated, July 17, 1998,
James L. Werness, JD (Mr. Werness), a
principal of the Hawthorne Company
(Hawthorne), determined that the
purchase of the block of Stock by the
ESOP for consideration of $2.6 million
dollars was fair and equitable and that
the purchase price paid was not more
than the ‘‘fair market value’’ of such
block of Stock. In support of this
opinion, Hawthorne prepared an
appraisal report, dated June 20, 1998, to
the purchase of the shares of Stock was made for
adequate consideration, and no commission was
charged to the ESOP with respect thereto. The
Department is offering no view, herein, as to the
applicant’s reliance on section 408(e) of the Act
with respect to the purchase of the block of Stock
by the ESOP in 1998, nor has the Department made
a determination that the applicant satisfied all of
the requirements of section 408(e) of the Act.
Further, the Department is not providing any relief,
herein, with respect to such purpose.
12 The applicant maintains that the statutory
exemption, pursuant to section 408(b)(3) of the Act,
provided relief for the 1998 Loan between the ESOP
and Ms. Best, because the Loan: (a) was primarily
for the benefit of the participants and beneficiaries
of the ESOP; (b) contained an interest rate that was
not in excess of a reasonable rate; (c) was used to
purchase employer stock; and (d) satisfied the other
requirements, as set forth in the Department’s
regulations at 29 CFR 2550.408b–3. The Department
is offering no view, herein, as to the applicant’s
reliance on section 408(b)(3) of the Act with respect
to the 1998 Loan, nor has the Department made a
determination that the applicant satisfied all of the
requirements of section 408(b)(3) of the Act.
Further, the Department is not providing any relief,
herein, with respect to such Loan transaction.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25609
establish the fair market value of the
block of Stock purchased by the ESOP.
It is represented that the professional
staff of Hawthorne is qualified to
provide the 1998 valuation of the Stock.
In addition, Hawthorne has made
similar statements regarding its
qualifications with respect to annual
valuations of the Stock which
Hawthorne prepared during the period
1998 through 2004, as discussed more
fully in paragraph 8, below. In this
regard, Mr. Werness is a member of the
Institute of Business Appraisers and a
candidate member of the American
Society of Appraisers. Other principals
of Hawthorne have earned the following
designations: (a) Accredited Senior
Appraiser from the American Society of
Appraisers, (b) Certified Business
Appraiser through the Institute of
Business Appraisers, and (c) Chartered
Financial Analyst.
Hawthorne certified that its research,
analysis, and conclusions on the value
of the Stock were conducted on an
independent basis. In this regard, it is
represented that neither Hawthorne, nor
any employee of Hawthorne owns any
present or prospective future interest in
BBP or its affiliates. Further, Hawthorne
represented that it does not know of any
other relationship that would prevent it
from, in fact, acting independently in
connection with this valuation.
Hawthorne made similar statements
regarding its independence with respect
to annual valuations of the Stock
prepared by Hawthorne during the
period from 1998 through 2004, as
discussed more fully in paragraph 8,
below.
It is represented that because the
block of Stock purchased by the ESOP
in 1998 represented a small percentage
of all the voting rights in BBP,
Hawthorne would normally have
defined the fair market value of such
block of Stock as a ‘‘minority interest
value.’’ However, as the block of Stock
was subject to a buy/sell agreement,
discussed more fully in paragraph 6,
below, that entitled the holder to ‘‘put’’
the shares of Stock back to BBP and
required BBP to pay a price for such
shares equal to the pro-rata enterprise
value, Hawthorne conducted its analysis
on the basis of an ‘‘enterprise’’ level of
value. Accordingly, in the opinion of
Hawthorne, the fair market value of the
ESOP’s block of Stock (54,330 shares),
as of June 30, 1998, was $48.00 per
share for a total value of $2,607,840.13
13 The Department, herein, is offering no view as
to whether the value per share of the block of Stock
purchased by the ESOP in 1998, based on the
methodology used by Hawthorne in appraising such
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
Continued
13MYN1
25610
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
6. On July 17, 1998,
contemporaneously with the purchase
of the block of Stock by the ESOP, Ms.
Best and BBP entered into a buy-sell
Agreement, referred to in paragraph 5,
above. It is represented that this
agreement was entered in order to
protect the election by BBP of
subchapter ‘‘S’’ corporation status and
to ensure that possible future transfers
of ownership of Stock occur in a
business-like manner. Accordingly, Ms.
Best and BBP contractually agreed to
restrictions on the transferability of the
Stock and provided for the purchase of
Stock in certain events.
It is represented that the ESOP was
not a party to such buy-sell agreement.
Notwithstanding the fact that the ESOP
was not a party, it is represented that
the shares of Stock owned by the ESOP,
its assignees or distributees possesses all
the benefits and advantages
contemplated in the buy-sell agreement,
including but not limited to a ‘‘put’’
provision contained in such agreement.
7. It is represented that BBP from
1998 through 2003 made dividend
payments totaling approximately
$489,278 to the ESOP as an owner of the
Stock. In addition, during the same
period, BBP made periodic
contributions to the ESOP totaling
approximately $1,851,037 that enabled
the ESOP to make installment payments
on the Loan under the terms of the Note
held by Ms. Best. It is represented that
as the ESOP made installment
payments, shares of Stock held in a
suspense account in the ESOP were
allocated to the accounts of participants.
In this regard, 28,532.896 shares of
Stock had been allocated, as of July 7,
2004, to the accounts of the participants
in the ESOP (the Allocated Shares), and
as of the same date, 25,797.104 shares
of Stock were in a suspense account (the
Unallocated Shares) held by the ESOP.
Date
8. It is represented that, in 1998, BBP
experienced a loss of several key
employees, some of whom were
subsequently employed by competitors.
It is further represented that the
electronic business machine industry
has become more competitive, and that
the earnings of BBP have suffered. In
this regard, over the course of six (6)
years from 1998 through 2004, the value
of the Stock declined.
The applicants submitted to the
Department annual valuation reports
prepared by Hawthorne during the
period from 1998 through 2003, and
working papers for the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2004. According to
Hawthorne, the aggregate ‘‘enterprise
value’’ (EV) 14 or the aggregate
‘‘controlling interest value’’ (CIV),15 and
the per share value of the Stock during
the period from 1998 through 2004 was
as follows:
Total value of 181,100 shares of stock
June 20, 1998 .............................................................................
December 31, 1999 ....................................................................
December 31, 2000 ....................................................................
December 31, 2001 ....................................................................
December 31, 2002 ....................................................................
December 31, 2003 ....................................................................
Working papers 2004 .................................................................
$8,700,000
$6,450,606
$5,833,910
$5,816,940
$5,475,453
$5,222,109
$5,118,699
EV ............................................................................
EV ............................................................................
CIV ..........................................................................
CIV ..........................................................................
CIV ..........................................................................
CIV ..........................................................................
CIV ..........................................................................
Per share
value of the
stock
(per share)
$48.00
35.62
32.21
32.12
30.14
28.84
28.26
9. It is represented that given the loss
of several key employees, losses in
earnings as a result of a more
competitive industry, and the costs of
maintaining the ESOP, effective July 7,
2004, BBP decided to terminate the
ESOP. On September 24, 2004, BBP
submitted to the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) FORM 5310, Application
for determination for Terminating Plan,
with respect to the ESOP. In connection
with the termination of the ESOP, it is
represented that all participants became
100 percent (100%) vested, as of June
30, 2004. On January 14, 2005, the IRS
issued a favorable determination letter
on the termination of the ESOP.
10. In connection with the
termination of the ESOP, BBP
determined to make lump sum
distributions to each of the participants
of the ESOP in order to increase
employee morale and to allow BBP to
invest its remaining resources in
creating a more viable company.
Accordingly, under the terms of a Stock
Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated
July 7, 2004, BBP purchased the
Allocated Shares (28,532.896 shares of
Stock) from the ESOP for an aggregate
purchase price in cash of approximately
$900,000 at a price per share of $31.54.
It is further represented that since the
ESOP was being terminated and would
receive no more contributions from
BBP, it was expected that the ESOP
would default on the payments on the
Note held by Ms. Best. In order to avoid
such default, on July 7, 2004, the
Independent Fiduciary (described more
fully in paragraph 14, below) transferred
the Unallocated Shares (25,797.104
shares of the Stock) in the suspense
account held by the ESOP to BBP in
exchange for an assumption by BBP of
the ESOP’s responsibility to pay to Ms.
Best the balance due under the Note as
of that date in the amount $1,234,538.
It is represented that as a result of the
transactions which are the subject of
this proposed exemption, the ESOP’s
ownership interest in BBP decreased
from 30 percent (30%) to zero. It is
further represented that
notwithstanding the transfer of title to
the Unallocated Shares to BBP, such
shares continued to be subject to the
pledge securing the Note in favor of Ms.
Best. Accordingly, it is represented that
after the subject transactions were
completed, the Unallocated Shares were
still considered to be issued and
outstanding.
11. The applicant has requested a
retroactive administrative exemption,
effective July 7, 2004, the date when the
subject transactions were entered. In
this regard, it is represented that before
entering into such transactions, the
applicant was advised by legal counsel.
In this regard, legal counsel for the
applicant has certified in writing that he
was aware that such transactions were
prohibited under section 406 of the Act,
but that he believed the statutory
exemption, set forth in section 408(e) of
the Act, applied to the subject
transactions and that an administrative
block of Stock constituted ‘‘adequate consideration’’
for purposes of section 408(e) of the Act.
14 Hawthorne defines ‘‘enterprise value’’ or ‘‘EV’’
in its 1998 appraisal report as the value attributable
to the ownership of 100 percent of the common
stock of a corporation.
15 Hawthorne defines ‘‘controlling interest value’’
or ‘‘CIV’’ in its 1998 appraisal report as the value
attributable to the ownership of a block of stock
which maintains greater than 50 percent ownership,
yet less than 100 percent ownership.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
exemption, pursuant to section 408(a) of
the Act was not necessary. Further, legal
counsel for the applicant has certified in
writing that because the applicant relied
in good faith on the advice of counsel,
the applicant carried out the subject
transactions with only the precautions
required by section 408(e) of the Act in
place at the time the transactions were
entered. In this regard, it is represented
that the ESOP received not less than
adequate consideration, as determined
by an independent appraiser, and no
commission was charged with respect to
such transactions.
Legal counsel for the applicant has
represented that upon further review, he
subsequently advised the applicant that
the subject transactions may have
resulted in violations of sections
406(a)(1)(A) and (D), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2)
of the Act. In this regard, although
section 408(e) of the Act contains a
statutory exemption for the sale of
‘‘qualifying employer securities’’ (QES),
as defined in section 407(d)(5) of the
Act, by an ‘‘eligible individual account
plan,’’ as defined in section 407(d)(3)(A)
of the Act, to a ‘‘party in interest,’’ as
defined in section 3(14) of the Act, other
sections of the Act provide that this
statutory exemption may not be
available under certain circumstances.
Specifically, section 408(d) of the Act
excludes owner-employees (including
shareholder-employees, such as Ms.
Best), and any corporation that is 50
percent (50%) or more owned by such
persons (such as BBP) from using the
statutory exemption provided under
section 408(e) of the Act for purchases
or sales of QES.
The applicant notes that, in the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Congress
provided some relief from the exclusion,
set forth in section 408(d) of the Act,
(for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 1997) with regard to
subchapter ‘‘S’’ corporations that
maintain ESOPS. Specifically, section
408(d)(2)(B) of the Act provides an
exception to the exclusion under 408(d)
of the Act for sales of QES to an
employee stock ownership plan by a
shareholder-employee or related
subchapter ‘‘S’’ corporation. The
applicant maintains that the failure of
Congress to provide an exception for the
purchase of QES by a subchapter ‘‘S’’
corporation from its employee stock
ownership plan was a drafting
oversight. In the opinion of the
applicant, there would seem to be more
need for protection of an employee
stock ownership plan when purchasing
stock of a closely held corporation and
taking on debt than when selling such
shares for cash.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
Notwithstanding the argument
presented in the paragraph above, the
applicant has acknowledged that BBP,
even though it is a subchapter ‘‘S’’
corporation, is excluded from relying on
the statutory exemption, under section
408(e) of the Act, and that the purchase
of the Allocated Shares by BBP from the
ESOP does not fall within the exception
to the exclusion found in section
408(d)(2)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, the
applicant has requested a retroactive
administrative exemption for the
purchase of the Allocated Shares by
BBP from the ESOP, pursuant to 408(a)
of the Act.
It is the position of the applicant that
the transfer of the Unallocated Shares to
BBP in exchange for the assumption by
BBP of the ESOP’s obligation under the
Note is not a new sale transaction, but
should be considered part of the original
acquisition by the ESOP of the block of
Stock. In this regard, as part of the
original acquisition, the applicant
points out that the block of Stock
purchased by the ESOP was pledged to
Ms. Best, and that BBP guaranteed the
debt owed by the ESOP under the Note.
It is the position of the applicant that in
order to avoid default on the Note once
the ESOP was terminated: (a) BBP,
pursuant to its guaranty of the Note,
assumed, with the consent of Ms. Best,
the ESOP’s debt under the Note; and (b)
the ESOP transferred its interest in the
Unallocated Stock to BBP, subject to the
pledge of the Stock to Ms. Best.
The applicant has requested that if the
Department disagrees with this analysis,
relief should be provided for the transfer
of the Unallocated Stock to BBP and the
assumption by BBP of the ESOP’s
obligation under the Note. Accordingly,
retroactive administrative relief,
pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act,
has been proposed for both: (a) The
purchase of the Allocated Shares by
BBP from the ESOP, and (b) the transfer
of the Unallocated Shares to BBP in
exchange for the assumption of the
ESOP’s obligation to pay Ms. Best under
terms of the Note.
12. BBP maintains that the subject
transactions were in the interest of the
ESOP, because the ESOP received a
price for the Allocated Shares in excess
of the fair market value of such shares.
As discussed more fully in the
paragraphs below, the final negotiated
price paid by BBP for the Allocated
Shares, was $31.54 per share.
13. The application file contains a
letter dated April 15, 2004, to the trustee
of the ESOP prepared by Mr. Werness,
one of the principals of Hawthorne, the
independent, qualified appraiser. The
letter is incorporated into an appraisal
report, dated May 4, 2004, prepared by
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25611
Hawthorne that provided an annual
update of the value of the Stock for the
year ended December 31, 2003. In this
regard, it is represented that Hawthorne
established that the fair market value of
the Stock owned by the ESOP was
$28.84 per share, as of December 31,
2003.
The file also contains a letter from Mr.
Werness, dated July 7, 2004. In this
letter, Mr. Werness offers an opinion
regarding ‘‘adequate consideration’’
with respect to the subject transactions
that closed on July 7, 2004. In
connection with this opinion, it is
represented that Hawthorne, among
other things: (a) Reviewed the annual
financial statements of BBP prepared by
Henry Scholten & Company, CPA and
reviewed the April 2004, interim
financial statement of BBP; (b) reviewed
various documents involved with the
subject transactions, including the Stock
Purchase and Sale Agreement, Consent
Minutes of the Board of Directors of
BBP, Amendments to the Trust
Agreement for the ESOP, and
Amendment to the ESOP; (c) held
discussions with certain members of the
management of BBP and representatives
of BBP regarding the operations,
financial condition, future prospects,
and projected performance of BBP; (d)
reviewed Hawthorne’s history of
valuations conducted on behalf of the
trustee of the ESOP; and (e) conducted
other studies, analyses, and inquiries
deemed appropriate. Based on the
business, economic, market, and other
conditions as such existed on July 7,
2004, the date of the letter and the date
the subject transactions closed, it is the
opinion of Hawthorne that the aggregate
purchase price paid by BBP for the
Stock was not less than the fair market
value of such Stock and that the ESOP
received no less than ‘‘adequate
consideration.’’
In addition to Hawthorne’s opinion
regarding ‘‘adequate consideration,’’ on
the date the subject transactions closed,
as discussed in the paragraph above, the
application file also contains a letter to
counsel for BBP, dated November 11,
2004, from Mr. Werness, which encloses
working papers relating to the projected
performance schedule of BBP for the
fiscal year ending December 31, 2004. In
this letter, Mr. Werness states that the
working papers were provided to the
special trustee, as discussed in the
paragraph below, prior to the date when
the subject transactions were entered.
These working papers indicate a per
share value for the Stock of $28.26.
Accordingly, it is represented that the
$31.54 per share price paid by BBP to
the ESOP for the Allocated Shares
included an 11.6% premium over the
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
25612
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
$28.26 per share fair market value for
such shares of Stock.
14. The applicant maintains that
safeguards were in place at the time
each of the transactions were entered
which were designed to protect the
interests of the ESOP and its
participants and beneficiaries. It is
represented that as early as May 2004,
Stanton Trust Company, N.A. (Stanton)
and counsel for BBP had conversations
regarding the subject transactions.
Subsequently, in an engagement letter,
dated June 3, 2004, BBP appointed
Stanton to act as special trustee on
behalf of the ESOP.
According to its letter of engagement,
Stanton agreed to act as the Independent
Fiduciary and to review, analyze, and
determine whether or not to accept the
subject transactions on behalf of the
ESOP in accordance with fiduciary
provisions of the Act. To assist in this
regard, Stanton retained the services of
Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P. (L&V) to
act as its legal counsel and retained
Hawthorne to act as a financial advisor.
Based on Stanton’s review of the
opinion prepared by Hawthorne and
related documents and schedules, its
review of documents and information
provided by BBP, and other documents
deemed necessary and appropriate,
Stanton issued a letter, dated July 7,
2004, the date the transactions were
entered. In this letter, Stanton states that
its role as special trustee is limited to an
evaluation of the proposed transactions
on behalf of, and solely in the interest
of the participants and beneficiaries of
the ESOP and determining that the
transactions are fair and reasonable to
the ESOP and its participants. Further,
Stanton stated in the July 7 letter that:
(1) The sale of 28,532.896 shares of the
Allocated Shares by the ESOP at a price
of $31.54 per share for a total purchase
price of approximately $900,000, and (2)
the exchange by the ESOP of its
outstanding debt in the amount of
$1,234,538 for transfer to BBP of the
25,797.104 Unallocated Shares held in
suspense is fair and reasonable to the
ESOP and its participants and
beneficiaries.
The application file also contains
letters, dated March 2, and March 24,
2005, from Robert J. Hartman, JD (Mr.
Hartman) of L&V, acting as legal counsel
to Stanton. In this regard, in a
declaration under penalty of perjury,
dated April 1, 2005, the current
President of Stanton, confirms that Mr.
Hartman and the law firm of L&V have
represented Stanton from the inception
and throughout the engagement of
Stanton as special trustee to the ESOP
and that representations made in Mr.
Hartman’s March 2, and March 24,
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
2005, letters to the Department are true
and correct.
Mr. Hartman represents that the
purpose of his letter of March 2, 2004,
is to identify the actions taken by
Stanton to complete the transactions
and confirm that such actions were
taken in full compliance with Stanton’s
obligations as a fiduciary to the ESOP
and in the best interest of the ESOP
participants. Further, Mr. Hartman
represents that prior to Stanton issuing
its July 7, 2004, opinion that the
transactions were fair and reasonable,
Stanton, Hawthorne, and L&V reviewed
documents, including but not limited to
those concerning the establishment of
the ESOP and the trust, those relevant
to the subject transactions, valuation
reports prepared by Hawthorne for
2001, 2002, and 2003, financial
statements of BBP, and minutes of the
Board of Directors of BBP. It is further
represented that interviews were
conducted with Mr. Werness of
Hawthorne, the trust officer of the Bank,
the record keeper for the ESOP, and the
counsel for BBP.
Based on the review of the foregoing
documents and interviews with the
parties closely associated with BBP, Mr.
Hartman represents that Stanton
concluded: (a) That financial records
and appraisals confirmed that BBP sales
had declined for each of the three
preceding years, and the office products
market had become increasingly
competitive; (b) that the value of BBP
had declined and was likely to continue
to decline; (c) that Ms. Best had rejected
an offer to sell BBP to an unrelated third
party and planned to turn over
operations of BBP to her grandson who
had little or no experience in the
company; and (d) that BBP retained the
ability to terminate the ESOP, distribute
the Stock, and allow the participants to
put the shares back to BBP at $28.26 per
share.
Based on the conclusions in the
paragraph above, Mr. Hartman
represents that Stanton determined that
the best interest of the participants were
served by selling the Allocated Shares to
BBP. To this end, Mr. Hartman states
that Stanton negotiated favorable terms
in connection with the sale for the
exclusive purpose of protecting the
interest of the ESOP participants and
enhancing the benefits to participants.
In this regard, it is represented that
Stanton: (a) Negotiated a sale price for
the Allocated Shares that included a
premium over the interim valuation
performed by Hawthorne; (b) negotiated
specific ‘‘tag along’’ rights for the ESOP
in the event of a subsequent sale of BBP
at a higher price following the
transactions; and (c) obtained a
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
representation from BBP that it would
consider regular profit sharing
contributions following the termination
of the ESOP, subject to the financial
circumstances of BBP. In light of the
foregoing, it is the opinion of Mr.
Hartman that Stanton fully discharged
its fiduciary obligation to the ESOP in
connection with the subject
transactions.
In his letter of March 2, 2005, Mr.
Hartman also addresses the issue of
independence of both L&V and Stanton.
In this regard, Mr. Hartman represents
that prior to the subject transactions
neither L&V nor Stanton had had any
dealings with BBP. It is further
represented by Mr. Hartman that under
the terms of Stanton’s engagement letter
with BBP, Stanton was not required to
complete the transactions, and Stanton’s
fee was not conditioned upon such
completion. Further, Mr. Hartman
represents that had Stanton concluded
that the transactions were not in the best
interest of participants, Stanton would
have withdrawn from the engagement.
Mr. Hartman also enclosed with his
letter of March 2, 2005, information
regarding his qualifications and those of
Stanton. With regard to his
qualifications, Mr. Hartman represents
that he practices in the employee
benefits area, with an emphasis on
qualified and non-qualified deferred
compensation and on counseling clients
on fiduciary matters. Further, Mr.
Hartman represents that he has
extensive experience with the creation
and operation of employee stock
ownership plans and has served as a
special counsel to trustees of such plans
with respect to fiduciary issues.
With regard to Stanton’s
qualifications, Mr. Hartman encloses
documents which state that Stanton has
been providing trust, custody, and other
fiduciary services to institutions and
individuals since 1919 and is dedicated
to the professional management of its
clients’ assets. In addition, it is
represented that Stanton has extensive
employee stock ownership plan
experience as an independent fiduciary
for leveraged and non-leveraged
transactions.
In addition to his letter of March 2,
2005, Mr. Hartman submitted another
letter, dated March 24, 2005, to the
Department in which he clarified that
Stanton was fully aware that the subject
transactions included both the sale of
the Allocated Shares to BBP and the
transfer of the Unallocated Shares to
BBP in exchange for assumption by BBP
of the ESOP’s debt under the Note.
Further, Mr. Hartman stated that the
actions taken by Stanton outlined in his
letter of March 2, 2005, apply with
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
equal effect to both of the subject
transactions.
In addition in his March 24, 2005
letter, Mr. Hartman informed the
Department that, although no longer
employed by Stanton, Richard Joseph
(Mr. Joseph), formerly the President of
Stanton, was the individual who
analyzed and completed the subject
transactions on behalf of Stanton.
However, both Stanton and Mr. Joseph
agreed to the accuracy of the discussion
in Mr. Hartman’s March 24 letter and
confirmed the same by signing such
letter.
15. The applicant maintains that the
requested exemption is administratively
feasible in that the application contains
all of the facts and law necessary for the
Department to issue an exemption.
The applicant further maintains that
the exemption is feasible in that it
involves a one-time transaction for cash
in the case of the purchase by BBP of
the Allocated Shares and a one-time
exchange of the Unallocated Shares for
the assumption by BBP of the ESOP’s
liability under the Note.
Further, it is represented that the cash
received by the ESOP in the sale of the
Allocated Shares was immediately
credited to the accounts of the each of
the Participants in proportion to the
shares of Stock that were sold from each
participant’s account. It is represented
that each of the participants in the ESOP
will be given the option to elect a lump
sum distribution in cash or to rollover
the distribution into a 401(k) plan
sponsored by BBP or into such
participant’s individual retirement
account.
16. It is represented that were the sale
to BBP of the Allocated Shares
rescinded, the Allocated Shares
distributed to participants upon
termination of the ESOP, and the
Allocated Shares purchased by BBP
directly from the participants at the then
fair market value, the participants might
receive substantially less on such
shares, than if the exemption were to be
granted.
17. In summary, the applicant
represents that the subject transactions
met the statutory criteria of section
408(a) of the Act and 4975(c)(2) of the
Code because: (a) Stanton was
responsible for each of the transactions,
and in accordance with the fiduciary
provisions of the Act, reviewed,
analyzed, and determined that the ESOP
should enter into each of the
transactions; (b) Stanton reviewed,
negotiated, and approved the terms of
each of the transactions, and determined
on behalf of the ESOP and solely in the
interest of the ESOP, its participants,
and beneficiaries that the terms of each
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
of the transactions were fair and
reasonable; (c) Stanton monitored
compliance with the terms of each of
the transactions by the parties; (d)
Hawthorne, acting as the independent
qualified appraiser, determined the fair
market value of the Stock as of the date
each of the transactions were entered;
(e) the ESOP incurred no fees,
commissions, or other charges or
expenses as a result of its participation
in each of the transactions; (f) the
subject transactions were one-time
transactions; (g) the purchase price
which the ESOP received from sale of
the Allocated Shares to BBP included a
premium over the fair market value of
such shares; (h) each of the participants
in the ESOP will be given the option to
elect a lump sum distribution in cash or
to rollover the distribution into a 401(k)
plan sponsored by BBP or into such
participant’s individual retirement
account; (i) the cash received by the
ESOP in the sale of the Allocated Shares
was credited to the accounts of the each
of the Participants in proportion to the
Allocated Shares that were sold from
each participant’s account; (j) the
proceeds from the sale of the Allocated
Shares provide participants with
additional investment liquidity and
diversification.
Notice to Interested Persons
Those persons who may be interested
in the pendency of the requested
exemption include participants and
beneficiaries of the ESOP, alternative
payees, participants who are current
employees but who are absent from the
work site, the employer, officers and
employees of the employer, fiduciaries
of the ESOP, Stanton, and all other
interested persons or parties involved in
the subject transactions. It is
represented that these various classes of
interested persons will be notified as
follows.
All participants and beneficiaries and
all other interested persons will be
provided with a copy of the notice of
this proposed exemption (the Notice),
plus a copy of the supplemental
statement (the Supplemental
Statement), as required, pursuant to 29
CFR 2570.43(b)(2), which will advise
such interested persons of their right to
comment and to request a hearing. The
Notice and the Supplemental statement
will be provided to all interested
persons within fifteen (15) days of the
publication of the Notice in the Federal
Register.
The Notice and the Supplemental
Statement will be personally delivered
to all participants who are current
employees of BBP and who are present
at the work site on the date the Notice
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25613
and Supplemental Statement are
provided. The Notice and the
Supplemental Statement will be sent by
first class mail to all other participants
and beneficiaries or other interested
persons. It is represented that for the
purpose of sending the Notice and
Supplemental Statement by mail, the
last known addresses of such
participants, beneficiaries, or other
interested persons maintained by the
ESOP will be used.
The Department must receive written
comments and requests for a hearing no
later than forty-five (45) days from the
date of the publication of the Notice in
the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angelena C. Le Blanc of the Department,
telephone (202) 693–8540. (This is not
a toll-free number.)
General Information
The attention of interested persons is
directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the
subject of an exemption under section
408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve
a fiduciary or other party in interest or
disqualified person from certain other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including any prohibited transaction
provisions to which the exemption does
not apply and the general fiduciary
responsibility provisions of section 404
of the Act, which, among other things,
require a fiduciary to discharge his
duties respecting the plan solely in the
interest of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plan and in a
prudent fashion in accordance with
section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does
it affect the requirement of section
401(a) of the Code that the plan must
operate for the exclusive benefit of the
employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) Before an exemption may be
granted under section 408(a) of the Act
and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code,
the Department must find that the
exemption is administratively feasible,
in the interests of the plan and of its
participants and beneficiaries, and
protective of the rights of participants
and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The proposed exemptions, if
granted, will be supplemental to, and
not in derogation of, any other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including statutory or administrative
exemptions and transitional rules.
Furthermore, the fact that a transaction
is subject to an administrative or
statutory exemption is not dispositive of
whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction; and
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
25614
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 92 / Friday, May 13, 2005 / Notices
(4) The proposed exemptions, if
granted, will be subject to the express
condition that the material facts and
representations contained in each
application are true and complete, and
that each application accurately
describes all material terms of the
transaction which is the subject of the
exemption.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of
May, 2005.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 05–9577 Filed 5–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2005–
05; Exemption Application No. D–11212, et
al.]
Grant of Individual Exemptions; R. G.
Daily Company, Inc. Defined Benefit
Plan (the Plan)
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Grant of individual exemptions.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document contains
exemptions issued by the Department of
Labor (the Department) from certain of
the prohibited transaction restrictions of
the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and/or
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the
Code).
A notice was published in the Federal
Register of the pendency before the
Department of a proposal to grant such
exemption. The notice set forth a
summary of facts and representations
contained in the application for
exemption and referred interested
persons to the application for a
complete statement of the facts and
representations. The application has
been available for public inspection at
the Department in Washington, DC. The
notice also invited interested persons to
submit comments on the requested
exemption to the Department. In
addition the notice stated that any
interested person might submit a
written request that a public hearing be
held (where appropriate). The applicant
has represented that it has complied
with the requirements of the notification
to interested persons. No requests for a
hearing were received by the
Department. Public comments were
received by the Department as described
in the granted exemption.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:59 May 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
The notice of proposed exemption
was issued and the exemption is being
granted solely by the Department
because, effective December 31, 1978,
section 102 of Reorganization Plan No.
4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996),
transferred the authority of the Secretary
of the Treasury to issue exemptions of
the type proposed to the Secretary of
Labor.
Statutory Findings
In accordance with section 408(a) of
the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the
Code and the procedures set forth in 29
CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836,
32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon
the entire record, the Department makes
the following findings:
(a) The exemption is administratively
feasible;
(b) The exemption is in the interests
of the plan and its participants and
beneficiaries; and
(c) The exemption is protective of the
rights of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plan.
R.G. Dailey Company, Inc. Defined
Benefit Plan (the Plan) Located in Ann
Arbor, MI
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2005–05;
Exemption Application No. D–11212]
Exemption
The sanctions resulting from the
application of section 4975 of the Code,
by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A)
through (E) of the Code,1 shall not apply
to the in kind contributions made to the
Plan on August 12, 1999, June, 12, 2000,
May 17, 2001 and March 21, 2002 by the
Employer, a disqualified person with
respect to the Plan, of certain publiclytraded securities (the Securities),
provided: (a) Each contribution was a
one-time transaction; (b) the Securities
were valued at their fair market value as
of the date of the contribution, as listed
on a national securities exchange; (c) no
commissions were paid in connection
with the transactions; (d) the terms of
the transactions between the Plan and
the Employer were no less favorable to
the Plan than terms negotiated at arm’s
length under similar circumstances
between unrelated parties; and (e) Mr.
Dailey, who was the only person
affected by the transactions, believes
that the transactions were in the best
interest of the Plan.
Mr. Robert M. Dailey was the sole
sponsor of the R.G. Dailey Company, Inc. (the
Employer) and the only participant in the Plan,
there is no jurisdiction under Title I of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(the Act). However, there is jurisdiction under Title
II of the Act pursuant to section 4975 of the Code.
PO 00000
1 Because
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
EFFECTIVE DATE: This exemption is
effective for in kind contributions of
Securities to the Plan occurring on the
following dates: August 12, 1999, June
12, 2000, May 17, 2001 and March 21,
2002.
For a complete statement of the facts
and representations supporting the
Department’s decision to grant this
exemption, refer to the notice of
proposed exemption published on
March 23, 2005 at 70 FR 14718.
Written Comments
During the comment period, the
Department received one written
comment and no requests for a public
hearing. The comment was submitted by
the applicant and is intended to clarify
the proposal. Basically, the comment
concerns the date the Plan was
terminated. In the Summary of Facts
and Representations of the proposal,
Representation 2 states that the Plan
was terminated on May 31, 2002.
However, the applicant wishes to clarify
that the Plan termination amendment
was signed on March 22, 2002 and
became effective on March 31, 2002.
In response to the applicant’s
comment, the Department notes the
foregoing clarifications to the proposal.
Accordingly, after giving full
consideration to the entire record,
including the applicant’s comment, the
Department has determined to grant the
requested exemption. For further
information regarding the comment and
other matters discussed herein,
interested persons are encouraged to
obtain copies of the exemption
application file (Exemption Application
No. D–11212) the Department is
maintaining in this case. The complete
application file, as well as all
supplemental submissions received by
the Department, are made available for
public inspection in the Public
Disclosure Room of the Employee
Benefits Security Administration, Room
N–1513, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Arjumand A. Ansari of the Department
at (202) 693–8566. (This is not a toll-free
number.)
Riggs Bank N.A. (Riggs Bank),
Washington, D.C.; and the PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc. (PNC),
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2005–06;
Exemption Application No. D–11310]
Exemption
Section I. Riggs Bank N.A.
Riggs Bank shall not be precluded
from functioning as a ‘‘qualified
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 92 (Friday, May 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25601-25614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9577]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security Administration
[Application No. D-11249, et al.]
Proposed Exemptions; BNP Paribas S.A., (BNP Paribas) and Its
French Affiliates (the Fren
[[Page 25602]]
ch Affiliates)
AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed exemptions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains notices of pendency before the
Department of Labor (the Department) of proposed exemptions from
certain of the prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and/or the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
Written Comments and Hearing Requests
All interested persons are invited to submit written comments or
requests for a hearing on the pending exemptions, unless otherwise
stated in the Notice of Proposed Exemption, within 45 days from the
date of publication of this Federal Register Notice. Comments and
requests for a hearing should state: (1) The name, address, and
telephone number of the person making the comment or request, and (2)
the nature of the person's interest in the exemption and the manner in
which the person would be adversely affected by the exemption. A
request for a hearing must also state the issues to be addressed and
include a general description of the evidence to be presented at the
hearing.
ADDRESSES: All written comments and requests for a hearing (at least
three copies) should be sent to the Employee Benefits Security
Administration (EBSA), Office of Exemption Determinations, Room N-5649,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210. Attention: Application No. ------, stated in each Notice of
Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to submit
comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via e-mail or FAX. Any such
comments or requests should be sent either by e-mail to:
``moffitt.betty@dol.gov'', or by FAX to (202) 219-0204 by the end of
the scheduled comment period. The applications for exemption and the
comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public
Documents Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of the proposed exemptions will be provided to all
interested persons in the manner agreed upon by the applicant and the
Department within 15 days of the date of publication in the Federal
Register. Such notice shall include a copy of the notice of proposed
exemption as published in the Federal Register and shall inform
interested persons of their right to comment and to request a hearing
(where appropriate).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed exemptions were requested in
applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in
29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).
Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4
of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to
the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed exemption
are issued solely by the Department.
The applications contain representations with regard to the
proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are
referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete
statement of the facts and representations.
BNP Paribas S.A., (BNP Paribas) and Its French Affiliates (the French
Affiliates) Located in Paris, France
[Application No. D-11249]
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the
Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part
2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10,1990).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to
provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer
also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section I. Covered Transactions
A. If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of section
406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from
the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section
4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code, shall not apply to any purchase
or sale of a security between BNP Paribas, a bank established under the
laws of France and any French Affiliate or branch of BNP Paribas which
is a bank regulated by the Commission Bancaire (CB) or a broker-dealer
holding a securities dealers license issued by the Comit[eacute] des
Etablissements de Cr[eacute]dit et des Enterprises d'Investissement
(CECEI) or registered with the Autorite des March[eacute]s Financiers
(AMF) (each, a BNP Entity), and employee benefit plans (the Plans) with
respect to which the BNP Entity is a party in interest, including
options written by a Plan or the BNP Entity, provided that the
following conditions and the General Conditions of Section II, are
satisfied:
(1) The BNP Entity customarily purchases and sells securities for
its own account in the ordinary course of its business as a bank or
broker-dealer, as the case may be;
(2) The terms of any transaction are at least as favorable to the
Plan as those which the Plan could obtain in a comparable arm's length
transaction with an unrelated party; and
(3) Neither the BNP Entity nor any of its affiliates has
discretionary authority or control with respect to the investment of
the Plan assets involved in the transaction, or renders investment
advice (within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)) with respect to
those assets, and the BNP Entity is a party in interest or disqualified
person with respect to the Plan assets involved in the transaction
solely by reason of section 3(14)(B) of the Act or section
4975(e)(2)(B) of the Code, or by reason of a relationship to a person
described in such sections. For purposes of this paragraph, the BNP
Entity shall not be deemed to be a fiduciary with respect to Plan
assets solely by reason of providing securities custodial services for
a Plan.
B. If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections
406(a)(1)(A) through (D) and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions
resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason
of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code, shall not apply to
any extension of credit to a Plan by a BNP Entity to permit the
settlement of securities transactions, regardless of whether they are
effected on an agency or a principal basis, or in connection with the
writing of options contracts, provided that the following conditions
and the General Conditions of Section II, are satisfied:
(1) The BNP Entity is not a fiduciary with respect to the Plan
assets involved in the transaction, unless no interest or other
consideration is received by the BNP Entity or any of its affiliates in
connection with such extension of credit; and
(2) Any extension of credit would be lawful under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the 1934 Act), and any rules or
regulations thereunder, if the 1934 Act, rules or regulations were
applicable and is lawful under applicable foreign law.
C. If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections
406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from
the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section
4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code,
[[Page 25603]]
shall not apply to the lending of securities that are assets of a Plan
to a BNP Entity, provided that the following conditions and the General
Conditions of Section II are satisfied:
(1) Neither the BNP Entity nor any of its affiliates has
discretionary authority or control with respect to the investment of
Plan assets involved in the transaction, or renders investment advice
(within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)) with respect to those
assets;
(2) The Plan receives from the BNP Entity, either by physical
delivery or by book entry in a securities depository located in the
U.S., by the close of business on the day on which the securities lent
are delivered to the BNP Entity, collateral consisting of U.S.
currency, securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its
agencies or instrumentalities, or irrevocable U.S. bank letters of
credit issued by persons other than the BNP Entity (or any of its
affiliates), or any combination thereof having, as of the close of
business on the preceding business day, a market value (or, in the case
of letters of credit, a stated amount) equal to not less than 100
percent of the then market value of the securities lent. All collateral
shall be held in U.S. dollars, or dollar denominated securities or bank
letters of credit and shall be held in physical or book entry form in
the United States.
(3) The loan is made pursuant to a written loan agreement (the Loan
Agreement), which may be in the form of a master agreement covering a
series of securities lending transactions, and which contains terms at
least as favorable to the Plan as those the Plan could obtain in an
arm's length transaction with an unrelated party;
(4) In return for lending securities, the Plan either (a) receives
a reasonable fee which is related to the value of the borrowed
securities and the duration of the loan, or (b) has the opportunity to
derive compensation through the investment of cash collateral. In the
latter case, the Plan may pay a loan rebate or similar fee to the BNP
Entity, if such fee is not greater than the Plan would pay an unrelated
party in a comparable arm's length transaction with an unrelated party;
(5) The Plan receives at least the equivalent of all distributions
made to holders of the borrowed securities during the term of the loan,
including, but not limited to, cash dividends, interest payments,
shares of stock as a result of stock splits and rights to purchase
additional securities that the Plan would have received (net of tax
withholdings) had it remained the record owner of such securities.
Where dividends and other distributions on foreign securities payable
to a lending Plan are subject to foreign tax withholdings, the BNP
Entity will put the Plan back in at least as good a position as it
would have been in had it not lent the securities;
(6) If the market value of the collateral as of the close of
trading on a business day falls below 100% of the market value of the
borrowed securities as of the close of trading on that day, the BNP
Entity delivers additional collateral, by the close of business on the
following business day, to bring the level of the collateral back to at
least 100% of the market value of all the borrowed securities as of
such preceding day. Notwithstanding the foregoing, part of the
collateral may be returned to the BNP Entity if the market value of the
collateral exceeds 100% of the market value of the borrowed securities,
as long as the market value of the remaining collateral equals at least
100% of the market value of the borrowed securities;
(7) Prior to entering into a Loan Agreement, the BNP Entity
furnishes to the independent Plan fiduciary, who is making decisions on
behalf of the Plan with respect to the lending of securities: (a) The
most recent available audited and unaudited statements of its financial
condition, (b) the most recent available unaudited statement of its
financial condition (if more recent than the audited statement), and
(c) a representation by the BNP Entity that, as of each time it borrows
securities, there has been no material adverse change in its financial
condition since the date of the most recently furnished financial
statement that has not been disclosed to the Plan fiduciary. Such
representation may be made by the BNP Entity's agreeing that each loan
of securities shall constitute a representation that there has been no
such material adverse change;
(8) The Loan Agreement and/or any securities loan outstanding may
be terminated by the Plan at any time, whereupon the BNP Entity
delivers certificates for securities identical to the borrowed
securities (or the equivalent thereof in the event of reorganization,
recapitalization or merger of the issuer of the borrowed securities) to
the Plan within (a) the customary delivery period for such securities,
(b) five business days, or (c) the time negotiated for such delivery by
the Plan and the BNP Entity, whichever is lesser, or, alternatively,
such period as permitted by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption
(PTCE) 81-6 (46 FR 7527, January 23, 1981, as amended at 52 FR 18754,
May 19, 1987), as it may be amended or superseded; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ PTCE 81-6 provides an exemption under certain conditions
from section 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of the Act and the
corresponding provisions of section 4975(c) of the Code for the
lending of securities that are assets of an employee benefit plan to
a U.S. broker-dealer registered under the 1934 Act (or exempted from
registration under the 1934 Act as a dealer in exempt Government
securities, as defined therein).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) In the event that the loan is terminated and the BNP Entity
fails to return the borrowed securities or the equivalent thereof
within the time described in paragraph (8) above, then the Plan may
purchase securities identical to the borrowed securities (or their
equivalent as described above) and may apply the collateral to the
payment of the purchase price, any other obligations of the BNP Entity
under the Loan Agreement, and any expenses associated with the sale
and/or purchase. The BNP Entity is obligated to pay to the Plan the
amount of any remaining obligations and expenses not covered by the
collateral (the value of which shall be determined as of the date the
borrowed securities should have been returned to the Plan), plus
interest at a reasonable rate, as determined in accordance with an
independent market source. If replacement securities are not available,
the BNP Entity will pay the Plan an amount equal to (a) the value of
the securities as of the date such securities should have been returned
to the Plan, plus (b) all the accrued financial benefits derived from
the beneficial ownership of such borrowed securities as of such date,
plus (c) interest at a reasonable rate determined in accordance with an
independent market source from such date to the date of payment. The
amounts paid shall be reduced by the amount or value of the collateral
determined as of the date the borrowed securities should have been
returned to the Plan. The BNP entity is obligated to pay, under the
terms of the Loan Agreement, and does pay, to the Plan, the amount of
any remaining obligations and expenses not covered by the collateral,
plus interest at a reasonable rate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
BNP Entity may, in the event it fails to return borrowed securities as
described above, replace non-cash collateral with an amount of cash not
less than the then current market value of the collateral, provided
that such replacement is approved by the independent Plan fiduciary;
and
(10) The independent Plan fiduciary maintains the situs of the Loan
Agreement in accordance with the indicia of ownership requirements
under section 404(b) of the Act and the
[[Page 25604]]
regulations promulgated under 29 CFR 2550.404(b)-1. However, the BNP
Entity shall not be subject to the civil penalty, which may be assessed
under section 502(i) of the Act, or to the taxes imposed by section
4975(a) and (b) of the Code, if the independent Plan fiduciary fails to
comply with the requirements of 29 CFR 2550.404(b)-1.
If the BNP Entity fails to comply with any condition of this
exemption in the course of engaging in a securities lending
transaction, the Plan fiduciary which caused the Plan to engage in such
transaction shall not be deemed to have caused the Plan to engage in a
transaction prohibited by section 406(a)(1)(A) through (D) of the Act
solely by reason of the failure on the part of the BNP Entity to comply
with the conditions of the exemption.
Section II. General Conditions
A. The BNP Entity is a registered broker-dealer or bank subject to
regulation by a governmental agency, as described in Section III.B, and
is in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations thereof in
connection with any transactions covered by this exemption.
B. The BNP Entity, in connection with any transactions covered by
this exemption, is in compliance with all requirements of Rule 15a-6 of
the 1934 Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
interpretations thereof, providing foreign affiliates a limited
exemption from U.S. broker-dealers registration requirements (17 CFR
240.15a-6).
C. Prior to the transaction, the BNP Entity enters into a written
agreement with the Plan in which the BNP Entity consents to the
jurisdiction of the courts of the United States for any civil action or
proceeding brought in respect of the subject transactions.
D. Each BNP Entity located in the United States is fully
responsible for any judgment rendered by a United States court against
BNP Paribas, and the U.S. assets of BNP Paribas, including those of any
BNP Entities located in the U.S., are subject to the enforcement of any
such judgment.
E. The BNP Entity maintains, or causes to be maintained, within the
United States for a period of six years from the date of the covered
transactions, such records as are necessary to enable the persons
described in paragraph F. of this Section II to determine whether the
conditions of this exemption have been met, except that:
(1) If the records necessary to enable the persons described in
paragraph F. to determine whether the conditions of the exemption have
been met are lost or destroyed prior to the end of such year period,
due to circumstances beyond the control of the BNP Entity, then no
prohibited transaction will be considered to have occurred solely on
the basis of the unavailability of those records; and
(2) No party in interest, other than the BNP Entity and its
affiliates, shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed
under section 502(i) of the Act or to the taxes imposed by section
4975(a) and (b) of the Code if the records are not maintained or are
not available for examination as required by paragraph F. of this
Section II.
F. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b) of
section 504 of the Act, the BNP Entity makes the records referred to
above in paragraph E. of this Section II, unconditionally available for
examination during normal business hours at their customary location to
the following persons or an authorized representative thereof:
(1) The Department, the Internal Revenue Service or the SEC;
(2) Any fiduciary of a participating Plan;
(3) Any contributing employer to a Plan;
(4) Any employee organization any of whose members are covered by a
Plan; and
(5) Any participant or beneficiary of a Plan.
However, none of the persons described above in paragraphs (2)-(5)
of this paragraph F. shall be authorized to examine trade secrets of
the BNP Entity, or any commercial or financial information which is
privileged or confidential.
G. Prior to any Plan's approval of any transaction with a BNP
Entity, the Plan is provided with copies of the proposed and final
exemption with respect to the exemptive relief granted herein.
Section III. Definitions
For purposes of this proposed exemption,
A. The term ``affiliate'' of another person shall include:
(1) Any person directly or indirectly, through one or more
intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control
with such other person;
(2) Any officer, director, or partner, employee or relative (as
defined in section 3(15) of the Act) of such other person; and
(3) Any corporation, partnership or other entity of which such
other person is an officer, director or partner. (For purposes of this
definition, the term ``control'' means the power to exercise a
controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other
than an individual.)
B. The term ``BNP Entity'' shall mean BNP Paribas or any branch or
affiliate thereof that is a broker-dealer or bank subject to regulation
by the (1) CB or (2) AMF.
C. The term ``security'' shall include equities, fixed income
securities, options on equity and on fixed income securities,
government obligations, and any other instrument that constitutes a
security under U.S. securities laws. The term ``security'' does not
include swap agreements or other notional principal contracts.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. BNP Paribas, which maintains its principal offices in Paris,
France, is a publicly-held French bank that operates primarily in
France. BNP Paribas has additional activities in major banking and
securities markets worldwide. Through its branch offices and
affiliates, BNP Paribas provides a full line of depository, lending and
investment services to a broad base of clients and is engaged in a wide
range of banking, financial and related activities. As of December 31,
2004, BNP Paribas had consolidated assets of Euro 905.9 billion ($1.231
trillion) and stockholders equity of Euro 30.2 billion ($41.02
billion). As of close of business on March 29, 2005, BNP Paribas had a
market capitalization of over Euro 49 billion (over $63 billion). The
banking activities of BNP Paribas and its French Affiliates are
regulated by CB. The securities activities of BNP Paribas are regulated
by the AMF.
As of December 31, 2004, BNP Paribas reported that its presence in
the United States (excluding Banc West Corporation and its
subsidiaries) was valued in excess of $185 billion. Because it is a
single legal entity acting through various branches and other
subsidiaries in various locations, including the United States, BNP
Paribas states that each U.S.-based BNP Entity would be fully
responsible for any judgment rendered by a U.S. court against BNP
Paribas, and the U.S. assets of BNP Paribas, including those of any BNP
Entities, located in the U.S., would likely be subject to the
enforcement of any such judgment.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Alternatively, BNP Paribas has advised that if a judgment by
a U.S. court is rendered against a French Affiliate, the judgment
would be enforceable in France if the suing party has obtained an
exequatur (enforcement order) from a French court. Before it issues
an exequatur, the French court must determine that the judgment of
the U.S. court has satisfied the following requirements: (a) The
court must have subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over the
litigation; (b) the court proceedings must have been properly
followed (i.e., the proceedings must have conformed to basic French
legal notions of fundamental fairness and due process): (c) The
court must have used the correct choice of law; (d) enforcement of
the judgment must be consistent with French law; and (e) the
substance of the judgment must not be directly contrary to French
law. According to BNP Paribas, judgments from U.S. courts typically
satisfy these five requirements and French courts rarely have
refused to grant exequaturs to enforce U.S. judgments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25605]]
2. BNP Paribas seeks prospective exemptive relief from the
Department to permit certain principal transactions, extensions of
credit, and securities borrowing transactions between employee benefit
plans subject to the Act and BNP Paribas acting through its French
Affiliates and French branches. The proposed exemption would solely
cover transactions affected by BNP Paribas and its French Affiliates
that are located in France and regulated by the CB or AMF. Aside from
BNP Paribas, such French Affiliates currently include BNP Paribas
Arbitrage of Paris, France which is regulated by the Autorit[eacute] de
March[eacute]s Financiers of France.
BNP Paribas requests an individual exemption on behalf of itself,
its French Affiliates, and others, which may in the future, be subject
to governmental regulation in France, to engage with Plans in the
securities transactions described herein because such entities may be
parties in interest with respect to the Plans under the Act, by virtue
of being fiduciaries (for assets of the Plans other than those involved
in the transactions) or service providers to such Plans, or by virtue
of their relationships to such fiduciaries or service providers.
3. BNP Paribas is subject to regulations established by the CB and
the AMF governing minimum capitalization, reporting requirements,
periodic examinations, client money and safe custody rules and books
and records requirements with respect to client accounts. These
regulations and the regulations established by the SEC share a common
objective of protecting investors through regulation of the securities
industry. The regulations of the CB and the AMF require BNP Paribas to
maintain a positive tangible net worth and be able to meet its
obligations as they may fall due. These rules establish comprehensive
financial resource and reporting and disclosure requirements regarding
capital adequacy. In addition, the regulations impose requirements with
respect to risk management, internal controls and transaction reporting
and record keeping and require such records to be produced at the
request of the CB and the AMF. Finally, these regulations impose
potential fines and penalties, which establish a comprehensive
disciplinary framework.
4. In addition to the requirements and protections imposed under
the regulations of the CB and the AMF, BNP Paribas will comply with all
applicable provisions of Rule 15a-6 of the 1934 Act, as amended. In
lieu of registration with the SEC, Rule 15a-6 provides an exemption
from SEC broker-dealer registration for a foreign broker-dealer that
induces or attempts to induce the purchase or sale of any security
(including over-the-counter equity and debt options) by a ``U.S.
institutional investor'' or a ``major U.S. institutional investor,''
provided that the foreign broker-dealer, among other things, enters
into these transactions through a U.S. registered broker or dealer
intermediary.
The term ``U.S. institutional investor'', as defined in Rule 15a-
6(b)(7), includes an employee benefit plan within the meaning of the
Act if:
(a) The investment decision is made by a plan fiduciary, as defined
in section 3(21) of the Act, which is either a bank, savings and loan
association, insurance company or registered investment adviser, or
(b) The employee benefit plan has total assets in excess of $5
million, or
(c) The employee benefit plan is a self-directed plan with
investment decisions made solely by persons that are ``accredited
investors,'' as defined in Rule 501(a)(1) of Regulation D of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The term ``major U.S. institutional investor'' is defined in Rule
15a-6(b)(4), as any entity that owns or controls (or, in the case of an
investment adviser, has under management) in excess of $100 million
aggregate financial assets.\4\ BNP Paribas represents that the
intermediation of the U.S. registered broker or dealer imposes upon the
foreign broker-dealer the requirement that the securities transaction
be effected in accordance with a number of U.S. securities laws and
regulations applicable to U.S. registered broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Note that a SEC No-Action Letter has expanded the categories
of entities that qualify as ``major U.S. institutional investors.''
See SEC No-Action Letter issued to Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen &
Hamilton on April 9, 1997 (the April 9, 1997 No-Action Letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. BNP Paribas represents that under Rule 15a-6 of the 1934 Act, a
foreign broker-dealer that induces or attempts to induce the purchase
or sale of any security by a U.S. institutional or major institutional
investor in accordance with Rule 15a-6 must, among other things:
(a) Provide written consent to service of process for any civil
action brought by, or proceeding before the SEC or self-regulatory
organization;
(b) Provide the SEC with any information or documents within its
possession, custody or control, any testimony of any such foreign
associated persons, and any assistance in taking the evidence of other
persons, wherever located, that the SEC requests and that relates to
transactions effected pursuant to the Rule;
(c) Rely on the U.S. registered broker or dealer through which the
principal transactions with the U.S. institutional and major
institutional investors are effected to (among other things):
(1) Effect the transactions, other than negotiating their terms;
(2) Approve foreign associated personnel that contact U.S.
investors to verify that such individuals are not subject to a
``statutory disqualification'', as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the
1934 Act or the non-U.S. equivalent of such disqualification (e.g.,
expulsion or suspension by a securities regulator).
(3) Issue all required confirmations and statements;
(4) As between the foreign broker-dealer and the U.S. registered
broker or dealer, extend or arrange for the extension of credit in
connection with the transactions;
(5) Maintain required books and records relating to the
transactions, including those required by Rules 17a-3 (Records to be
Made by Certain Exchange Members) and 17a-4 (Records to be Preserved by
Certain Exchange Members, Brokers and Dealers) of the 1934 Act; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ BNP Paribas represents that all such requirements relating
to recordkeeping of principal transactions would be applicable to
any BNP Entity in a transaction that would be covered by this
proposed exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Receive, deliver, and safeguard funds and securities in
connection with the transactions on behalf of the U.S. institutional
investor or major U.S. institutional investor in compliance with Rule
15c3-3 (Customer Protection--Reserves and Custody of Securities) of the
1934 Act; \6\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Under certain circumstances described in the April 9, 1997
Letter, (e.g., clearance and settlement transactions), there may be
direct transfers of funds and securities between a Plan and a BNP
Entity. Please note that in such situations (as in other situations
covered by Rule 15a-6), the U.S. broker-dealer will not be acting as
a principal with respect to any duties it is required to undertake
pursuant to Rule 15a-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Participate in all oral communications (e.g., telephone calls),
subject to certain exceptions, between the foreign associated person
and the U.S. institutional investor (not the major
[[Page 25606]]
U.S. institutional investor), and accompany the foreign associated
person on all visits with U.S. institutional investors. By virtue of
this participation, the U.S. registered broker-dealer would become
responsible for the content of all these communications.
Description of the Exemption Transactions
6. The exemption will apply to transactions involving principal
transactions, extensions of credit and securities borrowing
transactions that would be exempt under Prohibited Transaction Class
Exemption 75-1 (PTCE 75-1, 40 FR 50845, October 31, 1975) and
Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 81-6 (PTCE 81-6, 46 FR 7527,
January 23, 1981, amended at 52 FR 18754, May 19, 1987) but for the
fact that BNP Paribas and its French Affiliates are not supervised by
the U.S. government or registered under the Securities Exchange Act in
the manner required under PTCE 75-1 and PTCE 81-6.
The exemption will be applicable only to transactions effected by
BNP Paribas or any affiliated French broker-dealers holding a
securities dealers license issued by the CECEI or subject to the rules
and regulations of the CB and the AMF and compliant with Rule 15a-6.
Principal Transactions
7. BNP Paribas represents that in the ordinary course of business,
it customarily operates as a trader, dealer and market maker in
securities markets wherein it purchases and sells securities for its
own account and engages in purchases and sales of securities with its
clients. Such trades are referred to as principal transactions. Part II
of PTCE 75-1 provides exemptive relief from section 406(a) of the Act
and section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (D) of the Code for principal
transactions between plans and U.S. banks and broker-dealers which are
registered under the 1934 Act and are parties in interest with respect
to such plans, provided all requirements stated in part II are
satisfied. In the absence of an exemption for principal transactions,
such as PTCE 75-1, those responsible for trading activities on behalf
of plan investors would be prevented from engaging in transactions with
those broker-dealers and banks that provide the markets for the
securities and are most capable of handling such transactions. Like the
U.S. dealer markets, international equity and debt markets, including
the options markets, are no less dependent on a willingness of dealers
to trade as principals.
Over the past decade, plans have increasingly invested in foreign
equity and debt securities, including foreign government securities.
Plans seeking to enter into such investments may wish to increase the
number of trading partners available to them by trading with foreign
banks, such as BNP Paribas and certain of its French Affiliates.
However, where BNP Paribas or certain of its French Affiliates provide
services to such Plans which are covered by the Act, principal
transactions with BNP Paribas or certain of its French Affiliates would
be prohibited by the Act. Thus, the exemptive relief afforded U.S.
banks and U.S. broker-dealers by PTCE 75-1 would not be available with
respect to BNP Paribas because that class exemption is limited to (a)
banks supervised by the U.S. or a State thereof and (b) broker-dealers
registered with the SEC under the 1934 Act.\7\ The business carried out
by BNP Paribas and its French Affiliates is not so supervised or
registered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Department notes that the proposed principal
transactions are subject to the general fiduciary responsibility
provisions of part 4 of Title I of the Act. Section 404(a) of the
Act requires, among other things, that a fiduciary of a plan act
prudently and solely in the interest of the participants and
beneficiaries of a plan, when making investment decisions on behalf
of the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the conditions of PTCE 75-1 which require that a bank be
supervised by the U.S. or a U.S. State and a broker-dealer be
registered with the SEC, BNP Paribas is prevented from engaging in
principal transactions with Plans with respect to which it is a party
in interest. This is so even though BNP Paribas is subject to the
stringent regulations of the CB and AMF, and it is able to satisfy the
Rule 15a-6 requirements for an exemption from registration under the
Securities Exchange Act. Accordingly, BNP Paribas is requesting an
individual exemption to permit it and its French Affiliates
(collectively referred to herein as the BNP Entities) to engage in
principal transactions with Plans under the terms and conditions set
forth herein, which are equivalent to those set forth in PTCE 75-1.
The BNP Entities will comply with all conditions set forth in PTCE
75-1 other than the condition to be a U.S. bank or registered broker-
dealer under the Securities Exchange Act. With respect to principal
transactions, the BNP Paribas entities will engage in such transactions
only where (a) BNP Paribas or the relevant French Affiliates are not a
fiduciary with respect to the transaction (in other words, the BNP
Entity will have no discretionary authority or control with respect to
the investment of a Plan's assets involved in a principal transaction
or render investment advice (within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c))
with respect to those assets.); (b) the BNP Entity will customarily
purchase and sell securities for its own account in the ordinary course
of business as a bank or broker-dealer; (c) the transaction will be at
least as favorable to the Plan as an arm's length transaction with an
unrelated party would be; and (d) the BNP Entity will be a party in
interest or a disqualified person with respect to the Plan assets
involved in a principal transaction solely by reason of section
3(14)(B) of the Act or section 4975(e)(2)(B) of the Code (i.e., a
service provider to the Plan), or by reason of a relationship to such a
person as described in such sections.
Extensions of Credit
8. BNP Paribas represents that a normal part of the execution of
securities transactions by broker-dealer on behalf of clients,
including Plans, is the extension of credit to clients so as to permit
the settlement transactions in the customary settlement period. Such
extensions of credit are also customary in connection with the writing
of option contracts.
BNP requests that the proposed exemption include relief for
extensions of credit to the Plans by the BNP Entities in the ordinary
course of their purchases or sales of securities, regardless of whether
they are effected on an agency or a principal basis, or in connection
with the writing of options contracts. In this regard, an exemption for
such extensions of credit is provided under PTCE 75-1, Part V, only for
transactions between Plans and U.S. registered broker or dealers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ PTCE 75-1, part V, provides an exemption, under certain
conditions, from section 406 of the Act and section 4975(c)(1) of
the Code, for extensions of credit, in connection with the purchase
or sale of securities, between employee benefit plans and U.S.
registered broker-dealers that are parties in interest with respect
to such plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the conditions of this proposed exemption, as in PTCE 75-1,
part V, BNP Paribas and its French Affiliates may not be fiduciaries
with respect to the Plan assets involved in the transaction. However,
an exception to such condition would be provided herein, as in PTCE 75-
1, if no interest or other consideration is received by the BNP Entity
or an affiliate thereof, in connection with any such extension of
credit. In addition, the extension of credit must be lawful under the
1934 Act and any rules or regulations thereunder, if the 1934 Act rules
or regulations were applicable, and such
[[Page 25607]]
extension of credit must not be a prohibited transaction under section
503(b) of the Code. If the 1934 Act would not be applicable, the
extension of credit must still be lawful under applicable French law,
where BNP Paribas and its French Affiliates are domiciled.
Securities Lending
9. BNP Paribas or its French Affiliates, acting as principals,
actively engage in the borrowing and lending of securities, typically
foreign securities, from various institutional investors, including
employee benefit plans.
Accordingly, BNP Paribas requests an exemption for securities
lending transactions between the BNP Entities and the Plans under terms
and conditions equivalent to those required in PTCE 81-6 (46 FR 7527,
January 23, 1981, as amended at 52 FR 18754, May 19, 1987). Because
PTCE 81-6 provides an exemption only for U.S. registered broker-dealers
and U.S. banks, the securities lending transactions at issue would fall
outside the scope of relief provided by PTCE 81-6.
10. BNP Paribas or its French Affiliates utilize borrowed
securities either to satisfy their own trading requirements or to re-
lend to other broker-dealers and entities which need a particular
security for a certain period of time. As described in the Federal
Reserve Board's Regulation T, borrowed securities are often used to
meet delivery obligations in the case of short sales or the failure to
receive securities that a broker-dealer is required to deliver. BNP
Paribas represents that foreign broker-dealers are those broker-dealers
most likely to seek to borrow foreign securities. Thus, the requested
exemption will increase the lending demand for such securities,
providing the Plans with increased securities lending opportunities,
which will earn such Plans additional rates of return on the borrowed
securities (as discussed below).
11. An institutional investor, such as a pension fund, lends
securities in its portfolio to a broker-dealer or bank in order to earn
a fee while continuing to enjoy the benefits of owning the securities,
(e.g., from the receipt of any interest, dividends, or other
distributions due on those securities and from an appreciation in the
value of the securities). The lender generally requires that the
securities loan be fully collateralized, and the collateral usually is
in the form of cash, irrevocable bank letters of credit, or high
quality liquid securities, such as U.S. Government or Federal Agency
obligations.
12. With respect to the subject securities lending transactions,
BNP Paribas or its French Affiliates will have no discretionary
authority or control with respect the investment of the Plan assets
involved in the transaction, or render investment advice (within the
meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c)) with respect to those assets.
13. By the close of business on the day the loaned securities are
delivered, the Plan will receive from the BNP Entity (by physical
delivery book entry in a securities depository, wire transfer, or
similar means) collateral consisting of cash, securities issued or
guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies or instrumentalities,
irrevocable U.S. bank letters of credit issued by person other than the
BNP Entity or an affiliate of thereof, or any combination thereof. All
collateral will be in U.S. dollars, or dollar-denominated securities or
bank letters of credit, and will be held in the United Sates. The
collateral will have, as of the close of business on the business day
preceding the day it is posted by the BNP Entity, a market value equal
to at least 100% of the then market value of the loaned securities (or,
in the case of letter of credit, a stated amount equal to same).
14. The loan will be made pursuant to a written Loan Agreement,
which may in the form of a master agreement covering a series of
securities lending transactions between the Plan and the BNP Entity.
The terms of the Loan Agreement will be at least as favorable to the
Plan as those the Plan could obtain in a comparable arm's length
transaction with an unrelated party. The Loan Agreement will also
contain a requirement that the BNP Entity pay all transfer fees and
transfer taxes relating to the securities loans.
15. In return for lending securities, the Plan will either (a)
receive a reasonable fee, which is related to the value of the borrowed
securities and the duration of the loan, or (b) have the opportunity to
derive compensation through the investment of cash collateral. Where
the Plan has that opportunity, the Plan may pay a loan rebate of
similar fee to the BNP Entity, if such fee is not greater than what the
Plan would pay in comparable arm's length transaction with an unrelated
party. Earnings generated by non-cash collateral will be returned to
the BNP Entity. The Plan will be entitled to at least the equivalent of
all distributions on the borrowed securities made during the term of
the loan. Such distributions will include cash dividends, interest
payments, shares of stock as a result of stock splits, and rights to
purchase additional securities, that the Plan would have received (net
of any applicable tax withholdings) had it remained the record owner of
such securities.
16. If the market value of the collateral as of the close of
trading on a business day falls below 100 percent of the market value
of the borrowed securities as of the close of trading on that day, the
BNP Entity will deliver additional collateral, by the close of business
on the following business day, to bring the level of collateral back to
at least 100 percent. However, if the market value of the collateral
exceeds 100 percent of the market value of the borrowed securities, the
BNP Entity may require the Plan to return part of the collateral to
reduce the level of the collateral to 100 percent.
17. Before entering into a Loan Agreement, the BNP Entity will
furnish to the independent Plan fiduciary (a) the most recent available
audited statement of the BNP Entity's financial condition, (b) the most
recent available unaudited statement of its financial condition (if
more recent than the audited statement), and (c) a representation that,
at the time the loan is negotiated, there has been no material adverse
change in its financial condition that has not been disclosed since the
date of the most recent financial statement furnished to the
independent Plan fiduciary. Such representation may be made by the BNP
Entity agreeing that each loan of securities shall constitute a
representation that there has been no such material adverse change.
18. The Loan Agreement and/or any securities loan outstanding may
be terminated by the Plan at any time, whereupon the BNP Entity will
deliver certificates for securities identical to the borrowed
securities (or the equivalent thereof in the event of reorganization,
recapitalization, or merger of the issuer of the borrowed securities)
to the Plan within (a) the customary delivery period for such
securities, (b) five business days, or (c) the time negotiated for such
delivery by the Plan and the BNP Entity, whichever is least, or,
alternatively, such period as permitted by PTE 81-6, as it may be
amended or superseded. In the event the loan is terminated and the BNP
Entity fails to return the borrowed securities or the equivalent
thereof with the designated time, the Plan will have certain rights
under the Loan Agreement to realize upon the collateral. The Plan may
purchase securities identical to the borrowed securities, or the
equivalent thereof, and may apply the collateral to the payment of the
purchase price, any other obligations of the BNP Entity under the Loan
Agreement, and any
[[Page 25608]]
expenses associated with replacing the borrowed securities.
The BNP Entity is obligated to pay to the Plan the amount of any
remaining obligations and expenses not covered by the collateral (the
value of which shall be determined as of the date the borrowed
securities should have been returned to the Plan), plus interest at a
reasonable rate as determined in accordance with an independent market
source. If replacement securities are not available, the BNP Entity
will pay the Plan an amount equal to (a) the value of the securities as
of the date such securities should have been returned to the Plan, plus
(b) all the accrued financial benefits derived from the beneficial
ownership of such borrowed securities as of such date, plus (c)
interest at a reasonable rate determined in accordance with an
independent market source from such date to the date of payment. The
amounts paid shall be reduced by the amount or value of the collateral
determined as of the date the borrowed securities should have been
returned to the Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the BNP Entity
may, in the event it fails to return borrowed securities as described
above, replace non-cash collateral with an amount of cash not less than
the then current market value of the collateral, provided that such
replacement is approved by the lending independent Plan fiduciary.
19. The independent Plan fiduciary will maintain the situs of the
Loan Agreement in accordance with the indicia of ownership requirement
under section 404(b) of the Act and the regulations promulgated under
29 CFR 2550.404(b)-1.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Section 404(b) of the Act states that no fiduciary may
maintain the indicia of ownership of any assets of a plan outside
the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States, except
as authorized by regulation by the Secretary of Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. In summary, BNP Paribas represents that the subject
transactions will satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption under
section 408(a) of the Act for the following reasons:
(a) With respect to principal transactions effected by the BNP
Entities, the proposed exemption will enable the Plans to realize the
same benefits of efficiency and convenience which derive such Plans
could derive from principal transactions executed by U.S. registered
broker-dealers or U.S. Banks, pursuant to PTCE 75-1, part II;
(b) With respect to extensions of credit by the BNP Entities in
connection with purchases or sales of securities, the proposed
exemption will enable the BNP Entities and the Plans to extend credit
in the ordinary course of business to effect agency or principal
transactions within the customary three-day settlement period, or in
connection with the writing of options contracts for transactions
between Plans and U.S. registered broker-dealers, pursuant to PTCE 75-
1, part V;
(c) With respect to securities lending transactions effected by the
BNP Entities, the proposed exemption will enable the Plans to realize a
low-risk return on securities that otherwise would remain idle, as in
securities lending transactions between plans and U.S. registered
broker-dealers or U.S. Banks, pursuant to PTCE 81-6; and
(d) The proposed exemption will provide the Plans with virtually
the same terms and conditions upon the transactions executed by the BNP
Entities as those imposed on U.S. banks and U.S. registered, pursuant
to PTCE 75-1 and PTCE 81-6.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of proposed exemption will be provided to all interested
persons by first class mail within 4 days of publication of the notice
of pendency in the Federal Register. Such notice shall include a copy
of the notice of pendency of the exemption as published in the Federal
Register and a supplemental statement, as required pursuant to 29 CFR
2570.43(b)(2), which will inform interested persons of their right to
comment on the proposed exemption and/or to request a hearing. Comments
and hearing requests are due within 34 days of the date of publication
of the proposed exemption in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Silvia Quezada of the Department,
telephone (202) 693-8553. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Best Business Products Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the ESOP)
Located in Sioux Falls, SD
[Exemption Application No. D-11305]
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (the Act) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (the Code), and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29
CFR Part 2570, Subpart B, 55 FR 32836, 32847 (August 10, 1990).\10\ If
the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A)
through (D), 406(b)(1), and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions
resulting from the application of section 4975, by reason of section
4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply, effective July
7, 2004, to: (1) The purchase from the ESOP by Best Business Products,
Inc. (BBP), a party in interest with respect to the ESOP, of shares of
the voting common stock of BBP (the Stock) which were allocated to the
accounts of the participants in the ESOP; and (2) the transfer to BBP
of shares of the Stock which were held by the ESOP in a suspense
account in exchange for the assumption by BBP of the ESOP's obligation
to pay the balance of a note (the Note) to Betty B. Best (Ms. Best), a
party in interest with respect to the ESOP; provided that prior to
entering into the subject transactions: (a) An independent fiduciary
(the Independent Fiduciary) was responsible for each of the
transactions, and in accordance with the fiduciary provisions of the
Act, reviewed, analyzed, and determined that the ESOP should enter into
each of the transactions; (b) the Independent Fiduciary reviewed,
negotiated, and approved the terms of each of the transactions, and
determined on behalf of the ESOP and solely in the interest of the
ESOP, its participants, and beneficiaries that the terms of each of the
transactions were fair and reasonable; (c) the Independent Fiduciary
monitored compliance with the terms of each of the transactions by the
parties; (d) an independent qualified appraiser determined the fair
market value of the Stock as of the date each of the transactions were
entered; and (e) the ESOP incurred no fees, commissions, or other
charges or expenses as a result of its participation in each of the
transactions.
\10\ For purposes of this exemption, references to specific
provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer
also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective Date: If the proposed exemption is granted, the exemption
will be effective July 7, 2004.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. BBP, a South Dakota Corporation, located in Sioux Falls, SD,
sells, installs, and services electronic office equipment and sells
related supplies to customers throughout the state of South Dakota and
in southwestern Minnesota. It is represented that BBP has, at all
relevant times, been taxed pursuant to subchapter ``S'' tax provisions
of the Code. As of December 31, 2003, BBP had $5.7 million in assets,
$1.9 million in liabilities, and $3.8 million in shareholder equity.
Ms. Best is the major shareholder of BBP, the President of BBP, and
the sole director of BBP. As such, Ms. Best is a party in interest with
respect to the
[[Page 25609]]
ESOP, pursuant to section 3(14)(E) and 3(14)(H) of the Act.
2. For the benefit of its eligible employees and their
beneficiaries, BBP adopted the ESOP, effective January 1, 1997, as an
employee stock ownership plan, as amended and restated from time to
time, to meet the requirements of the Act and the Code. As an employer
any of whose employees are covered by the ESOP, BBP is a party in
interest with respect to the ESOP, pursuant to section 3(14)(C) of the
Act.
On December 31, 1997, BBP entered into a trust agreement with the
First National Bank in Sioux Falls (the Bank), a South Dakota Banking
Corporation, in which the Bank agreed to serve as the trustee of the
assets of the ESOP. As a trustee, the Bank is a fiduciary and party in
interest with respect to the ESOP, pursuant to section 3(14)(A) of the
Act. It is represented that the Bank served in this capacity as trustee
until replaced by Ms. Best on December 19, 2001. Since that time, Ms.
Best has been the sole trustee of the assets of the ESOP held in the
trust. As a trustee, Ms. Best is a fiduciary and party in interest with
respect to the ESOP, pursuant to section 3(14)(A) of the Act.
As of July 7, 2004, the date the subject transactions were entered,
there were 71 participants and beneficiaries in the ESOP. As of
December 31, 2003, the aggregate fair market value of the total assets
available to pay benefits to participants in the ESOP was $822,889. As
of the same date, the value of the ESOP's assets, after subtracting
liabilities was $338,681.
3. On June 12, 1998, it is represented that an Amendment to the
Articles of Incorporation of BBP was adopted which combined two classes
of shares (voting and non-voting) into a single class of shares of
voting common stock and which authorized a stock dividend converting
each single share of common stock then outstanding into 100 shares. It
is represented that in July 1998, there were 181,100 shares of Stock
issued and outstanding of which Ms. Best was the sole shareholder.
It is represented that the Stock that is the subject of this
exemption (i.e. the voting common stock of BBP) is the only class of
stock authorized or issued by BBP. The Stock is not publicly traded.
4. On July 17, 1998, the ESOP purchased a block of Stock from Ms.
Best for a purchase price of $2.6 million dollars.\11\ As a result of
this transaction, of the 181,100 shares of Stock issued and
outstanding, Ms. Best retained ownership to 126,770 shares, and the
ESOP acquired 54,330 shares of the Stock, representing approximately 70
percent (70%) and approximately 30 percent (30%), respectively of the
equity of BBP. It is represented that the acquisition of the block of
Stock by the ESOP provided equity ownership to employees so that such
employees had a direct stake in the success of BBP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The applicant maintains that the statutory exemption,
pursuant to section 408(e) of the Act, provided relief for the 1998
purchase by the ESOP of the block of Stock from Ms. Best, where the
shares of the Stock are qualifying employer securities, as defined
in section 407(d)(5) of the Act, the purchase of the shares of Stock
was made for adequate consideration, and no commission was charged
to the ESOP with respect thereto. The Department is offering no
view, herein, as to the applicant's reliance on section 408(e) of
the Act with respect to the purchase of the block of Stock by the
ESOP in 1998, nor has the Department made a determination that the
applicant satisfied all of the requirements of section 408(e) of the
Act. Further, the Department is not providing any relief, herein,
with respect to such purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 17, 1998, the ESOP acquired title to the block of Stock
(54,330 shares) in exchange for a loan (the Loan) \12\ in the amount of
$2.6 million dollars, representing the entire purchase price for such
block of Stock. The Loan was evidenced by a non-recourse Note payable
to Ms. Best. The Note was payable in annual installments of principal
and interest over a period of ten (10) years, beginning September 1,
1998. The interest rate applied to the outstanding balance on the Note
was the prime interest rate in effect from time to time as published by
the ``Wall Street Journal.'' Payment of the Loan was secured by a
pledge to Ms. Best of a security interest in the block of Stock
purchased by the ESOP. In addition, BBP guaranteed payment of the Note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The applicant maintains that the statutory exemption,
pursuant to section 408(b)(3) of the Act, provided relief for the
1998 Loan between the ESOP and Ms. Best, because the Loan: (a) was
primarily for the benefit of the participants and beneficiaries of
the ESOP; (b) contained an interest rate that was not in excess of a
reasonable rate; (c) was used to purchase employer stock; and (d)
satisfied the other requirements, as set forth in the Department's
regulations at 29 CFR 2550.408b-3. The Department is offering no
view, herein, as to the applicant's reliance on section 408(b)(3) of
the Act with respect to the 1998 Loan, nor has the Department made a
determination that the applicant satisfied all of the requirements
of section 408(b)(3) of the Act. Further, the Department is not
providing any relief, herein, with respect to such Loan transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. In a letter dated, July 17, 1998, James L. Werness, JD (Mr.
Werness), a principal of the Hawthorne Company (Hawthorne), determined
that the purchase of the block of Stock by the ESOP for consideration
of $2.6 million dollars was fair and equitable and that the purchase
price paid was not more than the ``fair market value'' of such block of
Stock. In support of this opinion, Hawthorne prepared an appraisal
report, dated June 20, 1998, to establish the fair market value of the
block of Stock purchased by the ESOP.
It is represented that the professional staff of Hawthorne is
qualified to provide the 1998 valuation of the Stock. In addition,
Hawthorne has made similar statements regarding its qualifications with
respect to annual valuations of the Stock which Hawthorne prepared
during the period 1998 through 2004, as discussed more fully in
paragraph 8, below. In this regard, Mr. Werness is a member of the
Institute of Business Appraisers and a candidate member of the American
Society of Appraisers. Other principals of Hawthorne have earned the
following designations: (a) Accredited Senior Appraiser from the
American Society of Appraisers, (b) Certified Business Appraiser
through the Institute of Business Appraisers, and (c) Chartered
Financial Analyst.
Hawthorne certified that its research, analysis, and conclusions on
the value of the Stock were conducted on an independent basis. In this
regard, it is represented that neither Hawthorne, nor any employee of
Hawthorne owns any present or prospective future interest in BBP or its
affiliates. Further, Hawthorne represented that it does not know of any
other relationship that would prevent it from, in fact, acting
independently in connection with this valuation. Hawthorne made similar
statements regarding its independence with respect to annual valuations
of the Stock prepared by Hawthorne during the period from 1998 through
2004, as discussed more fully in paragraph 8, below.
It is represented that because the block of Stock purchased by the
ESOP in 1998 represented a small percentage of all the voting rights in
BBP, Hawthorne would normally have defined the fair market value of
such block of Stock as a ``minority interest value.'' However, as the
block of Stock was subject to a buy/sell agreement, discussed more
fully in paragraph 6, below, that entitled the holder to ``put'' the
shares of Stock back to BBP and required BBP to pay a price for such
shares equal to the pro-rata enterprise value, Hawthorne conducted its
analysis on the basis of an ``enterprise'' level of value. Accordingly,
in the opinion of Hawthorne, the fair market value of the ESOP's block
of Stock (54,330 shares), as of June 30, 1998, was $48.00 per share for
a total value of $2,607,840.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Department, herein, is offering no view as to whether
the value per share of the block of Stock purchased by the ESOP in
1998, based on the methodology used by Hawthorne in appraising such
block of Stock constituted ``adequate consideration'' for purposes
of section 408(e) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25610]]
6. On July 17, 1998, contemporaneously with the purchase of the
block of Stock by the ESOP, Ms. Best and BBP entered into a buy-sell
Agreement,