Proposed Exemptions; Wachovia Corporation (Wachovia), 47246-47256 [05-16045]
Download as PDF
47246
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 155 / Friday, August 12, 2005 / Notices
the ESOP incurred no fees,
commissions, or other charges or
expenses as a result of its participation
in each of the transactions.
Effective Date: The exemption will be
effective July 7, 2004.
For a complete statement of the facts
and representations supporting the
Department’s decision to grant this
exemption refer to the Notice published
on May 13, 2005, 92 FR 25608.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angelena C. Le Blanc of the Department,
telephone (202) 693–8551 (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 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) This exemption is supplemental to
and not in derogation of, any other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including statutory or administrative
exemptions and transactional 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
(3) The availability of this exemption
is subject to the express condition that
the material facts and representations
contained in the application accurately
describes all material terms of the
transaction which is the subject of the
exemption.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of
August, 2005.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 05–16046 Filed 8–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:14 Aug 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
[Application No. D–11231, et al.]
Proposed Exemptions; Wachovia
Corporation (Wachovia)
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed exemptions.
AGENCY:
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. ll, 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Wachovia Corporation (Wachovia),
Located in Charlotte, NC
[Application No. D–11231]
Based on the facts and representations
set forth in the application, the
Department is considering granting an
exemption under the authority of
section 408(a) of the Act (or ERISA) 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, August 10, 1990).
Proposed Exemption
Section I. Covered Transactions
If the proposed exemption is granted,
the restrictions of sections 406(a) and
406(b) 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 (E) of the Code,1
shall not apply, effective January 2,
2002, to (1) the in kind transfer by the
Wachovia Retirement Savings Plan (the
1 For purposes of this proposed exemption,
references to specific provisions of Title I of the
Act, unless otherwise specified, refer also to the
corresponding provisions of the Code.
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 155 / Friday, August 12, 2005 / Notices
Plan) of its shares in the Wachovia
Equity Index Fund (the Index Fund), a
mutual fund in which Evergreen
Investment Management Company, LLC
(Evergreen), a wholly owned subsidiary
of Wachovia, the Plan sponsor, serves as
the investment adviser, to the Wachovia
Enhanced Stock Market Fund (the
Enhanced Fund), a bank collective
investment fund, also maintained by
Wachovia in exchange for Enhanced
Fund units; 2 and (2) the in kind
redemption by the Enhanced Fund of
the Index Fund shares received on
behalf of the Plan in return for a pro rata
distribution of cash and transferable
securities held by the Index Fund.
Section II. Specific Conditions
This proposed exemption is subject to
the following conditions:
(a) Mercer Investment Consulting, Inc.
(Mercer), a fiduciary, which was acting
on behalf of the Plan, and which was
independent of, and unrelated to,
Wachovia and its subsidiaries, as
defined in paragraph (e) of Section IV
below, had the opportunity to review
the in kind transfer and in kind
redemption transactions, and received,
in advance of such transactions, full
written disclosures concerning the
Funds, which included, but were not
limited to the following:
(1) A prospectus or its equivalent for
each of the Funds;
(2) The management fees, as
negotiated under the applicable
investment management agreements,
and the costs;
(3) The reasons why the Plan
Committee (the Plan Committee)
considered such investment to be
appropriate for the Plan; and
(4) Whether there were any
limitations applicable to the Plan with
respect to which assets of the Plan could
be invested in the Enhanced Fund and
the nature of such limitations.
(b) On the basis of the foregoing
information, Mercer recommended,
(1) The in kind transfer of the mutual
fund shares that were held on behalf of
the Plan in the Index Fund, in exchange
for units in the Enhanced Fund; and
(2) The in kind redemption by the
Enhanced Fund of Index Fund shares
received from the Plan for cash and
certain publicly-traded securities.
(3) The Plan Committee followed
Mercer’s recommendation by acting on
such advice.
(c) Before recommending the covered
transactions, Mercer determined that:
(1) The terms of the transactions were
fair to the participants in the Plan, and
2 The Index Fund and the Enhanced Fund are
collectively referred to herein as the Funds.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:14 Aug 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
were comparable to, and no less
favorable than, the terms obtainable at
arm’s length between unaffiliated
parties; and
(2) The transactions were in the best
interest of the Plan and its participants
and beneficiaries.
(d) The in kind transfer transaction
was a one-time transaction for the Plan
and the mutual fund shares transferred
were equivalent in value to the units in
the Enhanced Fund.
(e) The in kind redemption
transaction was a one-time transaction
and the resulting cash and transferable
securities constituted a pro rata portion
of the assets held on behalf of the Plan
in the Index Fund prior to the
transaction.
(f) In the case of the exchange by the
Plan of Index Fund shares for Enhanced
Fund units, the per unit value of the
Enhanced Fund units that were issued
to the Plan in exchange for the Plan’s
Index Fund shares had an aggregate
value that was equal to the value of the
mutual fund shares transferred to the
Enhanced Fund on the date of the
transfer, as determined in a single
valuation performed in the same
manner and at the close of business on
the same day in accordance with
Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) Rule 17a–7 (Rule 17a–7) under
the Investment Company Act of 1940
(the 1940 Act), as amended, (using
sources independent of Wachovia), and
the procedures established by the
Enhanced Fund pursuant to Rule 17a–
7.
(g) In the in kind redemption
transaction, the Enhanced Fund
received a pro rata portion of the cash
and transferable securities held on
behalf of the Plan in the Index Fund that
was equal in value to the number of
mutual fund shares redeemed for such
cash and transferable securities, as
determined in a single valuation
performed in the same manner and at
the close of business on the same day in
accordance with Rule 17a–7, (using
sources independent of Wachovia), and
the procedures established by the
Enhanced Fund pursuant to Rule 17a–
7.
(h) For purposes of the covered
transactions, the fair market value of all
transferable securities received by the
Enhanced Fund in the in kind
redemption transaction was determined
by reference to the last sale price for
transactions as reported in the
consolidated transaction reporting
system (the Consolidated System), a
recognized securities exchange, or the
National Association of Securities
Dealers Automated Quotation System
(the NASDAQ System).
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47247
(i) Within 90 days after the
completion of the transactions, Mercer
received confirmation of the following
information:
(1) The number of Index Fund shares
exchanged by the Plan and the number
of Enhanced Fund units received by the
Plan immediately before the in kind
transfer transaction (and the related per
share net asset value and the total dollar
value of the shares held) as reported by
the Funds; and
(2) The identity, the current market
price of each transferable security
received by the Enhanced Fund in the
in kind redemption, and the aggregate
dollar value of the securities allocated to
the Plan in the Enhanced Fund pursuant
to the redemption, and the net asset
value of Enhanced Fund units after the
redemption;
(j) Subsequent to the completion of
the transactions, Mercer conducted a
post-transaction review in which it
verified:
(1) The number and current market
price of all Enhanced Fund units
transferred to the Plan in exchange for
the Index Fund shares;
(2) The number and current market
price of all Index Fund shares
transferred by the Plan to the Enhanced
Fund in exchange for Enhanced Fund
units;
(3) The identity of each transferable
security, the number of shares of such
security transferred, the closing price on
the relevant national exchange as of the
date of the transfer, and the proper
valuation of the securities for the
purposes of the transfer;
(4) The aggregate dollar value of the
Index Fund shares that were being held
by the Plan immediately before the
transfer and the aggregate dollar value of
the Enhanced Fund units held by the
Plan immediately after the transfer were
valued at their daily net asset values in
accordance with their normal
procedures.
(5) The use, by the Index Fund and
the Enhanced Fund of the same
methodology to value the securities
transferred by the Index Fund to the
Enhanced Fund in the in kind
redemption transaction.
(k) No sales commissions, fees or
other costs were paid by the Plan in
connection with the transactions, and
no additional management fees are
being charged to the Plan by Wachovia
through the Enhanced Fund.
(l) Wachovia did not enter into the
transactions unless Mercer concurred
with such transactions.
(m) The Plan’s dealings with the
Index Fund, the Enhanced Fund and
Wachovia were on a basis that was no
less favorable to the Plan than dealings
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
47248
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 155 / Friday, August 12, 2005 / Notices
between the Enhanced Fund and other
investors.
Section III. General Conditions
This exemption is subject to the
following general conditions:
(a) Wachovia maintains, or causes to
be maintained, 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 (b) of this
Section III 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 (b)
to determine whether the conditions of
the exemption have been met are lost or
destroyed, due to circumstances beyond
the control of the plan fiduciary, 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
plan fiduciary responsible for
recordkeeping, 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
(b) below. (b)(1) Except as provided in
paragraph (b)(2) of this Section III and
notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (a)(2) and (b) of section 504
of the Act, the records referred to above
in paragraph (a) of this Section III are
unconditionally available for
examination during normal business
hours at their customary location to the
following persons or an authorized
representative thereof:
(i) Any duly authorized employee or
representative of the Department or the
Internal Revenue Service;
(ii) Mercer or any other fiduciary of
the Plan; or
(iii) Any participant or beneficiary of
the Plan or any duly authorized
employee or representative of such
participant or beneficiary.
(2) None of the persons described
above in paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of this
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this
Section III shall be authorized to
examine trade secrets of Wachovia, or
any commercial or financial
information, which is privileged or
confidential.
Section IV. Definitions
For the purposes of this proposed
exemption, (a) The term ‘‘Wachovia’’
means Wachovia Corporation and any
affiliate of Wachovia as defined below
in Section IV(b).
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:14 Aug 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
(b) An ‘‘affiliate’’ of a person includes:
(1) Any person directly or indirectly
through one or more intermediaries,
controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with the person;
(2) Any officer, director, employee,
relative, or partner in any such person;
and
(3) Any corporation or partnership of
which such person is an officer,
director, partner, or employee.
(c) The term ‘‘control’’ means the
power to exercise a controlling
influence over the management or
policies of a person other than an
individual.
(d) The term ‘‘relative’’ means a
‘‘relative,’’ as that term is defined in
section 3(15) of the Act, (or a ‘‘member
of the family,’’ as that term is defined in
section 4975(e)(6) of the Code), or a
brother, a sister, or a spouse of a brother
or a sister.
(e) As applied to Mercer, the term
‘‘independent fiduciary’’ means a
fiduciary who is (1) independent of and
unrelated to Wachovia and its affiliates,
and (2) appointed to act as investment
adviser to the Plan for all purposes
related to, but not limited to, (i) the
transfer of Index Fund shares to the
Enhanced Fund in exchange for units in
the Enhanced Fund, and (ii) the
Enhanced Fund’s redemption of the
Index Fund shares received from the
Plan for cash and transferable securities.
For purposes of this exemption, a
fiduciary will not be deemed to be
independent of and unrelated to
Wachovia if (1) such fiduciary directly
or indirectly controls, is controlled by or
is under common control with
Wachovia; (2) such fiduciary directly or
indirectly receives any compensation or
other consideration in connection with
any transaction described in this
exemption, except that Mercer may
receive compensation for acting as an
independent fiduciary from Wachovia
in connection with the transactions
contemplated herein and in connection
with the provision of ongoing
investment advice to the Plan
Committee if the amount of payment of
such compensation is not contingent
upon or in any way affected by Mercer’s
ultimate decision; and (3) the annual
gross revenue received by such
fiduciary from Wachovia and its
affiliates during any year of its
engagement, exceeds 5 percent (5%) of
Mercer’s annual gross revenue from all
sources for its prior tax year.
(f) The term ‘‘transferable securities’’
means securities (1) for which market
quotations are readily available (as
determined under Rule 17a–7) and (2)
which are not (i) Securities which, if
distributed, would require registration
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
under the Securities Exchange Act of
1933 (the 1933 Act); (ii) securities
issued by entities in countries which (a)
restrict or prohibit the holding of
securities by non-nationals other than
through qualified investment vehicles,
such as the Index Fund, or (b) permit
transfers of ownership of securities to be
effected only by transactions conducted
on a local stock exchange; (iii) certain
portfolio positions (such as forward
foreign currency contracts, futures, and
options contracts, swap transactions,
certificates of deposit and repurchase
agreements) that, although they may be
liquid and marketable, involve the
assumption of contractual obligations,
require special trading facilities or can
only be traded with the counter-party to
the transaction to effect a change in
beneficial ownership; (iv) cash
equivalents (such as certificates of
deposit, commercial paper and
repurchase agreements) which are not
readily distributable; (v) other assets
which are not readily distributable
(including receivables and prepaid
expenses), net of all liabilities
(including accounts payable); and (vi)
securities subject to ‘‘stop transfer’’
instructions or similar contractual
restrictions on transfer. Notwithstanding
the above, the term ‘‘transferable
securities’’ also includes securities that
are considered private placements
intended for large institutional
investors, pursuant to Rule 144A under
the 1933 Act, which are valued by the
unrelated investments managers for the
Funds, or if applicable, by the
independent fiduciary, which will
confirm and approve all such
valuations.
Effective Date: If granted, this
proposed exemption will be effective as
of January 2, 2002.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. Wachovia, headquartered in
Charlotte, NC, the predecessor entity to
the current Wachovia, also
headquartered in Charlotte, NC, was an
independent bank holding company
providing a wide range of commercial
and retail banking and trust services to
the public through its individual
banking subsidiaries. On September 1,
2001, First Union Corporation (First
Union) merged with Wachovia. The
merger of Wachovia and First Union
was accomplished through a stock
exchange whereby each share of
Wachovia common stock outstanding
was converted into two shares of
common stock of First Union, with the
appropriate number of stock purchase
rights under First Union’s shareholder
rights plan. In addition to the two shares
of First Union stock, each share of
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 155 / Friday, August 12, 2005 / Notices
Wachovia common stock was
exchanged, at the shareholder’s option,
for either a one-time cash payment of
$0.48; or two of the combined
company’s (i.e., Wachovia and First
Union) Dividend Equalization Plan
‘‘DEP’’ rights, each of which entitled the
holder to receive cumulative quarterly
dividends equal to the difference, if any,
between $0.30 and the amount of
quarterly dividends paid by the
combined company on each share of
common stock.
Wachovia Bank, NA (Wachovia Bank)
is a federally chartered bank and trust
company based in Charlotte, North
Carolina. It is also Wachovia’s primary
subsidiary. Wachovia Bank provides a
wide range of commercial and retail
banking and trust services through fullservice banking offices in Connecticut,
Delaware, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Virginia and Washington, DC.
Wachovia, the surviving entity, is the
fourth largest bank holding company in
the United States. Wachovia continues
to provide the public with banking and
trust services through the mergercreated subsidiary, Wachovia Bank. As
of March 31, 2005, Wachovia reported
consolidated assets of $506.8 million.
2. On January 1, 2002, following the
merger of Wachovia and First Union,
the First Union Savings Plan (the First
Union Plan) and the Wachovia
Retirement Savings and Profit Sharing
Plan (the Wachovia Plan), a predecessor
to the current Plan, both tax qualified
401(k) plans, were merged based on a
decision by Wachovia’s management.
The merged plan is referred to herein as
‘‘the Plan’’ and Wachovia Bank serves as
the Plan’s directed trustee. Under the
terms of the Plan, each participant may
direct the investments of his or her
individual account balances among
various investment options offered
under the Plan.
The Plan is administered by the
Wachovia Administrative Committee
(the Plan Committee), which is
comprised of nine employees, who are
officers of Wachovia and its affiliates.
As of May 4, 2005, the Plan held total
assets of $6.4 billion and had 96,963
participants and beneficiaries.
3. The Plan Committee is advised by
Mercer Investment Consultants, Inc. of
Atlanta, Georgia (Mercer), an investment
adviser registered under the 1940 Act.
Mercer provides investment advisory
services to tax deferred compensation
plans subject to ERISA with
approximately $900 billion in assets as
of September 16, 2004. Mercer is not
affiliated with either Wachovia or its
predecessors. Mercer regularly advises
the Plan Committee on the performance
investment options offered under the
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:14 Aug 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
Plan, as well as those formerly offered
under the First Union Plan.
4. As a result of the Merger, two S&P
500 Index Funds were held by the Plan.
They were the ‘‘Wachovia Index Equity
Fund’’ (e.g., the Index Fund) and the
‘‘First Union Enhanced Stock Market
Fund’’ (e.g., the Enhanced Fund). The
Index Fund, which was carried over
from the former Wachovia Plan, was an
open-end investment management
company registered under the 1940 Act.
Shares in the Index Fund were offered
publicly to individual and institutional
investors. Evergreen of Boston,
Massachusetts, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Wachovia, served as
investment adviser to the Index Fund.
The Index Fund managed its portfolio
in a manner intended to duplicate the
performance of the S&P 500 Index. The
Index Fund charged the Wachovia Plan
annualized expenses and advisory fees
of approximately 44 basis points with
respect to the Class Y shares held by the
Plan. As of December 31, 2001, the
Wachovia Plan held approximately 33%
of the outstanding Index Fund Y shares,
valued at $122,058,370. Following the
merger, the Index Fund was eliminated
because its management style
duplicated the Enhanced Fund, a bank
collective investment fund maintained
by First Union and offered as an
investment option under the First Union
Plan.
The Enhanced Fund’s objective is to
provide total rate of return equal to or
exceeding that of the S&P 500 Index. To
achieve this objective, the Enhanced
Fund invests primarily in a diversified
portfolio of common stock and S&P 500
futures.
Prior to the merger, the First Union
Plan held 54.9% of the outstanding
units in the Enhanced Fund.
Immediately following the merger, the
Plan’s Enhanced Fund holdings
increased to 59.6% of the outstanding
units. Other employee benefit plan
investors, unrelated to Wachovia, own
the remaining units in the Enhanced
Fund.
The Enhanced Fund does not charge
any management fees to the Plan. The
costs associated with providing
investment advisory services to the
Enhanced Fund are borne by Wachovia
and its affiliates. Unaffiliated qualified
plans holding units in the Enhanced
Fund pay Wachovia asset-based
investment advisory fees. However, the
Plan does not pay any such fees.
5. Mercer was initially retained by the
First Union Plan to act as its
independent investment adviser. Mercer
counseled the fiduciaries of the First
Union Plan with respect to the
impending merger of the two Plans.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47249
Subsequent to the corporate merger, the
Wachovia Plan Committee retained
Mercer to serve as its investment adviser
for the Plan. In this respect, Mercer
acknowledged its fiduciary status with
respect to the Plan. Mercer’s fees were
to be paid by Wachovia.
Mercer and the Plan Committee
determined that two S&P 500 Index
Funds would be inconsistent with the
Plan’s design and would present
communication problems. Mercer
compared the performance of both
Funds, the fees charged thereunder,
considered the potential confusion to
Plan participants arising from the
offering of two similar Funds, and the
desire to streamline Plan
administration. During the fall of 2001,
Mercer then recommended, and the
Plan Committee accepted, the
elimination of the Index Fund through
a ‘‘mapping transaction,’’ which
involved two separate transactions.3
First, the Plan exchanged its
5,825,619.074 shares of the Index Fund
for 1,711,987.3214 units of the
Enhanced Fund, which represented
equivalent fair market value. Once the
Index Fund shares entered the asset
base of the Enhanced Fund, the
Enhanced Fund immediately redeemed
the Index Fund shares in kind for the
underlying transferable securities and
cash consideration totaling $5,881,028.
The transactions were conducted
contemporaneously at the closing prices
of the applicable securities on January 2,
2002. As noted above, the transactions
resulted in the receipt, by the Enhanced
Fund, of approximately 33% of each
securities position held on behalf of the
Plan by the Index Fund. The Enhanced
Fund has held these transferable
securities for investment, subject to
normal trading and portfolio turnover.
6. At the time of entering into the
transactions, Wachovia and Mercer had
no reason to believe that a prohibited
transaction would occur. Rather,
Wachovia believed that the Act’s
prohibited transaction provisions were
not violated because the Index Fund
shares were exchanged for Enhanced
3 It is represented that the two-step ‘‘mapping
transaction’’ minimized the transaction costs that
would have been incurred by the Plan otherwise
and the adverse tax consequences to other Index
Fund shareholders. Specifically, if the Index Fund
had redeemed the Plan’s shares in cash, it would
have been forced to liquidate large amounts of its
holdings and incurred significant transaction costs,
such as brokerage and other administrative costs,
which could have been borne proportionately by
the Plan. In addition, the Index Fund reserved the
right to pay the Plan in kind upon the redemption
of its shares. If the Index Fund had exercised this
right, the Plan would have been required to receive
and manage a securities portfolio which it was not
equipped to manage (as a self-directed plan), which
costs were avoided.
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
47250
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 155 / Friday, August 12, 2005 / Notices
Fund units at fair market value.
However, upon review of the foregoing
transactions by Wachovia’s counsel, it
was determined that Prohibited
Transaction Class Exemption (PTCE)
77–3 (42 FR 18734, April 8, 1977),
might not apply to the transactions nor
could Wachovia avail itself of the
statutory exemptive relief provided
under section 408(b)(8) of the Act.4
Wachovia explains that because it was
unclear whether PTCE 77–3 and section
408(b)(8) apply to (a) a noncash
disposition of mutual fund shares and
(b) an acquisition of common trust fund
units for noncash consideration, counsel
for Wachovia advised it to seek
retroactive exemptive relief from the
Department.
Accordingly, Wachovia requests an
administrative exemption from the
Department with respect to (a) the in
kind transfer by the Plan of its shares in
the Index Fund in exchange for units in
the Enhanced Fund; and (b) the in kind
redemption, by the Enhanced Fund, of
the Index Fund shares received on
behalf of the Plan in return for a pro rata
distribution of cash and transferable
securities held by the Index Fund. If
granted, the exemption will be effective
as of January 2, 2002.
7. In advance of the decision to
eliminate the Plan’s Index Fund
holdings, Mercer received full written
disclosures concerning the Funds from
Wachovia. Such disclosures included:
(a) a prospectus or its equivalent for
each of the Funds; (b) the management
fees, as negotiated under the applicable
investment management agreements,
and the costs; (c) the reasons why the
Plan Committee considered such
investment to be appropriate for the
Plan; and (d) whether there were any
limitations applicable to the Plan with
respect to which assets of the Plan could
be invested in the Enhanced Fund and
the nature of such limitations. As noted
above, on January 2, 2002, acting on
Mercer’s advice, the Plan Committee
caused the Plan to enter into the
recommended transactions.
8. Mercer also evaluated the
transactions in terms of their fairness to
the Plan and to the Plan participants
and the arm’s length nature of such
transactions. The three key areas that
Mercer evaluated included: (a) a
performance comparison of the two
Funds; (b) an analysis of the expense
ratios of each Fund; and (c) the specific
details of the transactions. These
evaluations are further described below.
(a) Performance. As of December 31,
2001, Mercer explains that both Funds
had performances similar to the S&P
500 Index. However, the Enhanced
Fund tracked the return of the Index
more closely than that of the Index
Fund for one, three, and five year
periods ending December 31, 2001.
Mercer illustrates these findings in the
following table:
PERFORMANCE AFTER FEES FOR PERIODS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2001
[In percent]
1 year
Enhanced Fund ...............................................................................................
Index Fund .......................................................................................................
S&P 500 ...........................................................................................................
3 years
¥10.9
¥12.2
¥11.9
¥1.1
¥1.5
¥1.0
5 years
10.8
10.2
10.7
7 years
16.0
N/A
15.9
(b) Expense Ratio. Mercer states that
the Index Fund’s expense ratio for
December 31, 2001 was 0.41%.
However, Mercer explains that a
participant’s account in the Enhanced
Fund would not incur a fee because fees
in this Fund are billed internally and
are absorbed by the human resource
department. Additionally (and as noted
above), Wachovia Bank does not charge
asset-based management or other fees to
the Plan.
(c) Transaction Details. Mercer states
that prior to the transactions, it
reviewed the proposed structure and
determined that the transactions would
be fair to the Plan and no less favorable
to the Plan than an arm’s length
transactions between unrelated parties.
9. The in kind transfer of the Index
Fund shares by the Enhanced Fund was
a one-time transaction. The per unit
value of the Enhanced Fund units that
were issued to the Plan in exchange for
the Plan’s Index Fund shares had an
aggregate value that was equal to the
value of the mutual fund shares
transferred to the Enhanced Fund on the
date of the transfer, as determined in a
single valuation performed in the same
manner and at the close of business on
the same day in accordance with Rule
17a–7 (using sources independent of
Wachovia), and the procedures
established by the Enhanced Fund
pursuant to Rule 17a–7.
10. The in kind redemption of the
Index Fund shares by the Enhanced
Fund for the underlying transferable
securities and cash, was a one-time
transaction. In the redemption
transaction, the Enhanced Fund
received a pro rata portion of the cash
and transferable securities held on
behalf of the Plan in the Index Fund that
was equal in value to the number of
mutual fund shares redeemed for such
cash and transferable securities, as
determined in a single valuation
performed in the same manner and at
the close of business on the same day in
accordance with Rule 17a–7, (using
sources independent of Wachovia), and
the procedures established by the
Enhanced Fund pursuant to Rule 17a–
7. Furthermore, the fair market value of
all transferable securities received by
the Enhanced Fund in the in kind
redemption transaction was determined
by reference to the last sale price for
transactions as reported in the
Consolidated System, a recognized
securities exchange, or the NASDAQ
System.
11. Within 90 days following the
completion of the transactions, Mercer
received confirmation of the following
information from Wachovia: (a) The
number of Index Fund shares exchanged
by the Plan and the number of
Enhanced Fund units received by the
Plan immediately before the in kind
4 In relevant, PTCE 77–3 permits the acquisition
or sale of shares of a registered, open-end
investment company by an employee benefit plan
covering only employees of such investment
company, employees of the investment adviser or
principal underwriter for such investment
company, or employees of any affiliated person (as
defined therein) of such investment adviser or
principal underwriter, provided certain conditions
are met.
Section 408(b)(8) of the Act provides statutory
exemptive relief, in pertinent part, for any
transaction between a plan and a common or
collective trust fund maintained by a party in
interest which is a bank or trust company
supervised by a state or federal agency, if the
following conditions are met: (a) The transaction is
a sale or purchase of an interest in the fund, (b) the
bank or trust company receives not more than
reasonable compensation, and (c) such transaction
is expressly permitted by the instrument under
which the plan is maintained, or by a fiduciary
(other than the bank or trust company or an
affiliate) who has authority to manage and control
the assets of the plan.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:14 Aug 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 155 / Friday, August 12, 2005 / Notices
transfer transaction (and the related per
share net asset value and the total dollar
value of the shares held) as reported by
the Funds; and (b) the identity and
current market price of each security
received by the Enhanced Fund in the
in kind redemption, the aggregate dollar
value of the securities allocated to the
Plan in the Enhanced Fund pursuant to
such redemption and the net asset value
of Enhanced Fund units after the
redemption. Mercer represents that
compliance with the above SEC rules
precluded the exercise of discretion and
required that the transactions between
affiliated funds be conducted at arm’s
length.
12. Additionally, Mercer states that it
reviewed the results of the transactions
with the Plan Committee.5 The review
was made to ensure that the transactions
had been executed as planned, that
none of the parties had exercised
discretion and/or deviated from the
plan, and that in all respects the
transactions were carried out as
planned. Among the items reviewed by
Mercer with the Plan Committee were
the following: (a) The number and
current market price of all Enhanced
Fund units transferred to the Plan in
exchange for the Index Fund shares; (b)
the number and current market price of
all Index Fund shares transferred by the
Plan to the Enhanced Fund in exchange
for Enhanced Fund units; (c) the
identity of each security, the number of
shares of such security transferred, the
closing price on the relevant national
exchange as of the date of the transfer,
and the proper valuation of the
securities for the purposes of the
transfer; and (d) the aggregate dollar
value of the Index Fund shares that
were held by the Plan immediately
before the transfer and the aggregate
dollar value of the Enhanced Fund units
held by the Plan immediately after the
transfer were valued at their daily net
asset values in accordance with their
normal procedures. In addition, Mercer
confirmed that the Index Fund and the
Enhanced Fund used the same
methodology to value the securities
received by the Enhanced Fund in the
in kind redemption. Specifically,
Mercer determined that all securities
were valued at their closing prices on
the relevant national exchange as of
5 Mercer notes that in its review, it found a
discrepancy of $11,650.66 between the valuation of
the Index Fund shares and the Enhanced Fund
units. Mercer explains that this discrepancy was
determined to be immaterial as the discrepancy
represented less than one tenth of one basis point
of the total value of the investment. Moreover,
Mercer determined that no Plan participant had
been adversely affected by the $11,650.66
discrepancy.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:14 Aug 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
January 2, 2002, the date the
transactions were consummated, and all
Fund shares and units were valued at
their daily net asset values in
accordance with Rule 17a–7. Based
upon the foregoing, Mercer concluded
that the value of the Enhanced Fund
units received by the Plan in the
exchange was equal to the net asset
value of the Index Fund shares given by
the Plan. Moreover, Mercer noted that
the participants’ accounts reflected
equivalent value before and after the
transactions.
Mercer represents that the
transactions involved 3% of the Plan’s
aggregate assets, and that the
transactions resulted in the receipt by
the Enhanced Fund of approximately
33% of each securities position held by
the Index Fund. As noted above,
subsequent to the in kind redemption,
the Enhanced Fund has held these
securities for investment, subject to
normal trading and portfolio turnover.
13. Wachovia represents that had the
Plan carried out an in kind exchange it
would have been required to establish a
separate account, engage an investment
manager, and establish a daily valuation
system in order to integrate the assets
received through the in kind
redemption into the Plan’s self-directed
design. This result would have meant
significant start-up and ongoing
administrative fees for the Plan. In the
case of a cash redemption, which would
have required the consent from the
Index Fund manager, Wachovia
explains that the Plan would have borne
its ratable share of the transaction costs
associated with liquidating the Index
Fund investments to cover the Plan’s
cash redemption. The Plan would also
have borne its ratable share of the
transaction costs associated with the
purchase by the Enhanced Fund of
securities with the cash transferred to it
by the Plan in exchange for the purchase
of Enhanced Fund units.
14. In summary, it is represented that
the transactions have satisfied (or will
satisfy) the statutory criteria for an
exemption under section 408(a) of the
Act because:
(a) Mercer had the opportunity to
review in advance the in kind transfer
of the mutual fund shares that were held
on behalf of the Plan in the Index Fund,
in exchange for units in the Enhanced
Fund, after it had received full written
disclosures concerning the Funds.
(b) On the basis of the disclosures,
Mercer recommended both the in kind
transfer transaction and the in kind
redemption transaction, and the Plan
Committee followed Mercer’s
recommendation by acting on such
advice.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47251
(c) Before recommending the
transactions, Mercer determined that (1)
the terms of the transactions were fair to
the participants in the Plan, and were
comparable to, and no less favorable
than, the terms obtainable at arm’s
length between unaffiliated parties; and
(2) the transactions were in the best
interest of the Plan and its participants
and beneficiaries.
(d) The in kind transfer transaction
was a one-time transaction for the Plan
and the mutual fund shares transferred
were equivalent in value to the units in
the Enhanced Fund.
(e) The in kind redemption of the
Index Fund shares by the Enhanced
Fund was a one-time transaction and
the resulting cash and transferable
securities constituted a pro rata portion
of the assets held on behalf of the Plan
in the Index Fund prior to the
transaction.
(f) In the case of the exchange by the
Plan of Index Fund shares for Enhanced
Fund units, the per unit value of the
Enhanced Fund units that were issued
to the Plan in exchange for the Plan’s
Index Fund shares had an aggregate
value that was equal to the value of the
mutual fund shares transferred to the
Enhanced Fund on the date of the
transfer, as determined in a single
valuation performed in the same
manner and at the close of business on
the same day in accordance with Rule
17a–7 (using sources independent of
Wachovia), and the procedures
established by the Enhanced Fund
pursuant to Rule 17a–7.
(g) In the in kind redemption
transaction, the Enhanced Fund
received a pro rata portion of the cash
and transferable securities held on
behalf of the Plan in the Index Fund that
was equal in value to the number of
mutual fund shares redeemed for such
cash and transferable securities, as
determined in a single valuation
performed in the same manner and at
the close of business on the same day in
accordance with Rule 17a–7, (using
sources independent of Wachovia), and
the procedures established by the
Enhanced Fund pursuant to Rule
17a–7.
(h) For purposes of the covered
transactions, the fair market value of all
transferable securities received by the
Enhanced Fund in the in kind
redemption transaction was determined
by reference to the last sale price for
transactions as reported in the
Consolidated System or the NASDAQ
System.
(i) Within 90 days after the
completion of the transactions, Mercer
received confirmation of the following
information: The number of Index Fund
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
47252
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 155 / Friday, August 12, 2005 / Notices
shares exchanged by the Plan and the
number of Enhanced Fund units
received by the Plan immediately before
the in kind transfer transaction (and the
related per share net asset value and the
total dollar value of the shares held) as
reported by the Funds; (2) the identity,
the current market price of each security
received by the Enhanced Fund in the
in kind redemption, and the aggregate
dollar value of the transferable
securities allocated to the Plan in the
Enhanced Fund pursuant to the
redemption, and the net asset value of
Enhanced Fund units after the
redemption;
(j) Subsequent to the completion of
the transactions, Mercer conducted a
post-transaction review in which it
verified: (1) The number and current
market price of all Enhanced Fund units
transferred to the Plan in exchange for
the Index Fund shares; (2) the number
and current market price of all Index
Fund shares transferred by the Plan to
the Enhanced Fund in exchange for
Enhanced Fund units; (3) the identity of
each transferable security, the number
of shares of such security transferred,
the closing price on the relevant
national exchange as of the date of the
transfer, and the proper valuation of the
securities for the purposes of the
transfer; (4) the aggregate dollar value of
the Index Fund shares that were being
held by the Plan immediately before the
transfer and the aggregate dollar value of
the Enhanced Fund units held by the
Plan immediately after the transfer were
valued at their daily net asset values in
accordance with their normal
procedures; and (5) the use, by the
Index Fund and the Enhanced Fund, of
the same methodology to value the
securities transferred by the Index Fund
to the Enhanced Fund in the in kind
redemption.
(k) No sales commissions, fees or
other costs were paid by the Plan in
connection with the transactions, and
no additional management fees are
being charged to the Plan by Wachovia
through the Enhanced Fund.
(l) Wachovia did not enter into the
transactions unless Mercer concurred
with such transactions.
(m) The Plan’s dealings with the
Index Fund, the Enhanced Fund and
Wachovia were on a basis that was no
less favorable to the Plan than dealings
between the Enhanced Fund and other
investors.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of proposed exemption will be
provided to all interested persons by
first class mail within 45 days of
publication of the notice of pendency in
the Federal Register. Such notice shall
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:14 Aug 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
include a copy of the notice of
pendency, as published in the Federal
Register, and supplemental statement,
as required pursuant to 29 CFR
2570.43(b)(2), which shall inform
interested persons of their right to
comment on the proposed exemption.
Comments are due within 75 days of the
date of publication of the proposed
exemption in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Silvia M. Quezada of the Department,
telephone (202) 693–8553. (This is not
a toll-free number.)
Dakotas and Western Minnesota
Electrical Workers Apprenticeship Plan
(the Plan), Located in Fargo, ND
[Exemption Application No: L–11316]
Proposed Exemption
The Department of Labor is
considering granting an exemption
under the authority of section 408(a) of
the Act in accordance with procedures
set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart
B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10,
1990). If the proposed exemption is
granted, the restrictions of sections
406(a)(1)(A) through (D), 406(b)(1), and
406(b)(2) of the Act shall not apply to
the lease (the Lease) of a portion of a
parcel of improved real property (the
Premises) by the Plan from the Dakotas
Chapter of the National Electrical
Contractors Association (the Dakotas
NECA), a party in interest with respect
to the Plan; provided that, at the time
the transaction is entered into, the
following conditions are satisfied:
(a) An independent, qualified
fiduciary (the I/F), acting on behalf of
the Plan, determines prior to entering
into the transaction that the transaction
is feasible, in the interest of, and
protective of the Plan and the
participants and beneficiaries of the
Plan;
(b) Before the Plan enters into the
proposed Lease of the Premises, the
I/F reviews the transaction, negotiates
the terms of the transaction to ensure
that such terms are at least as favorable
to the Plan as an arm’s length
transaction with an unrelated party, and
determines whether or not to approve
the transaction, in accordance with the
fiduciary provisions of the Act;
(c) The I/F monitors compliance with
the terms and conditions of this
exemption, as described herein, and
ensures that such terms and conditions
are at all times satisfied;
(d) Throughout the duration of the
Lease of the Premises, the I/F monitors
compliance with the terms of the Lease
of the Premises and takes any and all
steps necessary to ensure that the Plan
is protected, including, but not limited
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to, notifying Dakotas NECA of the Plan’s
intention to extend the Lease of the
Premises at the conclusion of the initial
five (5) year term of the Lease;
(e) The rent paid by the Plan for the
Premises under the terms of the Lease
and under the terms of any subsequent
extension of the Lease is at no time
greater than the fair market rental value
of the Premises, as determined by an
independent, qualified appraiser
retained by the Board of Trustees of the
Plan (the Trustees);
(f) The Plan pays no rent for the
Premises, any remodeling or
maintenance costs, any taxes, insurance,
operating expenses or other costs,
expenses, or charges for the Premises for
the period from the date of the Plan’s
first occupancy of the Premises to the
date the final exemption is published in
the Federal Register. Nothing in this
condition (f) shall preclude the payment
by the Plan of rent plus its proportionate
share of the cost of taxes, maintenance,
and insurance on the Premises after the
final exemption is published in the
Federal Register and the Lease of the
Premises is executed;
(g) Under the provisions of the Lease,
the transaction is on terms and at all
times remains on terms that are at least
as favorable to the Plan as those that
would have been negotiated under
similar circumstances at arm’s length
with an unrelated third party;
(h) The transaction is appropriate and
helpful in carrying out the purposes for
which the Plan is established or
maintained;
(i) The Trustees maintain, or cause to
be maintained within the United States
for a period of six (6) years in a manner
that is convenient and accessible for
audit and examination, such records as
are necessary to enable the persons
described, below, in paragraph (j)(1) of
this exemption to determine whether
the conditions of this exemption have
been met; except that—
(1) If the records necessary to enable
the persons described, below, in
paragraph (j)(1) of this exemption to
determine whether the conditions of
this exemption have been met are lost
or destroyed, due to circumstances
beyond the control of the Trustees, 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
Trustees 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
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 155 / Friday, August 12, 2005 / Notices
examination as required by paragraph (i)
of this exemption; and
(j)(1) Except as provided, below, in
paragraph (j)(2) of this exemption and
notwithstanding any provisions of
sections (a)(2) and (b) of section 504 of
the Act, the records referred to in
paragraph (i) of this exemption are
unconditionally available at their
customary location for examination
during normal business hours by:
(A) Any duly authorized employee or
representative of the Department, the
Internal Revenue Service, or any other
applicable federal or state regulatory
agency;
(B) Any fiduciary of the Plan, or any
duly authorized representative of such
fiduciary;
(C) Any contributing employer to the
Plan and any employee organization
whose members are covered by the Plan,
or any duly authorized employee or
representative of these entities; or
(D) Any participant or beneficiary of
the Plan, or any duly authorized
representative of such participant or
beneficiary.
(2) None of the persons described,
above, in paragraph (j)(1)(B)–(D) of this
exemption are authorized to examine
trade secrets or commercial or financial
information that is privileged or
confidential.6
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. The Plan is a multi-employer
employee welfare benefit plan, as that
term is defined in section (3)(1) of the
Act. The Plan is exempt from federal
income taxation under section 501(c)(3)
of the Code. As of March 24, 2005, the
date the application was filed, there
were 850 participants in the Plan. The
Plan had assets totaling $564,407, as of
June 30, 2004.
The Plan is maintained under a
collective bargaining agreement between
the Dakotas NECA, representing
contributing employers, and four (4)
local unions (the Locals) representing
employees who are members of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers. Specifically, the Locals and
their geographic locations have been
identified as: (a) Local 426 (Sioux Falls,
SD); (b) Local 1250 (Rapid City, SD); (c)
Local 714 (Bismarck and Minot, ND);
and (d) Local 1426 (Fargo and Grand
Forks, ND). As employee organizations
any of whose members are covered by
the Plan, the Locals are parties in
6 The Department notes that the relief proposed
herein, is conditioned upon the adherence by the
Trustees to the material facts and representations
set forth in the application file and upon
compliance with the conditions, as set forth in this
exemption.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:14 Aug 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
interest with respect to the Plan,
pursuant to section 3(14)(D) of the Act.
2. Eight (8) individuals serve as
Trustees of the Plan. Four (4) of the
Trustees are appointed by contributing
employers and either are employed by
or are members of the Board of Directors
of the Dakotas NECA. Four (4) of the
Trustees are appointed by members of
the Locals. One such Trustee is a
representative of Local 1426.
Under the Agreement and Declaration
of Trust, the Trustees may use Plan
assets to lease premises to house the
functions of the Plan, to pay proper and
necessary expenses, and to enter into
contracts. It is represented that this is a
sufficient conveyance of authority to
permit the Trustees to enter into the
proposed transaction, if granted. The
Trustees are parties in interest with
respect to the Plan, pursuant to section
3(14)(A) of the Act, and fiduciaries, as
defined in section 3(21) of the Act.
3. The Dakotas NECA is a North
Dakota non-profit corporation founded
in 1949. Its membership currently
comprises 34 electrical contractors in
North and South Dakota and western
Minnesota, who are signatories to
collective bargaining agreements with
the Locals. The Dakotas NECA is a party
in interest with respect to the Plan,
pursuant to section 3(14)(C) of the Act,
as an employer association.
It is represented that the Dakotas
NECA currently provides office space
and other services to the Plan under an
arrangement that is represented to meet
the requirements of section 408(b)(2) of
the Act.7 In this regard, it is represented
that an entry in the Plan’s financial
statement relates to an arrangement
whereby Dakotas NECA and the Plan
share the cost of office space and
administrative services, including
secretarial and bookkeeping services,
the services of the Plan’s Director, and
ancillary costs for office equipment and
supplies.
4. The Plan provides benefits in the
form of apprenticeship and other
training programs to persons employed
as commercial and residential
electricians in the states of North
Dakota, South Dakota, and the western
regions of Minnesota. The Plan sponsors
a five (5) year course of study for
apprentices entering the electrical trade
and other courses of study that allow
7 The Department is offering no view, herein, as
to whether the provision of office space and other
services rendered to the Plan by the Dakotas NECA
is covered by the statutory exemption provided in
sections 408(b)(2) of the Act and the Department’s
regulations, thereunder, pursuant to 29 CFR
2550.408b–2. Further, the Department is not
providing, herein, any relief with respect to the
provision of office space and other services to the
Plan by the Dakotas NECA.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47253
journeyman electricians to upgrade their
skills. Generally, apprentices attend
classes two (2) nights a week. There are
currently 98 apprentices enrolled in
training programs.
It is represented that the geography of
the Dakotas includes a number of small
to mid-sized population centers, but no
single large metropolitan area. In order
to satisfy its purposes, the Plan has
established training facilities located
throughout its jurisdiction. In this
regard, the Locals in Bismarck, Minot,
and Grand Forks, North Dakota and the
Locals in Sioux Falls and Rapid City,
South Dakota offer space in their union
halls to the Plan for use as training
facilities. It is represented that the Plan
pays rent (currently $2,600 per year per
facility) to these Locals to help defray
expenses for the use of the space in
these union halls. It is represented that
the Locals that make training space
available for the Plan rely on the
exemption provided by and satisfy the
requirements of Prohibited Transaction
Class Exemption 78–6 (PTCE 78–6).8
It is represented that the Fargo area
has the largest population base of all the
cities within the geographic coverage of
the Plan. A significant portion of the
participant base of the Plan, in
particular, 63 out of 98 apprentices
reside in or near Fargo. Prior to the
occupancy of the Premises by the Plan
in November 2003, apprentices from
Local 1426 in Fargo, received training in
space rented from Northwest Technical
College (NTC) in Moorhead, Minnesota.
The rent at NTC was approximately
$2,380 per year for approximately fifty
(50) evenings of use. It is represented
that the Plan also incurred expenses of
several thousand dollars annually for
additional space to conduct journeyman
training and other functions. It is
represented that the space at NTC was
too small and was subject to repeated
and numerous scheduling conflicts. The
arrangement at NTC permitted no
flexibility in the training schedule. The
NTC facility provided no storage and
did not allow the Plan’s apprentices to
use its training modules or computers.
8 PTCE 78–6 permits, in part, collectively
bargained multiple employer apprenticeship plans
to lease real property (other than office space) from
a sponsoring employee organization; provided the
terms of the transaction are at least as favorable to
the apprenticeship plan as an arm’s length
transaction with an unrelated party; the transaction
is appropriate and helpful in carrying out the
apprenticeship plan’s purposes; and the
apprenticeship plan maintains certain records for a
period of six (6) years. The Department is not
offering a view, herein, as to whether the relief
provided by PTCE 78–6 covers the leasing of
training space between the Plan and certain Locals.
Further, the Department is not providing, herein,
any relief with respect to the leasing of training
space to the Plan by such Locals.
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
47254
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 155 / Friday, August 12, 2005 / Notices
In this regard, instructors had to set up
modules or computers for hands-on
training projects during the early part of
each class and dismantled the project by
the end of each class to leave the
classroom ready for the students of the
NTC.
It is represented that the Plan
recognized the inadequacy of the NTC
facility as long ago as 1997. In this
regard, the Plan looked at several
buildings to buy and space to lease, but
did not find a suitable affordable
facility. Specifically, in the fall of 1999,
the Plan viewed space to lease at the
Skills and Technology Center. It is
represented that this building was being
renovated, and raw space was available
to lease at a base rent of $4.00 to $5.00
per square foot. The cost of building out
the space would have been in addition
to the rent. Also, taxes, utilities, and
maintenance expenses would have been
added to the rent. In late 2000, the Plan
considered the purchase of a building
adjacent to the Fargo Labor Temple, but
found it unsuitable because of its size
and price.
It is represented that, unlike the other
Locals, Local 1426 in Fargo does not
own a union hall and prefers to lease
space for a union hall and union
activities from the Fargo Labor Temple.
In this regard, it is represented that
there is no space in the Fargo Labor
Temple to accommodate apprenticeship
and journeyman training.
In order to provide a training facility
in Fargo, contributing employers in that
area agreed, beginning June 1, 1997, to
increase contributions to the Plan by
four cents (4¢) per hour. This funding
has been segregated into a separate Plan
account (the Fargo Account). It is
represented that the contributing
employers and Local 1426 intend to
continue contributions to the Fargo
Account at four cents (4¢) per hour for
the duration of the transaction that is
the subject of this proposed exemption.
This source of funding is expected to
generate approximately $20,000 per
year. The decision whether to allocate
more than the current four cents (4¢) per
hour rests with the membership of Local
1426. As of June 30, 2004, the assets in
the Fargo Account totaled $271,361. It is
proposed that the current balance and
the cash flow attributable to future
special contributions to the Fargo
Account are to be fully expended by the
Plan to purchase or lease and equip a
training facility in Fargo.
5. In March 2003, the Dakotas NECA
purchased a building at 2901 First
Avenue North, Fargo, North Dakota (the
Building). The Dakotas NECA acquired
the Building when it was required to
relocate because its lease had expired. It
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:14 Aug 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
is represented that the Dakotas NECA
occupies Suite 1 of the Building that
constitutes approximately 4,940 square
feet in size.
It is represented that the Premises,
located in Suite 2 of the Building, also
constituting approximately 4,940 square
feet, is suitable for a training facility. At
its expense, the Dakotas NECA
improved the space in order to meet the
needs of the Plan. In this regard, the
Premises contain three classrooms, one
computer lab, hands-on training areas, a
welding training area, and storage space.
It is represented that the Plan purchased
the necessary equipment and furniture
for the Premises using money from the
Fargo Account.
Dakotas NECA proposes to lease the
Premises to the Plan. In this regard, it
is represented that the Plan has
occupied the Premises, at no expense to
the Plan, since November 1, 2003. The
Dakotas NECA has agreed to waive
receipt of payment of any rent, taxes,
operating expenses, or other costs or
expenses as the result of the Plan’s
occupancy of the Premises from the date
of such occupancy to the date the final
exemption is published in the Federal
Register.
Notwithstanding the Plan’s
occupancy of the Premises since
November 2003, the applicant maintains
that retroactive relief is not necessary
and has not been requested. In the
opinion of the applicant, the term of the
Lease of the Premises has not begun and
will not begin to run until after the
proposed exemption is granted. In this
regard, it is represented that the date of
the Lease will reflect a date no earlier
than the date of the publication of the
final exemption in the Federal Register.
Accordingly, the applicant seeks only a
prospective exemption to permit the
Plan to enter into the Lease of the
Premises with Dakotas NECA.9
The applicant represents that relief
provided by PTCE 78–6 is analogous to
the type of lease transaction for which
the Plan seeks an exemption.
Furthermore, the applicant states that
the proposed transaction satisfies the
conditions specified in PTCE 78–6.
However, as the relief provided by PTCE
78–6 from sections 406(a)(1)(A), (C) of
the Act does not extend to an
association of contributing employers,
such as the Dakotas NECA, the
applicant has requested an
administrative exemption from section
406(a) of the Act.
9 The Department is not providing any retroactive
relief, herein, with respect to any violations of
section 406 of the Act that may have arisen in
connection with the Plan’s occupancy of the
Premises since November 2003.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Trustees representing the
contributing employers and the Trustee
representing Local 1426 have abstained
from deliberations and have not voted
on the subject transaction in order to
avoid actual and colorable conflicts of
interest. Nevertheless in order to make
certain that all necessary relief is
granted, the applicant has also
requested an exemption from the selfdealing and conflict of interest
provisions, as set forth in section
406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act.
6. The proposed term of the Lease of
the Premises is five (5) years,
commencing no sooner than the date of
the publication in the Federal Register
of the final exemption for the subject
transaction. The proposed net rental
amount is $7.85 per square foot of
rentable area, plus the Plan’s
proportionate share of the cost of taxes,
maintenance, and insurance on the
Premises. The Plan is expected to lease
4,940 square feet of space in the
Building. Upon expiration of the initial
five (5) year term of the Lease, the Plan
may exercise a series of one (1) year
options to continue occupying the
Premises, provided that: (a) the Plan
gives the Dakotas NECA not less than
two (2) months’ prior written notice
exercising its option to extend the term
of the Lease; and (b) the Plan is not in
default of the Lease at the time it
exercises its option to extend. It is
represented that the base rent during the
extended term shall be the lesser of: (a)
$2,600 per year or the arrangement in
effect for the Plan’s facilities in other
areas, or (b) the fair market rental of the
Premises. It is represented that with the
exception of the Plan’s option to renew
the Lease, the terms of the proposed
Lease are typical of a standard
commercial lease.
7. The applicant maintains that the
proposed exemption is administratively
feasible, because the Plan will maintain
records for review by the Department
and others to insure that the conditions
of the exemption are satisfied. Further,
it is represented that all the terms of the
proposed transaction are known and
have been disclosed in the application.
Further, the applicant maintains that the
proposed exemption is administratively
feasible in that the Dakotas NECA, the
contributing employers, and the Locals
all share the same interest in a skilled
and satisfied workforce.
8. The applicant maintains that the
proposed transaction is in the interest of
the Plan, as the rent under the proposed
Lease of the Premises is more affordable
to the Plan than an arm’s length market
rate transaction would be. In this regard,
the Plan has obtained opinions of the
fair market rental value of the Premises
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 155 / Friday, August 12, 2005 / Notices
from the following four (4) appraisers all
of which are familiar with the real estate
market in Fargo:
(a) Chuck Helmstetter, a real estate
broker with Property Resources Group,
opined that, as of October 16, 2003,
rentable space in the Fargo area similar
to the Premises would lease at a rental
rate of from $11.50 to $14.00 per square
foot annually with the tenant paying a
prorated share of operating costs;
(b) Arnie Kuhn, CRB, CRS, ABR, a
licensed real estate broker and President
of Rust-National, Inc. d.b.a. Arnie &
Mary Realtors, as of October 16, 2003,
estimated that the fair market rental
value in Fargo for space similar to the
Premises would range from $12 to $14
per square foot on a triple net basis;
(c) Scott M. Mandy, MAI, of Appraisal
Services, Inc., as of May 11, 2004, using
five comparable rental properties in
Fargo, estimated the gross rent for the
Premises to be from $12.50 to $13.00 per
square foot; and
(d) Nathan J. Brooberg, John G.
Flaherty, MAI, and Robert J. Strachota
(Mr. Strachota), MAI, CRE, MCBA,
FIBA, and President of the Shenehon
Company, prepared a market rental
analysis which indicated that, as of
October 13, 2004, the fair market net
rent of the Premises was within a range
of from $11.50 to $12.50 per square foot
on a gross rental basis for a new lease
in which the tenant pays all the
operating expenses and taxes. Based on
these estimates of the range of rental
values for the Premises, it is the
applicant’s position that the net rent
under the terms of the proposed Lease
of $7.85 per square foot is at a minimum
$3.65 to as much as $6.15 below the
market rate in the Fargo area.
Accordingly, the applicant maintains
that if the exemption were denied the
Plan would have to pay higher rent for
equivalent space elsewhere.
Further, the applicant maintains that
the proposed Lease is in the interest of
the Plan in that at the conclusion of the
initial five (5) year term, the Plan at its
option may extend its lease of the
Premises on a basis which is both
financially favorable and consistent
with the lesser of: (a) $2,600 per year or
the arrangement in effect for the Plan’s
facilities in other areas; or (b) the fair
market value of the Premises.
It is also represented that the subject
transaction is in the interest of the Plan
and its participants in that under the
proposed Lease, the Plan enjoys a
dedicated training facility tailored to
meet the needs of providing appropriate
apprenticeship training in Fargo now
and in the future.
9. It is represented that the Plan has
sufficient cash to pay for the rent on the
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:14 Aug 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
Premises under the terms of the
proposed Lease. In this regard, the
entire corpus of the assets of the Plan
($564,407, as of June 30, 2004) is
available to cover the Plans’ expenses.
The annual projected rental amount
under the Lease is $38,779. Based on the
Plan’s most recent financial statements,
dated June 30, 2004, this annual
projected rental amount represents 6.8
percent (6.8%) of the Plan’s assets. It is
estimated that the Plan’s total annual
outlay on the Premises, which includes
rent and the Plan’s proportionate share
of the cost of taxes, maintenance, and
insurance is $50,870 or 9 percent of the
Plan’s assets.
In addition, the Plan has assets in the
Fargo Account dedicated to the
purchase or leasing and equipping of a
training facility in Fargo. It is
represented that over the initial five (5)
year term of the Lease, the total amount
of rent payable by the Plan will be
$193,895. It is represented the total
expenses, including rent, and the Plan’s
proportionate share of the cost of taxes,
maintenance, and insurance will be
$256,820. It is represented that the total
amount payable by the Plan either has
been or will be accumulated in the
Fargo Account over the five (5) year
term of the Lease. In this regard, the
sum of the contributions to the Fargo
Account, as of June 30, 2004, ($271,361)
plus the projected future contributions
to such account of $20,000 per year
until May 2008, ($80,000) totals
approximately $351,361 which exceeds
the rent, plus the proportionate share of
the cost of taxes, maintenance, and
insurance payable by the Plan
($256,820) over the initial five (5) year
term by $94,541.
10. The proposed exemption contains
conditions that are designed to ensure
the presence of adequate safeguards to
protect the interests of the Plan
regarding the subject transaction. In this
regard, Mr. Strachota, who assisted in
the preparation of the appraisal
prepared by the Shenehon Company, as
discussed in paragraph 8(d) above, has
been retained to act as the I/F with
respect to the decision whether the
proposed Lease is an appropriate and
prudent transaction for the Plan.
It is represented that the engagement
of Mr. Strachota as the I/F also
addressed the issue of the effectiveness
of the abstention by the employer
Trustees under section 302(c)(5) of the
Taft Hartley Act.
Mr. Strachota has agreed on behalf of
the Plan to prepare a market rental
analysis of the Building. In addition,
Mr. Strachota has consented to act as an
I/F on behalf of the Plan. In this regard,
in a letter dated February 15, 2005, Mr.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47255
Strachota represents that he
understands that he is acting as a
fiduciary to the Plan, as that term is
defined in section 3(21) of the Act.
It is represented that Mr. Strachota is
qualified to act as the I/F in that he is
an expert in the field of real estate
valuation and real estate acquisition and
leasing. In this regard, Mr. Strachota is
the President of Shenehon Company, a
real estate and business valuation firm
established in 1929, and located in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mr. Strachota
is a graduate of the University of St.
Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota and
holds a master of business
administration from the University of
Minnesota where he also has teaching
experience. Among many professional
associations and societies, Mr. Starchota
is a Fellow of the Institute of Business
Appraisers, holds a designation of
Counselor of Real Estate (CRE) from the
American Society of Real Estate
Counselors, and is a member of the
Appraisal Institute (MAI) certified
through December 31, 2007. Mr.
Strachota’s professional duties include
the preparation of valuations and
market analyses of real estate, business
enterprises, and intangible property
rights, among many other assignments.
Mr. Strachota represents that he has
no personal interest or bias with respect
to the subject matter of his rental
analysis or to the parties involved. It is
represented that Dakotas NECA is
responsible for paying Mr. Strachota’s
fee. Mr. Strachota represents that the
market rental analysis he prepared of
the Building conforms to accepted
professional, ethical, and performance
standards of real estate appraisal
practice.
In a letter dated May 20, 2005, the
parameters of the scope of the I/F’s
assignment included the following
elements: (a) Mr. Strachota must
determine that the transaction is feasible
and in the best interests of and
protective of the interests of the Plan
and its participants and beneficiaries;
(b) before the Plan enters into the
proposed Lease, Mr. Strachota must
review the transaction, negotiate the
terms of the transaction to ensure that
such terms are at least as favorable to
the Plan as an arm’s length transaction
with an unrelated party, and determine
whether or not to approve the
transaction, in accordance with the
fiduciary provisions of the Act; (c) Mr.
Strachota must monitor compliance
with the terms of the exemption and the
Lease and ensure that such terms are at
all times satisfied; and (d) Mr. Strachota
is responsible for taking any and all
steps necessary to insure that the Plan
is at all times protected, including but
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
47256
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 155 / Friday, August 12, 2005 / Notices
not limited to providing notice of the
Plan’s intention to extend or terminate
the Lease and negotiating any such
extension at the conclusion of the initial
five (5) year term of the Lease.
Based on the Trustees prior
determinations that it is necessary,
reasonable, and appropriate that the
Plan have a training facility in Fargo,
that the Premises is suitable in size and
attributes, and that the Plan has the
financial ability to undertake the
proposed Lease, Mr. Strachota concurs
with the Trustees assessment that it is
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate
for the Plan to have a dedicated training
facility in Fargo and that the Plan is
financially capable of entering into the
Lease.
Based on the market analysis
prepared by the Shenehon Company, as
discussed in paragraph 8(d), above, Mr.
Strachota has concluded that the
proposed net rent per square foot under
the terms of the Lease is below the
current fair market net rent for the
Premises. Further, Mr. Strachota points
out that fair market net rents may be
expected to increase over time, so that
the net rent under the Lease is likely to
become even more favorable. Mr.
Strachota finds that the non-financial
terms of the Lease are unremarkable and
typical of a commercial lease of space
and are at least as favorable to the Plan
as would be found in an arm’s length
transaction with an unrelated party.
Based on all of the above analysis, Mr.
Strachota concludes that the proposed
transaction is feasible and in the best
interest of and protective of the Plan
and its participants and beneficiaries.
Finally, Mr. Strachota directs that the
transaction proceed, conditional upon
the issuance of a final exemption by the
Department.
11. In summary, the applicant
represents that the proposed transaction
satisfies the statutory criteria for an
exemption under section 408(a) of the
Act because:
(a) Mr. Strachota, acting as the I/F on
behalf of the Plan, will determine prior
to entering the transaction(s) whether
the transaction is feasible, in the interest
of, and protective of the Plan and the
participants and beneficiaries of the
Plan;
(b) Mr. Strachota will review,
negotiate, and approve the terms of the
transaction prior to entering into the
Lease of the Premises and will
determine whether or not to accept the
transaction for the Plan in accordance
with the fiduciary provisions of the Act;
(c) Mr. Strachota will monitor
compliance with the terms and
conditions of this exemption, as
described herein, and will ensure that
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:14 Aug 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
such terms and conditions are at all
times satisfied;
(d) Throughout the duration of the
Lease of the Premises, Mr. Strachota
will monitor compliance with the terms
of the Lease of the Premises and will
take any and all steps necessary to
ensure that the Plan is protected,
including but not limited to notifying
Dakotas NECA of the Plan’s intention to
extend the Lease of the Premises at the
conclusion of the initial five (5) year
term of the Lease;
(e) The rent paid by the Plan for the
Premises under the terms of the Lease
and under the terms of any subsequent
extension of the Lease at no time will be
greater than the fair market rental value
of the Premises, as determined by an
independent, qualified appraiser
retained by the Trustees;
(f) The Plan will not pay any rent for
the Premises, any remodeling or
maintenance costs, any taxes, insurance,
operating expenses or other costs,
expenses, or charges for the Premises for
the period from the date of the Plan’s
first occupancy of the Premises to the
date the final exemption is published in
the Federal Register;
(g) Under the provisions of the Lease,
the transaction will be on terms and at
all times will remain on terms that are
at least as favorable to the Plan as those
that would have been negotiated under
similar circumstances at arm’s length
with an unrelated third party;
(h) The transaction is appropriate and
helpful in carrying out the purposes for
which the Plan is established or
maintained; and
(i) The Trustees will maintain, or
cause to be maintained within the
United States for a period of six (6)
years in a manner that is convenient and
accessible for audit and examination,
such records as are necessary to
determine whether the conditions of
this exemption have been met.
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
(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 9th day of
August, 2005.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 05–16045 Filed 8–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,115, TA–W–57,115A]
Basf Corporation, Coatings Division,
Southfield, MI, Including an Employee
of Basf Corporation, Coatings Division,
Southfield, MI, Located in Morganton,
NC; Amended Notice of Certification
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the
Department of Labor issued a
Certification Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM
12AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47246-47256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16045]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security Administration
[Application No. D-11231, et al.]
Proposed Exemptions; Wachovia Corporation (Wachovia)
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.
Wachovia Corporation (Wachovia), Located in Charlotte, NC
[Application No. D-11231]
Based on the facts and representations set forth in the
application, the Department is considering granting an exemption under
the authority of section 408(a) of the Act (or ERISA) 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, August 10, 1990).
Proposed Exemption
Section I. Covered Transactions
If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections
406(a) and 406(b) 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 (E) of the Code,\1\ shall not apply, effective
January 2, 2002, to (1) the in kind transfer by the Wachovia Retirement
Savings Plan (the
[[Page 47247]]
Plan) of its shares in the Wachovia Equity Index Fund (the Index Fund),
a mutual fund in which Evergreen Investment Management Company, LLC
(Evergreen), a wholly owned subsidiary of Wachovia, the Plan sponsor,
serves as the investment adviser, to the Wachovia Enhanced Stock Market
Fund (the Enhanced Fund), a bank collective investment fund, also
maintained by Wachovia in exchange for Enhanced Fund units; \2\ and (2)
the in kind redemption by the Enhanced Fund of the Index Fund shares
received on behalf of the Plan in return for a pro rata distribution of
cash and transferable securities held by the Index Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to
specific provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise
specified, refer also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.
\2\ The Index Fund and the Enhanced Fund are collectively
referred to herein as the Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section II. Specific Conditions
This proposed exemption is subject to the following conditions:
(a) Mercer Investment Consulting, Inc. (Mercer), a fiduciary, which
was acting on behalf of the Plan, and which was independent of, and
unrelated to, Wachovia and its subsidiaries, as defined in paragraph
(e) of Section IV below, had the opportunity to review the in kind
transfer and in kind redemption transactions, and received, in advance
of such transactions, full written disclosures concerning the Funds,
which included, but were not limited to the following:
(1) A prospectus or its equivalent for each of the Funds;
(2) The management fees, as negotiated under the applicable
investment management agreements, and the costs;
(3) The reasons why the Plan Committee (the Plan Committee)
considered such investment to be appropriate for the Plan; and
(4) Whether there were any limitations applicable to the Plan with
respect to which assets of the Plan could be invested in the Enhanced
Fund and the nature of such limitations.
(b) On the basis of the foregoing information, Mercer recommended,
(1) The in kind transfer of the mutual fund shares that were held
on behalf of the Plan in the Index Fund, in exchange for units in the
Enhanced Fund; and
(2) The in kind redemption by the Enhanced Fund of Index Fund
shares received from the Plan for cash and certain publicly-traded
securities.
(3) The Plan Committee followed Mercer's recommendation by acting
on such advice.
(c) Before recommending the covered transactions, Mercer determined
that:
(1) The terms of the transactions were fair to the participants in
the Plan, and were comparable to, and no less favorable than, the terms
obtainable at arm's length between unaffiliated parties; and
(2) The transactions were in the best interest of the Plan and its
participants and beneficiaries.
(d) The in kind transfer transaction was a one-time transaction for
the Plan and the mutual fund shares transferred were equivalent in
value to the units in the Enhanced Fund.
(e) The in kind redemption transaction was a one-time transaction
and the resulting cash and transferable securities constituted a pro
rata portion of the assets held on behalf of the Plan in the Index Fund
prior to the transaction.
(f) In the case of the exchange by the Plan of Index Fund shares
for Enhanced Fund units, the per unit value of the Enhanced Fund units
that were issued to the Plan in exchange for the Plan's Index Fund
shares had an aggregate value that was equal to the value of the mutual
fund shares transferred to the Enhanced Fund on the date of the
transfer, as determined in a single valuation performed in the same
manner and at the close of business on the same day in accordance with
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 17a-7 (Rule 17a-7) under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act), as amended, (using
sources independent of Wachovia), and the procedures established by the
Enhanced Fund pursuant to Rule 17a-7.
(g) In the in kind redemption transaction, the Enhanced Fund
received a pro rata portion of the cash and transferable securities
held on behalf of the Plan in the Index Fund that was equal in value to
the number of mutual fund shares redeemed for such cash and
transferable securities, as determined in a single valuation performed
in the same manner and at the close of business on the same day in
accordance with Rule 17a-7, (using sources independent of Wachovia),
and the procedures established by the Enhanced Fund pursuant to Rule
17a-7.
(h) For purposes of the covered transactions, the fair market value
of all transferable securities received by the Enhanced Fund in the in
kind redemption transaction was determined by reference to the last
sale price for transactions as reported in the consolidated transaction
reporting system (the Consolidated System), a recognized securities
exchange, or the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated
Quotation System (the NASDAQ System).
(i) Within 90 days after the completion of the transactions, Mercer
received confirmation of the following information:
(1) The number of Index Fund shares exchanged by the Plan and the
number of Enhanced Fund units received by the Plan immediately before
the in kind transfer transaction (and the related per share net asset
value and the total dollar value of the shares held) as reported by the
Funds; and
(2) The identity, the current market price of each transferable
security received by the Enhanced Fund in the in kind redemption, and
the aggregate dollar value of the securities allocated to the Plan in
the Enhanced Fund pursuant to the redemption, and the net asset value
of Enhanced Fund units after the redemption;
(j) Subsequent to the completion of the transactions, Mercer
conducted a post-transaction review in which it verified:
(1) The number and current market price of all Enhanced Fund units
transferred to the Plan in exchange for the Index Fund shares;
(2) The number and current market price of all Index Fund shares
transferred by the Plan to the Enhanced Fund in exchange for Enhanced
Fund units;
(3) The identity of each transferable security, the number of
shares of such security transferred, the closing price on the relevant
national exchange as of the date of the transfer, and the proper
valuation of the securities for the purposes of the transfer;
(4) The aggregate dollar value of the Index Fund shares that were
being held by the Plan immediately before the transfer and the
aggregate dollar value of the Enhanced Fund units held by the Plan
immediately after the transfer were valued at their daily net asset
values in accordance with their normal procedures.
(5) The use, by the Index Fund and the Enhanced Fund of the same
methodology to value the securities transferred by the Index Fund to
the Enhanced Fund in the in kind redemption transaction.
(k) No sales commissions, fees or other costs were paid by the Plan
in connection with the transactions, and no additional management fees
are being charged to the Plan by Wachovia through the Enhanced Fund.
(l) Wachovia did not enter into the transactions unless Mercer
concurred with such transactions.
(m) The Plan's dealings with the Index Fund, the Enhanced Fund and
Wachovia were on a basis that was no less favorable to the Plan than
dealings
[[Page 47248]]
between the Enhanced Fund and other investors.
Section III. General Conditions
This exemption is subject to the following general conditions:
(a) Wachovia maintains, or causes to be maintained, 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 (b) of this
Section III 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 (b) to determine whether the conditions of the exemption have
been met are lost or destroyed, due to circumstances beyond the control
of the plan fiduciary, 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 plan fiduciary responsible
for recordkeeping, 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 (b)
below. (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this Section
III and notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b) of
section 504 of the Act, the records referred to above in paragraph (a)
of this Section III are unconditionally available for examination
during normal business hours at their customary location to the
following persons or an authorized representative thereof:
(i) Any duly authorized employee or representative of the
Department or the Internal Revenue Service;
(ii) Mercer or any other fiduciary of the Plan; or
(iii) Any participant or beneficiary of the Plan or any duly
authorized employee or representative of such participant or
beneficiary.
(2) None of the persons described above in paragraphs (ii) and
(iii) of this paragraph (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this Section III shall
be authorized to examine trade secrets of Wachovia, or any commercial
or financial information, which is privileged or confidential.
Section IV. Definitions
For the purposes of this proposed exemption, (a) The term
``Wachovia'' means Wachovia Corporation and any affiliate of Wachovia
as defined below in Section IV(b).
(b) An ``affiliate'' of a person includes:
(1) Any person directly or indirectly through one or more
intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control
with the person;
(2) Any officer, director, employee, relative, or partner in any
such person; and
(3) Any corporation or partnership of which such person is an
officer, director, partner, or employee.
(c) The term ``control'' means the power to exercise a controlling
influence over the management or policies of a person other than an
individual.
(d) The term ``relative'' means a ``relative,'' as that term is
defined in section 3(15) of the Act, (or a ``member of the family,'' as
that term is defined in section 4975(e)(6) of the Code), or a brother,
a sister, or a spouse of a brother or a sister.
(e) As applied to Mercer, the term ``independent fiduciary'' means
a fiduciary who is (1) independent of and unrelated to Wachovia and its
affiliates, and (2) appointed to act as investment adviser to the Plan
for all purposes related to, but not limited to, (i) the transfer of
Index Fund shares to the Enhanced Fund in exchange for units in the
Enhanced Fund, and (ii) the Enhanced Fund's redemption of the Index
Fund shares received from the Plan for cash and transferable
securities. For purposes of this exemption, a fiduciary will not be
deemed to be independent of and unrelated to Wachovia if (1) such
fiduciary directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by or is under
common control with Wachovia; (2) such fiduciary directly or indirectly
receives any compensation or other consideration in connection with any
transaction described in this exemption, except that Mercer may receive
compensation for acting as an independent fiduciary from Wachovia in
connection with the transactions contemplated herein and in connection
with the provision of ongoing investment advice to the Plan Committee
if the amount of payment of such compensation is not contingent upon or
in any way affected by Mercer's ultimate decision; and (3) the annual
gross revenue received by such fiduciary from Wachovia and its
affiliates during any year of its engagement, exceeds 5 percent (5%) of
Mercer's annual gross revenue from all sources for its prior tax year.
(f) The term ``transferable securities'' means securities (1) for
which market quotations are readily available (as determined under Rule
17a-7) and (2) which are not (i) Securities which, if distributed,
would require registration under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933
(the 1933 Act); (ii) securities issued by entities in countries which
(a) restrict or prohibit the holding of securities by non-nationals
other than through qualified investment vehicles, such as the Index
Fund, or (b) permit transfers of ownership of securities to be effected
only by transactions conducted on a local stock exchange; (iii) certain
portfolio positions (such as forward foreign currency contracts,
futures, and options contracts, swap transactions, certificates of
deposit and repurchase agreements) that, although they may be liquid
and marketable, involve the assumption of contractual obligations,
require special trading facilities or can only be traded with the
counter-party to the transaction to effect a change in beneficial
ownership; (iv) cash equivalents (such as certificates of deposit,
commercial paper and repurchase agreements) which are not readily
distributable; (v) other assets which are not readily distributable
(including receivables and prepaid expenses), net of all liabilities
(including accounts payable); and (vi) securities subject to ``stop
transfer'' instructions or similar contractual restrictions on
transfer. Notwithstanding the above, the term ``transferable
securities'' also includes securities that are considered private
placements intended for large institutional investors, pursuant to Rule
144A under the 1933 Act, which are valued by the unrelated investments
managers for the Funds, or if applicable, by the independent fiduciary,
which will confirm and approve all such valuations.
Effective Date: If granted, this proposed exemption will be
effective as of January 2, 2002.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. Wachovia, headquartered in Charlotte, NC, the predecessor entity
to the current Wachovia, also headquartered in Charlotte, NC, was an
independent bank holding company providing a wide range of commercial
and retail banking and trust services to the public through its
individual banking subsidiaries. On September 1, 2001, First Union
Corporation (First Union) merged with Wachovia. The merger of Wachovia
and First Union was accomplished through a stock exchange whereby each
share of Wachovia common stock outstanding was converted into two
shares of common stock of First Union, with the appropriate number of
stock purchase rights under First Union's shareholder rights plan. In
addition to the two shares of First Union stock, each share of
[[Page 47249]]
Wachovia common stock was exchanged, at the shareholder's option, for
either a one-time cash payment of $0.48; or two of the combined
company's (i.e., Wachovia and First Union) Dividend Equalization Plan
``DEP'' rights, each of which entitled the holder to receive cumulative
quarterly dividends equal to the difference, if any, between $0.30 and
the amount of quarterly dividends paid by the combined company on each
share of common stock.
Wachovia Bank, NA (Wachovia Bank) is a federally chartered bank and
trust company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. It is also Wachovia's
primary subsidiary. Wachovia Bank provides a wide range of commercial
and retail banking and trust services through full-service banking
offices in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Virginia and Washington, DC.
Wachovia, the surviving entity, is the fourth largest bank holding
company in the United States. Wachovia continues to provide the public
with banking and trust services through the merger-created subsidiary,
Wachovia Bank. As of March 31, 2005, Wachovia reported consolidated
assets of $506.8 million.
2. On January 1, 2002, following the merger of Wachovia and First
Union, the First Union Savings Plan (the First Union Plan) and the
Wachovia Retirement Savings and Profit Sharing Plan (the Wachovia
Plan), a predecessor to the current Plan, both tax qualified 401(k)
plans, were merged based on a decision by Wachovia's management. The
merged plan is referred to herein as ``the Plan'' and Wachovia Bank
serves as the Plan's directed trustee. Under the terms of the Plan,
each participant may direct the investments of his or her individual
account balances among various investment options offered under the
Plan.
The Plan is administered by the Wachovia Administrative Committee
(the Plan Committee), which is comprised of nine employees, who are
officers of Wachovia and its affiliates. As of May 4, 2005, the Plan
held total assets of $6.4 billion and had 96,963 participants and
beneficiaries.
3. The Plan Committee is advised by Mercer Investment Consultants,
Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia (Mercer), an investment adviser registered
under the 1940 Act. Mercer provides investment advisory services to tax
deferred compensation plans subject to ERISA with approximately $900
billion in assets as of September 16, 2004. Mercer is not affiliated
with either Wachovia or its predecessors. Mercer regularly advises the
Plan Committee on the performance investment options offered under the
Plan, as well as those formerly offered under the First Union Plan.
4. As a result of the Merger, two S&P 500 Index Funds were held by
the Plan. They were the ``Wachovia Index Equity Fund'' (e.g., the Index
Fund) and the ``First Union Enhanced Stock Market Fund'' (e.g., the
Enhanced Fund). The Index Fund, which was carried over from the former
Wachovia Plan, was an open-end investment management company registered
under the 1940 Act. Shares in the Index Fund were offered publicly to
individual and institutional investors. Evergreen of Boston,
Massachusetts, a wholly owned subsidiary of Wachovia, served as
investment adviser to the Index Fund.
The Index Fund managed its portfolio in a manner intended to
duplicate the performance of the S&P 500 Index. The Index Fund charged
the Wachovia Plan annualized expenses and advisory fees of
approximately 44 basis points with respect to the Class Y shares held
by the Plan. As of December 31, 2001, the Wachovia Plan held
approximately 33% of the outstanding Index Fund Y shares, valued at
$122,058,370. Following the merger, the Index Fund was eliminated
because its management style duplicated the Enhanced Fund, a bank
collective investment fund maintained by First Union and offered as an
investment option under the First Union Plan.
The Enhanced Fund's objective is to provide total rate of return
equal to or exceeding that of the S&P 500 Index. To achieve this
objective, the Enhanced Fund invests primarily in a diversified
portfolio of common stock and S&P 500 futures.
Prior to the merger, the First Union Plan held 54.9% of the
outstanding units in the Enhanced Fund. Immediately following the
merger, the Plan's Enhanced Fund holdings increased to 59.6% of the
outstanding units. Other employee benefit plan investors, unrelated to
Wachovia, own the remaining units in the Enhanced Fund.
The Enhanced Fund does not charge any management fees to the Plan.
The costs associated with providing investment advisory services to the
Enhanced Fund are borne by Wachovia and its affiliates. Unaffiliated
qualified plans holding units in the Enhanced Fund pay Wachovia asset-
based investment advisory fees. However, the Plan does not pay any such
fees.
5. Mercer was initially retained by the First Union Plan to act as
its independent investment adviser. Mercer counseled the fiduciaries of
the First Union Plan with respect to the impending merger of the two
Plans. Subsequent to the corporate merger, the Wachovia Plan Committee
retained Mercer to serve as its investment adviser for the Plan. In
this respect, Mercer acknowledged its fiduciary status with respect to
the Plan. Mercer's fees were to be paid by Wachovia.
Mercer and the Plan Committee determined that two S&P 500 Index
Funds would be inconsistent with the Plan's design and would present
communication problems. Mercer compared the performance of both Funds,
the fees charged thereunder, considered the potential confusion to Plan
participants arising from the offering of two similar Funds, and the
desire to streamline Plan administration. During the fall of 2001,
Mercer then recommended, and the Plan Committee accepted, the
elimination of the Index Fund through a ``mapping transaction,'' which
involved two separate transactions.\3\ First, the Plan exchanged its
5,825,619.074 shares of the Index Fund for 1,711,987.3214 units of the
Enhanced Fund, which represented equivalent fair market value. Once the
Index Fund shares entered the asset base of the Enhanced Fund, the
Enhanced Fund immediately redeemed the Index Fund shares in kind for
the underlying transferable securities and cash consideration totaling
$5,881,028. The transactions were conducted contemporaneously at the
closing prices of the applicable securities on January 2, 2002. As
noted above, the transactions resulted in the receipt, by the Enhanced
Fund, of approximately 33% of each securities position held on behalf
of the Plan by the Index Fund. The Enhanced Fund has held these
transferable securities for investment, subject to normal trading and
portfolio turnover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ It is represented that the two-step ``mapping transaction''
minimized the transaction costs that would have been incurred by the
Plan otherwise and the adverse tax consequences to other Index Fund
shareholders. Specifically, if the Index Fund had redeemed the
Plan's shares in cash, it would have been forced to liquidate large
amounts of its holdings and incurred significant transaction costs,
such as brokerage and other administrative costs, which could have
been borne proportionately by the Plan. In addition, the Index Fund
reserved the right to pay the Plan in kind upon the redemption of
its shares. If the Index Fund had exercised this right, the Plan
would have been required to receive and manage a securities
portfolio which it was not equipped to manage (as a self-directed
plan), which costs were avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. At the time of entering into the transactions, Wachovia and
Mercer had no reason to believe that a prohibited transaction would
occur. Rather, Wachovia believed that the Act's prohibited transaction
provisions were not violated because the Index Fund shares were
exchanged for Enhanced
[[Page 47250]]
Fund units at fair market value. However, upon review of the foregoing
transactions by Wachovia's counsel, it was determined that Prohibited
Transaction Class Exemption (PTCE) 77-3 (42 FR 18734, April 8, 1977),
might not apply to the transactions nor could Wachovia avail itself of
the statutory exemptive relief provided under section 408(b)(8) of the
Act.\4\ Wachovia explains that because it was unclear whether PTCE 77-3
and section 408(b)(8) apply to (a) a noncash disposition of mutual fund
shares and (b) an acquisition of common trust fund units for noncash
consideration, counsel for Wachovia advised it to seek retroactive
exemptive relief from the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In relevant, PTCE 77-3 permits the acquisition or sale of
shares of a registered, open-end investment company by an employee
benefit plan covering only employees of such investment company,
employees of the investment adviser or principal underwriter for
such investment company, or employees of any affiliated person (as
defined therein) of such investment adviser or principal
underwriter, provided certain conditions are met.
Section 408(b)(8) of the Act provides statutory exemptive
relief, in pertinent part, for any transaction between a plan and a
common or collective trust fund maintained by a party in interest
which is a bank or trust company supervised by a state or federal
agency, if the following conditions are met: (a) The transaction is
a sale or purchase of an interest in the fund, (b) the bank or trust
company receives not more than reasonable compensation, and (c) such
transaction is expressly permitted by the instrument under which the
plan is maintained, or by a fiduciary (other than the bank or trust
company or an affiliate) who has authority to manage and control the
assets of the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, Wachovia requests an administrative exemption from the
Department with respect to (a) the in kind transfer by the Plan of its
shares in the Index Fund in exchange for units in the Enhanced Fund;
and (b) the in kind redemption, by the Enhanced Fund, of the Index Fund
shares received on behalf of the Plan in return for a pro rata
distribution of cash and transferable securities held by the Index
Fund. If granted, the exemption will be effective as of January 2,
2002.
7. In advance of the decision to eliminate the Plan's Index Fund
holdings, Mercer received full written disclosures concerning the Funds
from Wachovia. Such disclosures included: (a) a prospectus or its
equivalent for each of the Funds; (b) the management fees, as
negotiated under the applicable investment management agreements, and
the costs; (c) the reasons why the Plan Committee considered such
investment to be appropriate for the Plan; and (d) whether there were
any limitations applicable to the Plan with respect to which assets of
the Plan could be invested in the Enhanced Fund and the nature of such
limitations. As noted above, on January 2, 2002, acting on Mercer's
advice, the Plan Committee caused the Plan to enter into the
recommended transactions.
8. Mercer also evaluated the transactions in terms of their
fairness to the Plan and to the Plan participants and the arm's length
nature of such transactions. The three key areas that Mercer evaluated
included: (a) a performance comparison of the two Funds; (b) an
analysis of the expense ratios of each Fund; and (c) the specific
details of the transactions. These evaluations are further described
below.
(a) Performance. As of December 31, 2001, Mercer explains that both
Funds had performances similar to the S&P 500 Index. However, the
Enhanced Fund tracked the return of the Index more closely than that of
the Index Fund for one, three, and five year periods ending December
31, 2001. Mercer illustrates these findings in the following table:
Performance After Fees for Periods Ending December 31, 2001
[In percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 year 3 years 5 years 7 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhanced Fund................................... -10.9 -1.1 10.8 16.0
Index Fund...................................... -12.2 -1.5 10.2 N/A
S&P 500......................................... -11.9 -1.0 10.7 15.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Expense Ratio. Mercer states that the Index Fund's expense
ratio for December 31, 2001 was 0.41%. However, Mercer explains that a
participant's account in the Enhanced Fund would not incur a fee
because fees in this Fund are billed internally and are absorbed by the
human resource department. Additionally (and as noted above), Wachovia
Bank does not charge asset-based management or other fees to the Plan.
(c) Transaction Details. Mercer states that prior to the
transactions, it reviewed the proposed structure and determined that
the transactions would be fair to the Plan and no less favorable to the
Plan than an arm's length transactions between unrelated parties.
9. The in kind transfer of the Index Fund shares by the Enhanced
Fund was a one-time transaction. The per unit value of the Enhanced
Fund units that were issued to the Plan in exchange for the Plan's
Index Fund shares had an aggregate value that was equal to the value of
the mutual fund shares transferred to the Enhanced Fund on the date of
the transfer, as determined in a single valuation performed in the same
manner and at the close of business on the same day in accordance with
Rule 17a-7 (using sources independent of Wachovia), and the procedures
established by the Enhanced Fund pursuant to Rule 17a-7.
10. The in kind redemption of the Index Fund shares by the Enhanced
Fund for the underlying transferable securities and cash, was a one-
time transaction. In the redemption transaction, the Enhanced Fund
received a pro rata portion of the cash and transferable securities
held on behalf of the Plan in the Index Fund that was equal in value to
the number of mutual fund shares redeemed for such cash and
transferable securities, as determined in a single valuation performed
in the same manner and at the close of business on the same day in
accordance with Rule 17a-7, (using sources independent of Wachovia),
and the procedures established by the Enhanced Fund pursuant to Rule
17a-7. Furthermore, the fair market value of all transferable
securities received by the Enhanced Fund in the in kind redemption
transaction was determined by reference to the last sale price for
transactions as reported in the Consolidated System, a recognized
securities exchange, or the NASDAQ System.
11. Within 90 days following the completion of the transactions,
Mercer received confirmation of the following information from
Wachovia: (a) The number of Index Fund shares exchanged by the Plan and
the number of Enhanced Fund units received by the Plan immediately
before the in kind
[[Page 47251]]
transfer transaction (and the related per share net asset value and the
total dollar value of the shares held) as reported by the Funds; and
(b) the identity and current market price of each security received by
the Enhanced Fund in the in kind redemption, the aggregate dollar value
of the securities allocated to the Plan in the Enhanced Fund pursuant
to such redemption and the net asset value of Enhanced Fund units after
the redemption. Mercer represents that compliance with the above SEC
rules precluded the exercise of discretion and required that the
transactions between affiliated funds be conducted at arm's length.
12. Additionally, Mercer states that it reviewed the results of the
transactions with the Plan Committee.\5\ The review was made to ensure
that the transactions had been executed as planned, that none of the
parties had exercised discretion and/or deviated from the plan, and
that in all respects the transactions were carried out as planned.
Among the items reviewed by Mercer with the Plan Committee were the
following: (a) The number and current market price of all Enhanced Fund
units transferred to the Plan in exchange for the Index Fund shares;
(b) the number and current market price of all Index Fund shares
transferred by the Plan to the Enhanced Fund in exchange for Enhanced
Fund units; (c) the identity of each security, the number of shares of
such security transferred, the closing price on the relevant national
exchange as of the date of the transfer, and the proper valuation of
the securities for the purposes of the transfer; and (d) the aggregate
dollar value of the Index Fund shares that were held by the Plan
immediately before the transfer and the aggregate dollar value of the
Enhanced Fund units held by the Plan immediately after the transfer
were valued at their daily net asset values in accordance with their
normal procedures. In addition, Mercer confirmed that the Index Fund
and the Enhanced Fund used the same methodology to value the securities
received by the Enhanced Fund in the in kind redemption. Specifically,
Mercer determined that all securities were valued at their closing
prices on the relevant national exchange as of January 2, 2002, the
date the transactions were consummated, and all Fund shares and units
were valued at their daily net asset values in accordance with Rule
17a-7. Based upon the foregoing, Mercer concluded that the value of the
Enhanced Fund units received by the Plan in the exchange was equal to
the net asset value of the Index Fund shares given by the Plan.
Moreover, Mercer noted that the participants' accounts reflected
equivalent value before and after the transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Mercer notes that in its review, it found a discrepancy of
$11,650.66 between the valuation of the Index Fund shares and the
Enhanced Fund units. Mercer explains that this discrepancy was
determined to be immaterial as the discrepancy represented less than
one tenth of one basis point of the total value of the investment.
Moreover, Mercer determined that no Plan participant had been
adversely affected by the $11,650.66 discrepancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercer represents that the transactions involved 3% of the Plan's
aggregate assets, and that the transactions resulted in the receipt by
the Enhanced Fund of approximately 33% of each securities position held
by the Index Fund. As noted above, subsequent to the in kind
redemption, the Enhanced Fund has held these securities for investment,
subject to normal trading and portfolio turnover.
13. Wachovia represents that had the Plan carried out an in kind
exchange it would have been required to establish a separate account,
engage an investment manager, and establish a daily valuation system in
order to integrate the assets received through the in kind redemption
into the Plan's self-directed design. This result would have meant
significant start-up and ongoing administrative fees for the Plan. In
the case of a cash redemption, which would have required the consent
from the Index Fund manager, Wachovia explains that the Plan would have
borne its ratable share of the transaction costs associated with
liquidating the Index Fund investments to cover the Plan's cash
redemption. The Plan would also have borne its ratable share of the
transaction costs associated with the purchase by the Enhanced Fund of
securities with the cash transferred to it by the Plan in exchange for
the purchase of Enhanced Fund units.
14. In summary, it is represented that the transactions have
satisfied (or will satisfy) the statutory criteria for an exemption
under section 408(a) of the Act because:
(a) Mercer had the opportunity to review in advance the in kind
transfer of the mutual fund shares that were held on behalf of the Plan
in the Index Fund, in exchange for units in the Enhanced Fund, after it
had received full written disclosures concerning the Funds.
(b) On the basis of the disclosures, Mercer recommended both the in
kind transfer transaction and the in kind redemption transaction, and
the Plan Committee followed Mercer's recommendation by acting on such
advice.
(c) Before recommending the transactions, Mercer determined that
(1) the terms of the transactions were fair to the participants in the
Plan, and were comparable to, and no less favorable than, the terms
obtainable at arm's length between unaffiliated parties; and (2) the
transactions were in the best interest of the Plan and its participants
and beneficiaries.
(d) The in kind transfer transaction was a one-time transaction for
the Plan and the mutual fund shares transferred were equivalent in
value to the units in the Enhanced Fund.
(e) The in kind redemption of the Index Fund shares by the Enhanced
Fund was a one-time transaction and the resulting cash and transferable
securities constituted a pro rata portion of the assets held on behalf
of the Plan in the Index Fund prior to the transaction.
(f) In the case of the exchange by the Plan of Index Fund shares
for Enhanced Fund units, the per unit value of the Enhanced Fund units
that were issued to the Plan in exchange for the Plan's Index Fund
shares had an aggregate value that was equal to the value of the mutual
fund shares transferred to the Enhanced Fund on the date of the
transfer, as determined in a single valuation performed in the same
manner and at the close of business on the same day in accordance with
Rule 17a-7 (using sources independent of Wachovia), and the procedures
established by the Enhanced Fund pursuant to Rule 17a-7.
(g) In the in kind redemption transaction, the Enhanced Fund
received a pro rata portion of the cash and transferable securities
held on behalf of the Plan in the Index Fund that was equal in value to
the number of mutual fund shares redeemed for such cash and
transferable securities, as determined in a single valuation performed
in the same manner and at the close of business on the same day in
accordance with Rule 17a-7, (using sources independent of Wachovia),
and the procedures established by the Enhanced Fund pursuant to Rule
17a-7.
(h) For purposes of the covered transactions, the fair market value
of all transferable securities received by the Enhanced Fund in the in
kind redemption transaction was determined by reference to the last
sale price for transactions as reported in the Consolidated System or
the NASDAQ System.
(i) Within 90 days after the completion of the transactions, Mercer
received confirmation of the following information: The number of Index
Fund
[[Page 47252]]
shares exchanged by the Plan and the number of Enhanced Fund units
received by the Plan immediately before the in kind transfer
transaction (and the related per share net asset value and the total
dollar value of the shares held) as reported by the Funds; (2) the
identity, the current market price of each security received by the
Enhanced Fund in the in kind redemption, and the aggregate dollar value
of the transferable securities allocated to the Plan in the Enhanced
Fund pursuant to the redemption, and the net asset value of Enhanced
Fund units after the redemption;
(j) Subsequent to the completion of the transactions, Mercer
conducted a post-transaction review in which it verified: (1) The
number and current market price of all Enhanced Fund units transferred
to the Plan in exchange for the Index Fund shares; (2) the number and
current market price of all Index Fund shares transferred by the Plan
to the Enhanced Fund in exchange for Enhanced Fund units; (3) the
identity of each transferable security, the number of shares of such
security transferred, the closing price on the relevant national
exchange as of the date of the transfer, and the proper valuation of
the securities for the purposes of the transfer; (4) the aggregate
dollar value of the Index Fund shares that were being held by the Plan
immediately before the transfer and the aggregate dollar value of the
Enhanced Fund units held by the Plan immediately after the transfer
were valued at their daily net asset values in accordance with their
normal procedures; and (5) the use, by the Index Fund and the Enhanced
Fund, of the same methodology to value the securities transferred by
the Index Fund to the Enhanced Fund in the in kind redemption.
(k) No sales commissions, fees or other costs were paid by the Plan
in connection with the transactions, and no additional management fees
are being charged to the Plan by Wachovia through the Enhanced Fund.
(l) Wachovia did not enter into the transactions unless Mercer
concurred with such transactions.
(m) The Plan's dealings with the Index Fund, the Enhanced Fund and
Wachovia were on a basis that was no less favorable to the Plan than
dealings between the Enhanced Fund and other investors.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of proposed exemption will be provided to all interested
persons by first class mail within 45 days of publication of the notice
of pendency in the Federal Register. Such notice shall include a copy
of the notice of pendency, as published in the Federal Register, and
supplemental statement, as required pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2),
which shall inform interested persons of their right to comment on the
proposed exemption. Comments are due within 75 days of the date of
publication of the proposed exemption in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Silvia M. Quezada of the
Department, telephone (202) 693-8553. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Dakotas and Western Minnesota Electrical Workers Apprenticeship Plan
(the Plan), Located in Fargo, ND
[Exemption Application No: L-11316]
Proposed Exemption
The Department of Labor is considering granting an exemption under
the authority of section 408(a) of the Act in accordance with
procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836,
32847, August 10, 1990). If the proposed exemption is granted, the
restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) through (D), 406(b)(1), and
406(b)(2) of the Act shall not apply to the lease (the Lease) of a
portion of a parcel of improved real property (the Premises) by the
Plan from the Dakotas Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors
Association (the Dakotas NECA), a party in interest with respect to the
Plan; provided that, at the time the transaction is entered into, the
following conditions are satisfied:
(a) An independent, qualified fiduciary (the I/F), acting on behalf
of the Plan, determines prior to entering into the transaction that the
transaction is feasible, in the interest of, and protective of the Plan
and the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan;
(b) Before the Plan enters into the proposed Lease of the Premises,
the I/F reviews the transaction, negotiates the terms of the
transaction to ensure that such terms are at least as favorable to the
Plan as an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party, and
determines whether or not to approve the transaction, in accordance
with the fiduciary provisions of the Act;
(c) The I/F monitors compliance with the terms and conditions of
this exemption, as described herein, and ensures that such terms and
conditions are at all times satisfied;
(d) Throughout the duration of the Lease of the Premises, the I/F
monitors compliance with the terms of the Lease of the Premises and
takes any and all steps necessary to ensure that the Plan is protected,
including, but not limited to, notifying Dakotas NECA of the Plan's
intention to extend the Lease of the Premises at the conclusion of the
initial five (5) year term of the Lease;
(e) The rent paid by the Plan for the Premises under the terms of
the Lease and under the terms of any subsequent extension of the Lease
is at no time greater than the fair market rental value of the
Premises, as determined by an independent, qualified appraiser retained
by the Board of Trustees of the Plan (the Trustees);
(f) The Plan pays no rent for the Premises, any remodeling or
maintenance costs, any taxes, insurance, operating expenses or other
costs, expenses, or charges for the Premises for the period from the
date of the Plan's first occupancy of the Premises to the date the
final exemption is published in the Federal Register. Nothing in this
condition (f) shall preclude the payment by the Plan of rent plus its
proportionate share of the cost of taxes, maintenance, and insurance on
the Premises after the final exemption is published in the Federal
Register and the Lease of the Premises is executed;
(g) Under the provisions of the Lease, the transaction is on terms
and at all times remains on terms that are at least as favorable to the
Plan as those that would have been negotiated under similar
circumstances at arm's length with an unrelated third party;
(h) The transaction is appropriate and helpful in carrying out the
purposes for which the Plan is established or maintained;
(i) The Trustees maintain, or cause to be maintained within the
United States for a period of six (6) years in a manner that is
convenient and accessible for audit and examination, such records as
are necessary to enable the persons described, below, in paragraph
(j)(1) of this exemption to determine whether the conditions of this
exemption have been met; except that--
(1) If the records necessary to enable the persons described,
below, in paragraph (j)(1) of this exemption to determine whether the
conditions of this exemption have been met are lost or destroyed, due
to circumstances beyond the control of the Trustees, 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 Trustees 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
[[Page 47253]]
examination as required by paragraph (i) of this exemption; and
(j)(1) Except as provided, below, in paragraph (j)(2) of this
exemption and notwithstanding any provisions of sections (a)(2) and (b)
of section 504 of the Act, the records referred to in paragraph (i) of
this exemption are unconditionally available at their customary
location for examination during normal business hours by:
(A) Any duly authorized employee or representative of the
Department, the Internal Revenue Service, or any other applicable
federal or state regulatory agency;
(B) Any fiduciary of the Plan, or any duly authorized
representative of such fiduciary;
(C) Any contributing employer to the Plan and any employee
organization whose members are covered by the Plan, or any duly
authorized employee or representative of these entities; or
(D) Any participant or beneficiary of the Plan, or any duly
authorized representative of such participant or beneficiary.
(2) None of the persons described, above, in paragraph (j)(1)(B)-
(D) of this exemption are authorized to examine trade secrets or
commercial or financial information that is privileged or
confidential.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Department notes that the relief proposed herein, is
conditioned upon the adherence by the Trustees to the material facts
and representations set forth in the application file and upon
compliance with the conditions, as set forth in this exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. The Plan is a multi-employer employee welfare benefit plan, as
that term is defined in section (3)(1) of the Act. The Plan is exempt
from federal income taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Code. As of
March 24, 2005, the date the application was filed, there were 850
participants in the Plan. The Plan had assets totaling $564,407, as of
June 30, 2004.
The Plan is maintained under a collective bargaining agreement
between the Dakotas NECA, representing contributing employers, and four
(4) local unions (the Locals) representing employees who are members of
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Specifically, the
Locals and their geographic locations have been identified as: (a)
Local 426 (Sioux Falls, SD); (b) Local 1250 (Rapid City, SD); (c) Local
714 (Bismarck and Minot, ND); and (d) Local 1426 (Fargo and Grand
Forks, ND). As employee organizations any of whose members are covered
by the Plan, the Locals are parties in interest with respect to the
Plan, pursuant to section 3(14)(D) of the Act.
2. Eight (8) individuals serve as Trustees of the Plan. Four (4) of
the Trustees are appointed by contributing employers and either are
employed by or are members of the Board of Directors of the Dakotas
NECA. Four (4) of the Trustees are appointed by members of the Locals.
One such Trustee is a representative of Local 1426.
Under the Agreement and Declaration of Trust, the Trustees may use
Plan assets to lease premises to house the functions of the Plan, to
pay proper and necessary expenses, and to enter into contracts. It is
represented that this is a sufficient conveyance of authority to permit
the Trustees to enter into the proposed transaction, if granted. The
Trustees are parties in interest with respect to the Plan, pursuant to
section 3(14)(A) of the Act, and fiduciaries, as defined in section
3(21) of the Act.
3. The Dakotas NECA is a North Dakota non-profit corporation
founded in 1949. Its membership currently comprises 34 electrical
contractors in North and South Dakota and western Minnesota, who are
signatories to collective bargaining agreements with the Locals. The
Dakotas NECA is a party in interest with respect to the Plan, pursuant
to section 3(14)(C) of the Act, as an employer association.
It is represented that the Dakotas NECA currently provides office
space and other services to the Plan under an arrangement that is
represented to meet the requirements of section 408(b)(2) of the
Act.\7\ In this regard, it is represented that an entry in the Plan's
financial statement relates to an arrangement whereby Dakotas NECA and
the Plan share the cost of office space and administrative services,
including secretarial and bookkeeping services, the services of the
Plan's Director, and ancillary costs for office equipment and supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Department is offering no view, herein, as to whether
the provision of office space and other services rendered to the
Plan by the Dakotas NECA is covered by the statutory exemption
provided in sections 408(b)(2) of the Act and the Department's
regulations, thereunder, pursuant to 29 CFR 2550.408b-2. Further,
the Department is not providing, herein, any relief with respect to
the provision of office space and other services to the Plan by the
Dakotas NECA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The Plan provides benefits in the form of apprenticeship and
other training programs to persons employed as commercial and
residential electricians in the states of North Dakota, South Dakota,
and the western regions of Minnesota. The Plan sponsors a five (5) year
course of study for apprentices entering the electrical trade and other
courses of study that allow journeyman electricians to upgrade their
skills. Generally, apprentices attend classes two (2) nights a week.
There are currently 98 apprentices enrolled in training programs.
It is represented that the geography of the Dakotas includes a
number of small to mid-sized population centers, but no single large
metropolitan area. In order to satisfy its purposes, the Plan has
established training facilities located throughout its jurisdiction. In
this regard, the Locals in Bismarck, Minot, and Grand Forks, North
Dakota and the Locals in Sioux Falls and Rapid City, South Dakota offer
space in their union halls to the Plan for use as training facilities.
It is represented that the Plan pays rent (currently $2,600 per year
per facility) to these Locals to help defray expenses for the use of
the space in these union halls. It is represented that the Locals that
make training space available for the Plan rely on the exemption
provided by and satisfy the requirements of Prohibited Transaction
Class Exemption 78-6 (PTCE 78-6).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ PTCE 78-6 permits, in part, collectively bargained multiple
employer apprenticeship plans to lease real property (other than
office space) from a sponsoring employee organization; provided the
terms of the transaction are at least as favorable to the
apprenticeship plan as an arm's length transaction with an unrelated
party; the transaction is appropriate and helpful in carrying out
the apprenticeship plan's purposes; and the apprenticeship plan
maintains certain records for a period of six (6) years. The
Department is not offering a view, herein, as to whether the relief
provided by PTCE 78-6 covers the leasing of training space between
the Plan and certain Locals. Further, the Department is not
providing, herein, any relief with respect to the leasing of
training space to the Plan by such Locals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is represented that the Fargo area has the largest population
base of all the cities within the geographic coverage of the Plan. A
significant portion of the participant base of the Plan, in particular,
63 out of 98 apprentices reside in or near Fargo. Prior to the
occupancy of the Premises by the Plan in November 2003, apprentices
from Local 1426 in Fargo, received training in space rented from
Northwest Technical College (NTC) in Moorhead, Minnesota. The rent at
NTC was approximately $2,380 per year for approximately fifty (50)
evenings of use. It is represented that the Plan also incurred expenses
of several thousand dollars annually for additional space to conduct
journeyman training and other functions. It is represented that the
space at NTC was too small and was subject to repeated and numerous
scheduling conflicts. The arrangement at NTC permitted no flexibility
in the training schedule. The NTC facility provided no storage and did
not allow the Plan's apprentices to use its training modules or
computers.
[[Page 47254]]
In this regard, instructors had to set up modules or computers for
hands-on training projects during the early part of each class and
dismantled the project by the end of each class to leave the classroom
ready for the students of the NTC.
It is represented that the Plan recognized the inadequacy of the
NTC facility as long ago as 1997. In this regard, the Plan looked at
several buildings to buy and space to lease, but did not find a
suitable affordable facility. Specifically, in the fall of 1999, the
Plan viewed space to lease at the Skills and Technology Center. It is
represented that this building was being renovated, and raw space was
available to lease at a base rent of $4.00 to $5.00 per square foot.
The cost of building out the space would have been in addition to the
rent. Also, taxes, utilities, and maintenance expenses would have been
added to the rent. In late 2000, the Plan considered the purchase of a
building adjacent to the Fargo Labor Temple, but found it unsuitable
because of its size and price.
It is represented that, unlike the other Locals, Local 1426 in
Fargo does not own a union hall and prefers to lease space for a union
hall and union activities from the Fargo Labor Temple. In this regard,
it is represented that there is no space in the Fargo Labor Temple to
accommodate apprenticeship and journeyman training.
In order to provide a training facility in Fargo, contributing
employers in that area agreed, beginning June 1, 1997, to increase
contributions to the Plan by four cents (4[cent]) per hour. This
funding has been segregated into a separate Plan account (the Fargo
Account). It is represented that the contributing employers and Local
1426 intend to continue contributions to the Fargo Account at four
cents (4[cent]) per hour for the duration of the transaction that is
the subject of this proposed exemption. This source of funding is
expected to generate approximately $20,000 per year. The decision
whether to allocate more than the current four cents (4[cent]) per hour
rests with the membership of Local 1426. As of June 30, 2004, the
assets in the Fargo Account totaled $271,361. It is proposed that the
current balance and the cash flow attributable to future special
contributions to the Fargo Account are to be fully expended by the Plan
to purchase or lease and equip a training facility in Fargo.
5. In March 2003, the Dakotas NECA purchased a building at 2901
First Avenue North, Fargo, North Dakota (the Building). The Dakotas
NECA acquired the Building when it was required to relocate because its
lease had expired. It is represented that the Dakotas NECA occupies
Suite 1 of the Building that constitutes approximately 4,940 square
feet in size.
It is represented that the Premises, located in Suite 2 of the
Building, also constituting approximately 4,940 square feet, is
suitable for a training facility. At its expense, the Dakotas NECA
improved the space in order to meet the needs of the Plan. In this
regard, the Premises contain three classrooms, one computer lab, hands-
on training areas, a welding training area, and storage space. It is
represented that the Plan purchased the necessary equipment and
furniture for the Premises using money from the Fargo Account.
Dakotas NECA proposes to lease the Premises to the Plan. In this
regard, it is represented that the Plan has occupied the Premises, at
no expense to the Plan, since November 1, 2003. The Dakotas NECA has
agreed to waive receipt of payment of any rent, taxes, operating
expenses, or other costs or expenses as the result of the Plan's
occupancy of the Premises from the date of such occupancy to the date
the final exemption is published in the Federal Register.
Notwithstanding the Plan's occupancy of the Premises since November
2003, the applicant maintains that retroactive relief is not necessary
and has not been requested. In the opinion of the applicant, the term
of the Lease of the Premises has not begun and will not begin to run
until after the proposed exemption is granted. In this regard, it is
represented that the date of the Lease will reflect a date no earlier
than the date of the publication of the final exemption in the Federal
Register. Accordingly, the applicant seeks only a prospective exemption
to permit the Plan to enter into the Lease of the Premises with Dakotas
NECA.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Department is not providing any retroactive relief,
herein, with respect to any violations of section 406 of the Act
that may have arisen in connection with the Plan's occupancy of the
Premises since November 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The applicant represents that relief provided by PTCE 78-6 is
analogous to the type of lease transaction for which the Plan seeks an
exemption. Furthermore, the applicant states that the proposed
transaction satisfies the conditions specified in PTCE 78-6. However,
as the relief provided by PTCE 78-6 from sections 406(a)(1)(A), (C) of
the Act does not extend to an association of contributing employers,
such as the Dakotas NECA, the applicant has requested an administrative
exemption from section 406(a) of the Act.
The Trustees representing the contributing employers and the
Trustee representing Local 1426 have abstained from deliberations and
have not voted on the subject transaction in order to avoid actual and
colorable conflicts of interest. Nevertheless in order to make certain
that all necessary relief is granted, the applicant has also requested
an exemption from the self-dealing and conflict of interest provisions,
as set forth in section 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act.
6. The proposed term of the Lease of the Premises is five (5)
years, commencing no sooner than the date of the publication in the
Federal Register of the final exemption for the subject