Proposed Exemptions from Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions, 25711-25723 [2011-10999]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
information between the federal and
state partners to enhance the ability of
the program to reflect the joint
commitment to performance excellence
and client-centered services. As part of
UI Performs, a comprehensive
performance management system
implemented in 1995 for the UI
program, the SQSP is the principal
vehicle that state UI agencies use to
plan, record and manage program
improvement efforts as they strive for
excellence in service. The SQSP, which
serves as the State Plan for the UI
program, also serves as the grant
document through which states receive
federal UI administrative funding. The
statutory basis for the SQSP is Title III,
Section 302 of the Social Security Act,
which authorizes the Secretary of Labor
to provide funds to administer the UI
programs, and Sections 303 (a) (8) and
(9) which govern the expenditures of
those funds. The SQSP represents an
approach to tie program performance
with the budget and planning process.
II. Review Focus
The Department of Labor is
particularly interested in comments
which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses.
ETA proposes to extend this
information collection. The
Department’s information collection
authority for SQSP is under Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) number
1205–0132. Currently, the Employment
and Training Administration is
soliciting comments concerning the
extension of and modification to the ET
Handbook No. 336.
States will continue to use the State
Plan Narrative to provide a general
summary of the UI program in the state.
Additionally, states are to include in the
Narrative: (1) Performance in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
comparison to the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
goals; (2) results of customer satisfaction
surveys (optional); and (3) actions
planned to correct deficiencies
regarding UI programs and reporting
requirements. Actions planned to
correct deficiencies for Secretary
Standards, Core Measures, and the Data
Validation (DV) program are expected to
be addressed in corrective action plans.
On April 13, 2011, OMB approved a
non-substantive change to 1205–0132,
requiring that all states include in their
SQSP submissions a corrective action
plan to reduce and recover improper
payments. Comment is encouraged on
this recent change as well as on the
1205–0132 data requirements in general.
The Department will provide each
state workforce agency with its statespecific root causes for its improper
payments, based on BAM survey results.
The SQSP Handbook No. 336 includes
an action plan for each state to
complete. The state action plan will
include the following items:
• Strategies to reduce root causes,
including recovery of these improper
payments;
• Timeline, expected targets and
measures; and
• Type and source of resources
dedicated to accomplish the action plan.
III. Current Actions
Type of Review: extension of current
collection.
Title: Unemployment Insurance State
Quality Service Plan (SQSP).
OMB Number: 1205–0132.
Affected Public: State Workforce
Agencies.
Total Annual Respondents: 53.
Reporting Frequency: 13 annual
reports and 4 quarterly reports per year
per respondent.
Total Annual Responses: 901.
Average Time per Response: 3.37
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 3036 hours.
Total Annual Burden Cost for
Respondents: $0.
Comments submitted in response to
this comment request will be
summarized and/or included in the
request for Office of Management and
Budget approval of the information
collection request; they will also
become a matter of public record.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of
April 2011.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary, Employment and
Training Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–10937 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25711
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
Proposed Exemptions from Certain
Prohibited Transaction Restrictions
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Labor
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Exemptions.
AGENCY:
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 (ERISA or the Act) and/or
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the
Code). This notice includes the
following proposed exemptions: D–
11513, North Trust Corporation; D–
11634, The United Brotherhood of
Carpenters Pension Fund (the Fund); D–
11639, Wolverine Bronze Profit Sharing
Plan and Trust (the Plan); and L–11651
and L–11652, Verizon Communications,
Inc. (Verizon and Cellco Partnership,
doing business as Verizon Wireless
(Verizon Wireless; collectively, the
Applicants) et al.]
DATES: 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.
ADDRESSES: 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.
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–
5700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Attention: Application No.
lll, stated in each Notice of
Proposed Exemption. Interested persons
are also invited to submit comments
and/or hearing requests to EBSA via email 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
25712
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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.
Warning: If you submit written
comments or hearing requests, do not
include any personally-identifiable or
confidential business information that
you do not want to be publiclydisclosed. All comments and hearing
requests are posted on the Internet
exactly as they are received, and they
can be retrieved by most Internet search
engines. The Department will make no
deletions, modifications or redactions to
the comments or hearing requests
received, as they are public records.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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).
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.
Northern Trust Corporation
Located in Chicago, IL
[Application No. D–11513]
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering
granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of ERISA and
section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
accordance with the procedures set
forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55
FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).
Section I. Transactions
If the proposed exemption is granted,
the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A)
and (D) and section 406(b)(1) and (2) of
ERISA and the sanctions resulting from
the application of section 4975 of the
Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A),
(D), and (E) of the Code, shall not apply,
effective October 31, 2008, to the sale
(the Sale) by a Plan (as defined in
Section III(e)) of an Auction Rate
Security (ARS, as defined in Section
III(c)) to Northern Trust Corporation or
an affiliate thereof (Northern), if the
conditions of Section II are met.1
Section II. Conditions
(a) The Plan acquired the ARS in
connection with brokerage or advisory
services provided by Northern to the
Plan;
(b) The last auction for the ARS was
unsuccessful;
(c) The Sale is made pursuant to a
written offer by Northern (the Offer)
containing all of the material terms of
the Sale, in which the Plan would have
the opportunity to sell the ARS but
would be under no obligation to do so,
and would include but is not limited to
the following:
(i) Northern will distribute each Offer
to its eligible customers, marked, or
otherwise prepared in a manner
reasonably designed to prominently
indicate to the recipient the subject
matter, importance, and time-sensitivity
of the information provided;
(ii) Acceptance of an Offer would
cause Northern to purchase the eligible
ARS at the next applicable coupon
interest payment date as described
therein. Purchase dates may vary
depending on when an Offer is accepted
and when the next coupon interest
payment date for such eligible ARS
occurs;
(iii) Acceptance of the Offer could be
withdrawn at any time until three
business days prior to the payment date;
and
(iv) The Offer will comply with ‘‘plain
English’’ standards and will include: A
reference to a Web site containing a
description of the eligibility criteria
used by Northern; a reference to where
the Plan fiduciary can find a list of
eligible ARS held in the account
(including the amount and other
identifying information); the
background of the Offer; the methods
1 For purposes of this proposed exemption,
references to section 406 of ERISA should be read
to refer also to the corresponding provisions of
section 4975 of the Code.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and timing by which eligible customers
may accept the Offer; the manner of
determining the purchase dates for
eligible ARS pursuant to the Offer; the
timing of payment for eligible ARS
purchased pursuant to the Offer; the
methods and timing by which a
customer may elect to withdraw its
acceptance of the Offer; the expiration
date of the Offer; a suggestion that
eligible customers consult their tax
advisors to determine the tax
consequences, if any, of accepting the
Offer and to ensure that accounting and
financial reporting complies with
applicable accounting guidance; and
how to obtain additional information
concerning the Offer;
(d) The Sale is a one-time transaction
for no consideration other than cash
payment against prompt delivery of the
ARS;
(e) The sales price for the ARS is
equal to the par value of the ARS, plus
any accrued but unpaid interest or
dividends as applicable, as of the date
of the Sale;
(f) The Plan does not waive any rights
or claims in connection with the Sale;
(g) The decision to accept the Offer or
retain the ARS is made by an
Independent Fiduciary (as defined in
Section III(d)).2 Notwithstanding the
foregoing, in the case of an individual
retirement account (IRA) which is
beneficially owned by an employee,
officer, director or partner of Northern,
the decision to accept the Offer or retain
the ARS may be made by such
employee, officer, director, or partner;
(h) Neither Northern nor an affiliate
thereof exercises investment discretion
or renders investment advice, within the
meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3–21(c), in
connection with the decision to sell or
retain the ARS;
(i) The Plan does not pay any
commissions or any other transaction
costs with respect to the Sale;
(j) The Sale is not part of an
arrangement, agreement, or
understanding designed to benefit a
party in interest or disqualified person
to the Plan;
2 The Department notes that ERISA’s general
standards of fiduciary conduct would apply to the
transactions described herein. In this regard, section
404 requires, among other things, that a fiduciary
discharge his duties respecting a plan solely in the
interest of the plan’s participants and beneficiaries
and in a prudent manner. Accordingly, a plan
fiduciary must act prudently with respect to, among
other things, the decision to sell the ARS to
Northern for the par value of the ARS. The
Department further emphasizes that it expects plan
fiduciaries, prior to entering into any of the
transactions, to fully understand the risks
associated with this type of transaction, following
disclosure by Northern of all the relevant
information.
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
(k) Northern maintains, or causes to
be maintained, for a period of six (6)
years from the date of the Sale such
records as are necessary to enable the
persons described below in paragraph
(l)(i), to determine whether the
conditions of this proposed exemption,
if granted, have been met, except that—
(i) No party in interest or disqualified
person with respect to a Plan which
engages in a Sale, other than Northern
and its affiliates, as applicable, shall be
subject to a civil penalty under section
502(i) of ERISA or the taxes imposed by
section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code, if
such records are not maintained, or not
available for examination, as required,
below by paragraph (l)(i); and
(ii) A separate prohibited transaction
shall not be considered to have occurred
solely because, due to circumstances
beyond the control of Northern or its
affiliates, as applicable, such records are
lost or destroyed prior to the end of the
six-year period; and
(l)(i) Except as provided below in
paragraph (l)(ii), and notwithstanding
any provisions of subsections (a)(2) and
(b) of section 504 of ERISA, the records
referred to above in paragraph (k) 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 the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission;
or
(B) Any fiduciary of any Plan,
including an IRA owner, that engages in
a Sale, or any duly authorized employee
or representative of such fiduciary; or
(C) Any employer of participants and
beneficiaries and any employee
organization whose members are
covered by a Plan that engages in the
Sale, or any authorized employee or
representative of these entities;
(ii) None of the persons described
above in paragraph (l)(i)(B)–(C) shall be
authorized to examine trade secrets of
Northern, or commercial or financial
information which is privileged or
confidential; and
(iii) Should Northern refuse to
disclose information on the basis that
such information is exempt from
disclosure, Northern shall, by the close
of the thirtieth (30th) day following the
request, provide a written notice
advising that person of the reasons for
the refusal and that the Department may
request such information.
III. Definitions
For purposes of this exemption:
(a) The term ‘‘affiliate’’ of another
person means: (1) Any person directly
or indirectly, through one or more
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
intermediaries, controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with such
person; (2) any officer, director, partner,
employee, or relative (as defined in
section 3(15) of ERISA) of such other
person; and (3) any corporation or
partnership of which such other person
is an officer, director, partner, or
employee;
(b) The term ‘‘control’’ means the
power to exercise a controlling
influence over the management or
policies of a person other than an
individual;
(c) The term ‘‘Auction Rate Security’’
or ‘‘ARS’’ means a debt obligation of a
corporation, business entity,
municipality or other governmental
agency with a nominal long-term
maturity for which the interest rate is
reset through a Dutch Auction typically
held every 7, 14, 28, 35 or 49 days, with
interest paid at the end of each auction
period. The term also means preferred
stock issued by a corporation or other
business entity for which the dividend
is reset and paid through the same
process;
(d) The term ‘‘Independent Fiduciary’’
shall mean the fiduciary of the Plan
making the decision to engage the Plan
in the covered transactions, provided
that such fiduciary may not be Northern
or an affiliate thereof; and
(e) The term ‘‘Plan’’ means an
individual retirement account (an IRA)
or similar account described in section
4975(e)(1)(B) through (F) of the Code; or
an employee benefit plan as defined in
section 3(3) of ERISA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: If granted, this proposed
exemption will be effective as of
October 31, 2008.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. Northern Trust Corporation
(hereinafter, either ‘‘Northern’’ or the
‘‘applicant’’) is a financial holding
company that is a leading provider of
investment management, asset and fund
administration, fiduciary, and banking
solutions for corporations, institutions,
and affluent individuals. Northern
conducts business through various U.S.
and non-U.S. subsidiaries, including
The Northern Trust Company (the
‘‘Bank’’), an Illinois bank headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.
The Bank is a member of the Federal
Reserve System, its deposits are insured
by the FDIC, and it is subject to
regulation by both of those entities, as
well as by the Division of Banking of the
Illinois Department of Financial and
Professional Regulation. Northern’s
national bank subsidiaries are members
of the Federal Reserve System and are
subject to regulation by the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, with
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25713
deposits insured by the FDIC to the
extent provided by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act. Northern Trust Bank,
FSB is a federal savings bank that is not
a member of the Federal Reserve System
and is subject to regulation by the Office
of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC.
Northern also has a number of direct
and indirect subsidiary registered
investment advisers that are subject to
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,
and a subsidiary broker-dealer, Northern
Trust Securities, Inc. (NTSI), an SEC
registered broker-dealer that is subject to
the supervision of various governmental
and self-regulatory bodies.
Northern has a network of 79 offices
in 18 states and has international offices
in 16 locations in North America,
Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. As
of December 31, 2009, Northern had
consolidated total assets of $74.3 trillion
and stockholders’ equity of $6.3 trillion.
The Bank, founded in 1889, conducts its
business through its U.S. operations, its
Toronto, London, and Singapore
branches, and various U.S. and non-U.S.
subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2009,
the Bank had assets under management
of $627.2 billion and assets under
custody of $3.7 trillion.
2. In connection with the liquidity
problems in the Auction Rate Securities
(ARS) market, Northern offered to
purchase certain ARS from certain
client accounts, including certain Plan
(as defined in Section III(e)) accounts.3
The ARS typically trade through Dutch
Auctions.4 While many of these
3 ARS may be issued as either debt or preferred
stock. In the case of debt, they generally have a
long-term nominal maturity and an interest rate that
is reset through a Dutch Auction process. In the
case of preferred stock, they generally have no
maturity and a dividend that is reset through a
Dutch Auction process. A Dutch Auction is a
competitive process used to determine rates on each
auction date. Bids are submitted to the auction
agent by the broker-dealer on behalf of the investors
interested in selling their securities. The auction
agent matches bids with securities offered by the
bondholders and the winning bid is the highest
price (lowest interest rate or dividend) at which the
auction clears. That means the lowest interest rate
at which the total number of securities demanded
equals the total number auctioned. If the market
does not clear, then there is a failed auction, and
the securities may not be sold in their entirety.
4 In a Dutch Auction, prospective investors may
submit a bid that specifies the par amount of the
securities they wish to acquire and the minimum
interest rate or dividend they are willing to accept.
Existing holders may submit (i) a hold order, which
means they want to hold their position at whatever
rate is set via the auction, (ii) a hold at rate order,
which means they want to hold their position but
only if the rate is set at or above their specified
level, or (iii) a sell order, which means they wish
to exit their position, regardless of the rate set via
the auction. The auctions generally take place
periodically (i.e., daily or 7, 28, 35 or 49 day
periods are typical). The securities trade at par and
are bought or sold on designated auction dates,
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
Continued
05MYN1
25714
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
securities continue to be rated by
independent credit rating agencies as
investment grade credit, many ARS
continue to experience failed auctions.
Because Northern is a party in interest
or disqualified person with respect to
the ERISA or the Code Plan accounts,
Northern requests an administrative
exemption granting both retroactive and
prospective relief for the sale (the Sale)
by a Plan of an ARS to Northern where
the auctions for those securities have
failed. The applicant opines that, in
instances where Northern is not a
fiduciary, section 408(b)(17) of ERISA
should provide the necessary exemptive
relief.5 In some cases, Northern has
discretionary authority with respect to
the Plan accounts. In other cases,
Northern may have provided advice
such that IRA owners or other Plan
fiduciaries could claim that Northern is
a fiduciary. Where Northern is or could
be a fiduciary with respect to a Plan,
exemptive relief is necessary to cover
Northern’s purchases of eligible ARS
from specified Plan accounts, including
(i) individual retirement accounts or
similar accounts (which may be
beneficially owned by an employee,
officer, director or partner of Northern);
and (ii) employee benefit plans.
3. Northern made one or more written
offers (an ‘‘Offer’’) to all of its eligible
customers to purchase all eligible ARS
held by such customers for cash at par
value, plus accrued but unpaid interest,
pursuant to the relevant Offer, described
further in Item 4, below. Each Offer was
open for a minimum of 30 days from the
date it was first distributed by Northern
to its eligible customers, or for such
longer period as determined by
Northern from time to time.
Acceptance of an Offer would cause
Northern to purchase the eligible ARS
on the next applicable coupon interest
payment date as described in the
relevant Offer Document. Purchase
dates may vary depending on when an
Offer is accepted and when the next
coupon interest payment date for such
eligible ARS occurs.
Acceptance of the Offer could be
withdrawn at any time until three
business days prior to the payment date.
If an eligible customer has not accepted
presuming a successful auction. These securities
also may be redeemed by issuers (through
announced full or partial redemptions). Although
they nominally are long term instruments, because
of the interest rate and dividend reset features, they
historically have been priced and traded as short
term instruments due to the auction process. They
generally are issued in minimum denominations
ranging from $25,000 to $100,000.
5 The Department expresses no opinion herein as
to whether the conditions of section 408(b)(17) of
ERISA were or are satisfied by any purchase of ARS
from a Plan by Northern.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
the Offer and the eligible customer
holds an account with respect to which
Northern has discretionary control,
Northern documents the customer’s
direction to retain the eligible ARS and
clarifies that Northern has no
investment responsibility with respect
to those securities.
4. The Offer that Northern distributed
to its eligible customers was marked, or
otherwise prepared in a manner
reasonably designed to prominently
indicate to the recipient the subject
matter, importance, and time-sensitivity
of the information provided.
The Offer complies with ‘‘plain
English’’ standards and included
disclosure of, or a fair and adequate
summary of, all material aspects of:
• The terms and conditions of the
Offer, including reference to a Web site
containing a description of the
eligibility criteria used by Northern;
• A list of eligible ARS held in the
account (including the amount,
identifying information, and CUSIP);
• The background of the Offer;
• The methods and timing by which
eligible customers may accept the Offer;
• The manner of determining the
purchase dates for eligible ARS
pursuant to the Offer;
• The timing of payment for eligible
ARS purchased pursuant to the Offer;
• The methods and timing by which
a customer may elect to withdraw its
acceptance of the Offer;
• The expiration date of the Offer;
• A suggestion that eligible customers
consult their tax advisors to determine
the tax consequences, if any, of
accepting the Offer and to ensure that
accounting and financial reporting
complies with applicable accounting
guidance;
• For advisory clients, disclosure that
(a) acceptance of the Offer by an eligible
customer will constitute such
customer’s direction to Northern to
purchase the eligible ARS, and (b)
rejection of the Offer by an eligible
customer will constitute such
customer’s direction to Northern to
retain the eligible ARS in the account;
and
• How to obtain additional
information concerning the Offer.
All client accounts which accepted
the Offer were paid on a date that
coincided with the interest payment
date so that there would be no accrued
but unpaid interest, or were paid
accrued interest. No brokerage
commissions or other fees were charged.
5. In summary, the applicant
represents that the transactions
described herein satisfy the statutory
criteria of section 408(a) of ERISA
because, among other things:
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(a) Each covered Sale shall be made
pursuant to a written Offer;
(b) Each covered Sale shall be a onetime transaction for no consideration
other than cash payment against prompt
delivery of the ARS;
(c) The sales price in each covered
Sale shall equal the par value of the
ARS, plus any accrued but unpaid
interest or dividends as applicable, as of
the date of the Sale;
(d) Plans would not waive any rights
or claims in connection with any
covered Sale as a condition for engaging
in such transaction;
(e)(1) the decision to accept an Offer
or retain the ARS shall be made by an
Independent Fiduciary; and (2) neither
Northern nor an affiliate thereof shall
exercise investment discretion or render
investment advice, within the meaning
of 29 CFR 2510.3–21(c), in connection
with the decision to accept the Offer or
retain the ARS;
(f) Plans shall not pay any
commissions or transaction costs with
respect to any covered Sale;
(g) A covered Sale shall not be part of
an arrangement, agreement, or
understanding designed to benefit a
party in interest or disqualified person
to the affected Plan.
Notice to Interested Persons
The applicant represents that all the
potentially interested persons cannot be
identified and that, therefore, the only
practicable means of notifying
interested persons of this proposed
exemption is by the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
Comments and requests for a hearing are
due within 45 days from the date of
publication of this notice of proposed
exemption in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Karin Weng of the Department,
telephone (202) 693–8557. (This is not
a toll-free number.)
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters
Pension Fund (the Plan or the
Applicant) Located in Las Vegas,
Nevada [Application No. D–11634]
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering
granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of the Act
and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and
in accordance with the procedures set
forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55
FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).6 If
the exemption is granted, the
restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A), (D)
6 For purposes of this proposed exemption,
references to the provisions of Title I of the Act,
unless otherwise specified, refer also to the
corresponding provisions of the Code.
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the
sanctions resulting from the application
of section 4975(c)(1)(A) and (D) of the
Code, shall not apply to the proposed
sale (Sale) of a 10.89 acre parcel of real
property (the Parcel), which is part of
larger parcel of real property (the
Nevada Property), from the Plan-owned
Bermuda Hidden Well, LLC (Bermuda
LLC) to the Southwest Regional Council
of Carpenters (the Council), a party in
interest with respect to the Plan;
provided that the following conditions
are satisfied:
(a) The terms and conditions of the
Sale are at least as favorable to the Plan
as those obtainable in an arm’s length
transaction with an unrelated party;
(b) The Sale is a one-time transaction
for cash;
(c) As consideration, the Plan receives
the greater of $5,383,577, or the fair
market value of the Parcel as
determined by a qualified, independent
appraiser (the Appraiser) in an appraisal
(the Appraisal) of the Nevada Property,
which is updated on the date of Sale
(Sale Date);
(d) The Plan pays no commissions,
costs or fees with respect to the Sale,
except for customary closing costs (the
Seller Closing Costs) and 50% of certain
rental credits (the Rental Credits) that
are paid to unrelated parties; and
(e) The Plan fiduciaries review and
approve the methodology used by the
Appraiser, ensure that such
methodology is properly applied in
determining the fair market value of the
Parcel, and also determine whether it is
prudent to go forward with the
proposed transaction.
Summary of Facts and Representations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
The Parties
1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America (UBC), the Plan
sponsor, is an international labor
organization with 725 local unions and
37 councils, including the Council.
UBC’s General President has the
authority to appoint members to the
Plan’s Board of Trustees (the Board),
with approval of UBC’s General
Executive Board. UBC is a fiduciary
with respect to the Plan.
2. The Council, which is based in Los
Angeles, California, is a contributing
employer to the Plan and some of its
employees are covered by the Plan. The
Council is an intermediate labor
organization that is aligned with 35
local unions. In this regard, the Council
represents over 65,000 carpenters in
Southern California, Nevada, Arizona,
Utah, New Mexico and West Texas. It
has its own by-laws, elected officers,
representatives and employers.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Although the Council is aligned with
the UBC, as mentioned above, it is a
separate and autonomous entity from
UBC. As a contributing employer to the
Plan, the Council is a party in interest.
However, it is not a fiduciary with
respect to the Plan because the Board is
not comprised of any Council members
or local union members within the
jurisdiction of the Council. Further, the
Council has no discretion over the
management or disposition of the Plan’s
assets.
3. The Plan is a defined benefit,
multiemployer plan, located in Las
Vegas, Nevada. As of December 31,
2009, the Plan had 4,615 participants
and beneficiaries. Also, as of December
31, 2009, the Plan had total assets of
$588,857,770.
The Board consists of eight trustees
(the Trustees), who include
representatives from UBC, the Chicago
Regional Council of Carpenters, the St.
Louis Missouri District Council, the
Alberta and Northwest Territories
Regional Council and Local Union 745
(which is not in the territory of the
Council). Of the Trustees, four are
general officers of UBC. The four
remaining Trustees are officers of
councils or local unions that are not
aligned with the Council.
The Board has appointed a
subcommittee to make decisions
regarding the Parcel and the Sale
described herein. Michael Draper, the
District Vice President of UBC for the
Western District of UBC and Frank
Libby, the Executive Secretary-Treasurer
of the Chicago Regional Council of
Carpenters are the sole members of the
subcommittee.
The Nevada Property—History and the
Plan’s Acquisition
4. The Nevada Property is located at
6855 Bermuda Road Las Vegas, Nevada,
south of the McCarran International
Airport. UBC owns a building to the
west of the Nevada Property, located at
6801 Placid Street, Las Vegas, Nevada.
The Nevada Property is zoned as M–1,
Light Industrial district by the City of
Las Vegas. The permitted uses for this
district include office, light industrial,
general commercial and auto related
uses.
The Nevada Property can be
subdivided into two parcels. The Parcel,
itself, a 10.89 acre tract of land, consists
solely of asphalt-paved parking areas
with curbs, light poles and some chain
link fencing around the perimeter. The
Parcel represents approximately 36.1%
of the Nevada Property. The remaining
19.25 acre tract of land, which is not
subject to the proposed Sale, represents
63.9% of the Nevada Property. Situated
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25715
on the 19.25 acre tract are a car rental
facility, which has a passenger terminal,
a car wash, a car repair facility with a
service bay, steel canopies, and other
site improvements, such as covered
parking spaces, yard lighting, fencing
curbing and several booths.
5. On April 19, 2001, the Plan
incorporated Bermuda LLC, a limited
liability company, in the State of
Delaware, with the Plan serving as both
sole member and owner. Bermuda LLC
was formed to hold real property on
behalf of the Plan and specifically to
acquire the Nevada Property.
On June 11, 2001, Bermuda LLC
acquired the Nevada Property from LVAirport Investors, LLC, an unrelated
party, for a total cash price of
$10,464,126. At the time of the
acquisition, the Nevada Property was
encumbered by a lease (the Lease)
between LV-Airport Investors, LLC, as
lessor and Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC
(Alamo), an unrelated party, as lessee.
Alamo, which provided car rental
services from the Nevada Property, used
the Nevada Property as its office and as
a car pick-up and return facility.
LV-Airport Investors, LLC had
originally entered into the Lease with
Alamo on April 12, 2001. The Lease was
subject to separate guaranty by ANC
Rental Corporation, an unrelated party
and an affiliate of Alamo, that would
guarantee the rental payments and other
obligations under the Lease on behalf of
Alamo.
6. Bermuda LLC assumed the Lease in
June 2001 and remains the lessor under
the Lease. Although the Nevada
Property has been continuously leased,
the lessee has repeatedly changed from
2001 to the present. In 2003, Vanguard
Car Rental USA, Inc. (Vanguard), an
unrelated party, assumed the Lease from
Alamo pursuant to an assignment
during bankruptcy proceedings
involving ANC Rental Corporation,
Alamo and related entities. In addition,
as part of the bankruptcy proceedings,
ANC Rental Corporation’s guaranty was
eliminated. Currently, the Lease
payments are no longer subject to a
guaranty.
7. In April 2007, McCarran
International Airport opened a
centralized car return facility. As a
result, the Nevada Property would no
longer be used for vehicle pick-ups and
returns. Instead, the Nevada Property
would be used henceforth for car
cleaning and maintenance. On April 5,
2007, Vanguard entered into a sublease
with the Clark County Aviation
Authority (the Authority) for the Parcel
and an additional 7.8 acres of the
Nevada Property. Thus, the Authority
subleased approximately 18.69 acres
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
25716
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
from the Plan for $105,883 per month or
$.13 per month per square foot. The
sublease expired on April 14, 2009 and
it was not renewed. Currently, the
Parcel is not being subleased.
8. By letter dated June 13, 2007,
Vanguard advised Bermuda LLC that all
of Vanguard’s issued and outstanding
stock had been purchased by an affiliate
of Enterprise Rent-A-Car (Enterprise).
The Applicant represents that this
purchase would not result in a change
in the Vanguard corporate legal entity,
and that Vanguard and/or its
subsidiaries would continue to be
responsible for all of its respective
obligations following the purchase with
respect to the Plan.
9. Effective August 1, 2009, in
accordance with Alamo’s bankruptcy
proceedings, Alamo officially assigned
the Lease to Enterprise Lease
Company—West, LLC (Enterprise
Leasing), an unrelated party, who is the
current lessee of the Nevada Property.
The Lease expires on April 30, 2021.
There are two 5 year renewal options at
market rent that could possibly extend
the Lease until 2031.
10. The Lease is a triple net lease
requiring the lessee to pay for real estate
taxes, insurance and maintenance costs.
Under the Lease, the annual basic rent
for the Nevada Property was $908,500
for the first year. Thereafter, the annual
rent has been subject to an increase
based upon the lesser of (a) the product
obtained by multiplying the basic rent
for the prior rental period by 2%, or (b)
the product obtained by multiplying the
basic rent for the prior year by three
times the percentage change in the
Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers—U.S. City Average (CPI)
during such prior rental period. The
current rent cannot be reduced below
the rent floor set in the prior rental
period. For the rental year ending April
30, 2011, the monthly rent for the
Nevada Property is $88,704.36 per
month or $1,064,452.32 per rental year.
The Management and Holding of the
Nevada Property
11. Although Bermuda LLC holds the
Nevada Property for the Plan, the Plan
and any officers, that it may select,
make all management decisions for
Bermuda LLC. From September 1, 2002
through June 30, 2004, the Plan had
retained Strategic Property Advisors
(SPA) to serve as the qualified
professional asset manager (QPAM) for
the Nevada Property. From July 1, 2004
through the present, the Plan has
retained Strategic Capital Advisers
(SCA) to serve as the Plan’s QPAM. SPA
has entered into a subadvisory role with
SCA and SPA remains a fiduciary with
respect to the Plan. Currently,
Commerce TNP, Inc. (Commerce TNP)
serves as the property manager for the
Nevada Property.
12. The Nevada Property has annually
generated income in excess of expenses
for the Plan since the time of
acquisition. For the period between
2001 through 2005, the Plan income and
expenses for the Nevada Property are
presented as follows in Table 1:
TABLE 1
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Totals
454,250
920,613
939,026
957,806
976,962
4,248,657
Total Rental Income .........................................................
Property Expenses
Property Management Fee ..............................................
Administration Fee ...........................................................
Engineering Expense .......................................................
Statement of Business Publication Fee ...........................
Legal Fee .........................................................................
Appraisal Fee ...................................................................
Delaware State Franchise Tax ........................................
Nevada Annual List of Managers Fee .............................
Nevada/Delaware CSC Reg. Agent Fee .........................
Asset Management Fee ...................................................
0
97
0
25
1,100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
200
85
350
0
0
195
0
25
0
0
100
105
448
5,000
0
0
0
25
0
6,498
305
155
468
7,000
0
0
0
30
0
0
200
155
488
13,000
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Total Property Expenses ..........................................
1,222
660
5,873
14,451
13,873
36,079
Net Income ........................................................
453,028
919,953
933,153
943,355
963,089
4,212,578
It should be noted that the 2001
income reflects the period from April 1,
2001 to December 31, 2001.
Additionally, the 2001 and 2002
expenses are estimates.
13. For the period 2006–2010, the
Plan income and expenses for the
Nevada Property are presented as
follows in Table 2:
TABLE 2
2006
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Rental Income ..................................................................
2007
996,501
2008
1,016,431
2009
2010
Totals
1,036,760
1,043,581
1,146,200
5,239,473
12,000
25
0
30
0
14,400
0
2,500
30
0
14,400
0
16,974
30
480
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Property Expenses
Property Management Fee ..............................................
Administration Fee ...........................................................
Engineering Expense 7 .....................................................
Statement of Business Publication Fee ...........................
Legal Fee .........................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
0
0
0
30
0
Fmt 4703
0
0
0
30
0
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
25717
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
TABLE 2—Continued
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Totals
Appraisal Fee ...................................................................
Delaware State Franchise Tax ........................................
Nevada Annual List of Managers Fee .............................
Nevada Sec of State-Business License Fee ...................
Nevada/Delaware CSC Reg. Agent Fee .........................
Asset Management Fee ...................................................
0
200
155
0
508
13,000
6,000
200
155
0
528
13,000
2,900
200
125
0
552
13,000
6,000
250
125
0
582
13,000
6,000
250
125
200
612
13,000
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Total Property Expenses ..........................................
13,893
19,913
28,832
36,887
52,071
151,596
Net Income ........................................................
982,608
996,518
1,007,928
1,006,694
1,094,369
5,088,117
14. After combining the expenses in
Tables 1 and 2, the Plan has incurred
total expenses of $187,675 excluding
acquisition costs for the Nevada
Property. The acquisition cost to the
Plan was $10,464,126 for the Nevada
Property. Therefore, the total acquisition
and holding costs for the Nevada
Property are $10,651,801 (i.e.,
$10,464,126 acquisition costs +
$187,675 in holding costs). After
combining the rental income in Tables
1 and 2, the Plan’s total rental income
for the years 2001–2010 is $9,488,130.
After factoring in total rental income,
the Plan’s net acquisition and holding
costs for the Nevada Property are
$1,163,671 (i.e., total acquisition and
holding costs of $10,651,801—total
rental income of $9,488,130).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Lease Modification and Rental Credit
15. On April 23, 2010, SPA, a subadviser to SCA, the Plan’s QPAM,
negotiated a modification to the Lease
on behalf of the Plan. This modification
would permit the potential termination
of Enterprise Leasing’s leasehold
interest in the 10.89 Parcel in return for
a termination fee of $100,000 paid to
Enterprise Leasing (Lease Modification
Fee). The 19.25 acre tract of land would
remain subject to the Lease.
Additionally, the Lease Modification
would result in a pro rata reduction in
Enterprise Leasing’s rental payments to
63.9% of the original monthly rent since
it would no longer be leasing the Parcel
from the Plan.
In order to free the Parcel for sale, the
Lease Modification requires that
Enterprise Leasing agree not to sublease
the Parcel until the proposed Sale is
finalized. Therefore, SPA negotiated the
Rental Credit that went into effect
beginning in mid-October 2010 through
mid-January 2011. The Applicant
represents that the Rental Credit is
7 The Plan paid $2,500 in 2009 and $16,974 in
2010 for engineering fees (Engineering Fees). The
Engineering Fees included the surveying of the
Nevada Property and the creation of a new, separate
legal description for the 10.89 acre Parcel.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
necessary because Enterprise Leasing is
restricted from subleasing the Parcel
while the Applicant awaits an
administrative exemption from the
Department. In accordance with the
Lease Modification, the Plan has been
required to provide Enterprise Leasing a
$15,000 per month rental credit since
October 2010. The Rental Credit is to be
applied in calendar year 2011. The
Rental Credit was renewed in midJanuary 2011 through mid-July 2011. To
assist the Plan, SPA and the Council
later agreed that the Council would pay
$7,500 per month or 50% of the total
Rental Credit.
The Appraisal
16. SPA retained Cushman &
Wakefield of Nevada, Inc., located in
Las Vegas, the Plan’s current appraiser,
to appraise a leased fee interest in the
Nevada Property (i.e., the 10.89 acre
Parcel and the 19.25 acre tract) effective
March 1, 2010 in an appraisal report
dated June 11, 2010. Associate Director
Stephen E. Wilson and Senior Director
Kaye A. Cuba, who are employed by the
Appraiser, conducted the Appraisal. Mr.
Wilson entered the real estate business
in 1998. He is a Certified General
Appraiser in both Nevada and Arizona
and is an associate member of the
Appraisal Institute (MAI). Mr. Wilson is
experienced in appraising multi-family,
office, retail, industrial/warehouse,
residential subdivisions and vacant
land. He has also completed
professional courses and seminars with
various appraisal organizations
including the MAI.
Ms. Cuba has 25 years of experience
in the appraisal field primarily in the
banking industry and fee appraisal
business. She is an MAI Appraiser and
a Certified General Appraiser in Nevada,
California and Arizona. Ms. Cuba also
serves on the Appraisal Institute’s
Education Committee and is the 2010
President of its Las Vegas chapter. She
has served as a panelist addressing
appraisal review issues at local chapter
seminars and a regional conference.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Furthermore, Ms. Cuba has extensive
experience and knowledge in the
preparation of appraisals for commercial
properties, including retail properties,
restaurants, residential properties, light
industrial properties, health care
facilities, residential subdivisions and
vacant land. She joined the Appraiser in
February 2007 as Senior Director of
Valuation & Advisory Services in the
Las Vegas office. Her responsibilities
include real estate valuation and
consulting services for clients with
properties located in Southern Nevada
and Northwest Arizona.
The Appraiser represents that the fees
it received from the Council and its
affiliates in 2009 were less than 1% of
the Appraiser’s annual gross income
within that year. The Appraiser also
acknowledges it is aware that the
Appraisal is being used for the purposes
of obtaining an individual exemption
from the Department.
17. According to the Appraisal, the
Appraiser determined that the Nevada
Property, subject to the Lease had an
‘‘As-Is’’ fair market value of
$14,900,000.00 as of March 1, 2010. The
Appraiser used the Cost Approach and
the Income Capitalization Approach to
valuation. The Appraiser explains it did
not use the Sales Comparison Approach
because the Nevada Property has a
specialized land use and public
information regarding similar sale
transactions was generally insufficient.
Under the Cost Approach, the
Appraiser approximated the cost to
replace the Nevada Property with an
equivalent facility. In order to do so, the
Appraiser used sale comparisons to
determine that the value of the
underlying land was $11,820,000. After
considering such factors as the
replacement cost of the Nevada
Property, indirect costs, entrepreneurial
profit, the structures, depreciation and a
rent deficit, the Appraiser concluded
that, under the Cost Approach, the
Nevada Property was worth
$15,700,000.00 as of March 1, 2010.
Under the Income Capitalization
Approach, the Appraiser approximated
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
25718
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
the anticipated income and expenses
(i.e., anticipated economic benefits) to
determine the fair market value of the
Nevada Property. The Appraiser
determined that this approach resulted
in a fair market value of $14,900,000 for
the Nevada Property as March 1, 2010.
The Appraiser then reconciled the
various valuation methods and
determined that the fair market value of
the leased fee interest in the Nevada
Property was $14,900,000 as of March 1,
2010. The Appraiser weighed the
Income Capitalization Approach more
heavily in the Appraisal because this
methodology mirrored the methodology
used by purchasers of this type of
property. Thus, on the basis of the
Appraisal, the fair market value of the
Parcel was $5,383,577 as of March 1,
2010 ($14,900,000 × 10.89 acres/30.14
acres).
It should be noted that the Appraiser,
also surveyed local real estate brokers
for the Appraisal. These brokers
indicated that upon the completion of
renovations at the adjacent McCarran
International Airport, the Nevada
Property could increase in value. The
Nevada Property appraised valued
peaked in 2007 when it was appraised
at $21,740,000 by the Appraiser. In an
August 4, 2010 letter, the Appraiser
represented that at the date of the
Appraisal, the Appraiser did not
anticipate that the completion of the
McCarran Airport renovations would
have any significant short-term effect on
industrial land values within the
subject’s submarket. Moreover, the
Appraiser represented that it did not
anticipate that the Nevada Property
would return to its 2007 peak value
within the next few years. Instead, any
recovery with the industrial market
would require a significant
improvement in the Las Vegas
unemployment rate and an
improvement in the local, state and
national manufacturing sectors.
The Nevada Property is also located
within the vicinity of real property
owned by UBC. In a separate December
15, 2010 letter, Mr. Wilson stated that
the Appraiser did not believe the
Nevada Property had any assemblage
value due to its close proximity to
UBC’s building.
Finally, the Appraiser provided an
updated summary appraisal report (the
Summary Appraisal), dated March 3,
2011, which valued a leased fee interest
of the 10.89 acre Parcel and the 19.25
acre tract of land comprising the Nevada
Property (in an ‘‘as is’’ condition) at
$11,000,000 as of March 1, 2011. The
Summary Appraisal utilized both the
Cost Approach and the Income
Capitalization Approach to valuation,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
but gave the most weight to the Income
Capitalization Approach because it
mirrored the methodology used by
purchasers of this property type. Thus,
on the basis of the Summary Appraisal,
the fair market value of the Parcel was
$3,960,000 as of March 1, 2011
($11,000,000 * 10.89 acres/30.14 acres).
Terms of the Sale
18. The Council had been trying to
obtain property for the construction of
a training facility over the past five
years. The Council had made offers on
several tracts of land and such offers
have either been refused or encountered
problems. The Council selected the
Parcel because it is suitable for a
training facility and is visible to
freeways. The Council may lease a
future facility to the Southwest
Carpenters Training Fund, the
Applicant represents that the Council
has not voted whether to enter into such
future lease.8
Although the Plan has not any made
efforts to sell the Parcel to unrelated
parties nor has it received any
unsolicited purchase offers from
unrelated parties, the Council’s
purchase of the Parcel would allow the
Plan to receive a profit. In this regard,
the proposed Sale price for the Parcel
that will be paid by the Council will be
(excluding certain Seller Costs and
Rental Credits) the higher of $5,383,577
($14,900,000 9 * 10.89 acres/30.14 acres)
or the fair market value of the Parcel on
the Sale Date as determined by the
Appraiser in an updated Appraisal on
the Sale Date. The pro rata purchase
price for the Parcel was approximately
$3,780,834 ($10,464,126 original
purchase price * 10.89 acres/30.14
acres). Therefore, the pro rata gain for
the Parcel is $1,602,743 ($5,383,577
purchase price¥$3,780,834 original
purchase price) or an approximately
42% gain ($1,602,743 gain/$3,780,847
8 The Department wishes to point out that any
future leasing of the Parcel by the Council to the
Southwest Carpenters Training Fund for training
purposes must be compliant with the terms and
conditions of PTE 78–6, 43 FR 23024 (May 30,
1978). PTE 78–6 exempts, among other transactions,
the leasing of real property other than office space
by an apprenticeship plan from a contributing
employer, a wholly-owned subsidiary of such
employer, or an employee organization any of
whose members’ work results in contributions
being made to the apprenticeship plan. The
Department also notes that PTE 78–6 provides
exemptive relief from section 406(a)(1)(A), (C) and
(D) of the Act, but no relief from the fiduciary selfdealing or conflict of interest provisions under
section 406(b)(1) and (2) of the Act.
9 The Council proposes to base the purchase price
for the Parcel on the $14.9 million fair market value
of the Nevada Property as determined as of March
1, 2010 in the Appraisal rather than the $11 million
fair market value for such property as determined
as of March 1, 2011 in the Summary Appraisal.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
cost basis) for the Parcel, without taking
into account certain Seller Closing Costs
and Rental Credits.
19. The Plan will pay certain Seller
Closing Costs in connection with the
Sale. These Seller Closing Costs include
owner’s title insurance of $4,263.79,
escrow fees of $1,265, recording fees of
approximately $100 and the Clark
County real estate transfer tax which is
estimated to be approximately
$27,458.40, or total Seller Closing Costs
of $33,087.19.10 The Seller Closing
Costs amount to less than 1 percent of
the proposed Sale price.
In addition to the Seller Closing Costs,
the Plan will pay Enterprise Leasing
50% of all Rental Credits, as described
above in Representation 15. These
Rental Credits will cost the Plan a total
of $67,500. Accordingly, the Plan’s
aggregate costs are estimated at
$100,587.19.
The Applicant represents that a
hypothetical sale to an unrelated third
party would require the Plan to pay a
sales commission. The Applicant states
that such commissions typically amount
to 4% of the value of the Sale or, in this
case, $215,343. In a hypothetical sale to
an unrelated third party, the Plan would
pay $248,432 (i.e., a $215,343
commission plus $33,087 in Seller
Closing Costs). Thus, according to the
Applicant, the Plan would pay less in
closing and transaction costs in the
proposed Sale when compared to a
hypothetical sale to an unrelated third
party. (The Department notes, however,
that it is unlikely that a hypothetical
buyer would also pay a Lease
Modification Fee and 50% of the Rental
Credits like the Council).
Rationale for the Sale
20. The Applicant represents that the
following reasons support the Sale:
• The Lease is no longer subject to the
ANC Rental Corporations’s guaranty and
is appraised at below market value.
• Enterprise no longer uses the
Nevada Property as its car pick-up and
return site and the Parcel is vacant.
• Annual rental increases are subject
to the lesser of 2% or a CPI-linked
formula. Accordingly, annual rental
increases may not keep pace with
periods of high inflation.
• The Lease is subject to two
extensions that could lock the Plan into
the Lease until 2031.
10 Susan Borst, director of the Commerce Real
Estate Solutions, an alliance member of the
Appraiser, and a certified Commercial Investment
Member, with over 15 years of real estate industry
experience, represented that it is the customary and
normal practice in Clark County, Nevada for the
seller to pay real estate transfer taxes. Ms. Borst also
states that less than 1% of her 2010 annual income
was derived from the Council and its affiliates.
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
• SCA has advised that it would be
advantageous to the Plan to enter into
the proposed Sale.
• The Council would pay a portion of
the costs associated with the Sale. Aside
from purchase price, the Council would
pay: (a) $16,734 to the Plan for its 2010
Engineering Fees; (b) 50% of all Rental
Credits from October 2010 through midJuly 2011 or $67,500; (c) the Lease
Modification Fee of $100,000 to
Enterprise Leasing; (d) an ALTA title
insurance upgrade which is
approximately $2,842.53; and (e) escrow
charges of approximately $1,265.00.
Therefore, the total transaction costs
paid by the Council would be
$188,341.53 (which is more than the
Seller Closing Costs and Rental Credits
paid by the Plan).
• The Plan would not have to pay a
sales commission in connection with
the Sale.
• Because the value of the Nevada
Property peaked in 2007 and has
declined up to the time of the Summary
Appraisal, selling the Parcel would
allow the Plan to recognize some profit
it has gained since the purchase of the
Nevada Property.
• Because the Nevada Property had a
12 month rate of return of negative
13.39%, the Sale would reduce risks to
the Plan from holding the Parcel and
allow the Plan to receive a profit from
a portion of such property.
Exemptive Relief Requested
21. According to the Applicant, the
Sale represents a sale and transfer of
plan assets between the Plan and the
Council, a party in interest, that would
violate section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of
the Act. The Applicant also requests
exemptive relief from the fiduciary
conflict of interest provision of section
406(b)(2) of the Act. The Applicant
represents that although none of the
Trustees are employees or officers of the
Council, it is possible a potential
conflict of interest exists since two of
the Trustees (Mr. Draper and Mr. Libby),
who are members of the Board
subcommittee, are UBC officers or
officers of other intermediate labor
councils aligned with UBC. Because the
Council is, itself, aligned with UBC, the
Applicant contends that these two
Trustees may have interests which are
adverse to the interests of the Plan or
the interests of the Plan’s participants or
beneficiaries. Therefore, the Applicant
asserts that exemptive relief from
section 406(b)(2) of the Act is required.
Appropriateness of the Sale
22. The Applicant represents that the
proposed Sale by the Plan of the Parcel
to the Council would be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
administratively feasible because the
Sale would be a one-time transaction for
cash. Furthermore, the Plan would pay
no commissions, costs or fees in
connection with the Sale, except for
50% of the Rental Credits and the Seller
Closing Costs which are customarily
paid to unrelated parties. Finally, Mr.
Draper and Mr. Libby would review and
approve the methodology used by the
Appraiser, ensure that such
methodology is properly applied in
determining the fair market value of the
Parcel, and also determine whether it is
prudent to go forward with the
proposed transaction.
The Applicant states that the
proposed Sale would also be in the
interests of the Plan and its participants
and beneficiaries because the Plan
would realize a gain of nearly 42%
stemming from its acquisition and
holding of the Parcel and further
diversify its assets, and become more
liquid. Further, the Applicant states that
the proposed Sale would be protective
of the rights of the Plan’s participants
and beneficiaries because the Plan
would receive the greater of $5,383,577
or the fair market value of the Parcel as
determined by the Appraiser in an
Appraisal of the Nevada Property,
which is updated on the Sale Date.
Furthermore, the terms of the Sale
would be no less favorable to the Plan
than the terms negotiated under similar
circumstances at arm’s length with
unrelated parties. Accordingly, the
Applicant requests an exemption from
the Department.
Summary
23. In summary, the Applicant
represents that the Sale will satisfy the
statutory requirements for an exemption
under section 408(a) of the Act because:
(a) The terms and conditions of the
Sale will be at least as favorable to the
Plan as those obtainable in an arm’s
length transaction with an unrelated
party;
(b) The Sale will be a one-time
transaction for cash;
(c) As consideration, the Plan will
receive the greater of $5,383,577, or the
fair market value of the Parcel as
determined by the Appraiser in an
Appraisal of the Nevada Property,
which is updated on the Sale Date;
(d) The Plan will pay no
commissions, costs or fees, with respect
to the Sale, except for the Seller Closing
Costs and 50% of the Rental Credits that
are paid to unrelated parties; and
(e) The Plan fiduciaries will review
and approve the methodology used by
the Appraiser, ensure that such
methodology will be properly applied in
determining the fair market value of the
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25719
Parcel, and also will determine whether
it is prudent to go forward with the
proposed transaction.
Notice to Interested Parties
Notice of the proposed exemption
will be given to interested persons
within 20 days of the publication of the
notice of proposed exemption in the
Federal Register. The notice will be
given to interested persons by first class
mail or personal delivery. Such notice
will contain a copy of the notice of
proposed exemption, as published in
the Federal Register, and a
supplemental statement, as required
pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2). The
supplemental statement will inform
interested persons of their right to
comment on and/or to request a hearing
with respect to the pending exemption.
Written comments and hearing requests
are due within 50 days of the
publication of the notice of proposed
exemption in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Anh-Viet Ly of the Department at (202)
693–8648. (This is not a toll-free
number.)
Wolverine Bronze Profit Sharing Plan
and Trust (the Plan) and BDR Oil, LLC
Located in Roseville, Michigan
Exemption Application Number D–
11639
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering
granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and
section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
Code), and in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part
2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847,
August 10, 1990).11
If the proposed exemption is granted,
the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A)
and (D), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act
and the sanctions resulting from the
application of section 4975 of the Code,
by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A), (D)
and (E) of the Code, shall not apply, to
the cash sale (the Sale) by the Plan of
a note receivable (the Note) and royalty
interests (ORRIs), collectively known as
the Alternative Investments, to BDR Oil,
LLC, which is owned by Richard A.
Smith, William Smith and Douglas
Smith (also know as the Alternative
Investment Group or the AIG), provided
that the following conditions are met:
(a) The Sale is a one-time transaction
for cash;
11 For purposes of this proposed exemption,
references to section 406 of ERISA should be read
to refer to the corresponding provisions of section
4975 of the Code as well.
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
25720
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
(b) The terms and conditions of the
Sale are at least as favorable as those
obtainable in an arm’s length
transaction with an unrelated third
party;
(c) The Plan will receive no less than
the fair market value of the Alternative
Investments at the closing of the
proposed transaction;
(d) The fair market value of the
Alternative Investments will be
determined by a qualified independent
appraiser;
(e) All valuations will be updated by
a qualified independent appraiser on
the date that the Sale is consummated;
(f) The Plan pays no commissions,
fees or other expenses in connection
with the Sale;
(g) The Sale was not part of an
arrangement, agreement, or
understanding designed to benefit a
party in interest to the Plan and is a
result of the Plan’s conversion from a
‘‘traditional’’ profit sharing plan to a
401(k) plan;
(h) The Plan will reallocate $1,450.17
to the account balances of its
participants and beneficiaries,
excluding the AIG, to reflect the
difference between the value assigned to
the Note by the Plan trustee on the date
of the Plan conversion, and the value of
the Note on that same date as
determined by the qualified
independent appraiser;
(i) An independent fiduciary, who is
not a party to the proposed transaction,
(1) Determines, among other things,
whether it is in the best interest of the
Plan to proceed with the sale of the
Alternative Investments;
(2) Reviews and approves the
methodology used in the appraisal that
is being relied upon; and
(3) Ensures that such methodology is
applied by the qualified independent
appraiser in determining the fair market
value of the Alternative Investments, as
updated, on the day of the Sale; and
(j) The Plan has not waived or
released and does not waive or release
any claims, demands, and/or causes of
action which such Plan may have in
connection with the Sale.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. Wolverine Bronze Company
(Wolverine), a privately held nonferrous jobbing foundry, located in
Roseville, Michigan, is the sponsor of
Wolverine Bronze Profit Sharing Plan
and Trust (the Plan). The Shareholders
of Wolverine are: Richard A. Smith,
Christopher S. Smith, Robert J. Smith,
William P. Smith, Jr., and Nicolas L.
Smith. The Plan was a ‘‘traditional’’
profit sharing plan maintained by
Wolverine before its conversion to a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
401(k) plan effective January 1, 2010.
Prior to the conversion, the Plan’s assets
were invested in, among other things,
stocks, bonds, and mutual funds which
were selected by the discretionary
trustees. The discretionary trustees also
invested the Plan’s assets into a note
receivable (the Note) for Robert O.
Keller, Jr., an unrelated third party, and
royalty interests (ORRIs)12, collectively
known as the Alternative Investments.
As of December 31, 2009 the Plan had
approximately 104 participants and
total assets of approximately
$6,282,474.95. The trustees of the Plan
are Richard A. Smith and Charles Arent.
The conversion to a 401(k) plan was
a result of the Plan sponsor’s
determination that it would be in the
best interest of the participants to make
elective deferrals and self direct
investments. Participants were given the
option to select from a group of mutual
funds representing a broad range of
investment alternatives, and also were
given the opportunity to have all or a
portion of their account invested in the
Alternative Investments.
2. Following the Plan’s conversion to
a 401(k) plan, only 3 participants
selected to invest in the Alternative
Investments, which were offered.13 The
group of individuals who selected these
investments are Richard A. Smith
(fiduciary and Chief Executive Officer),
William Smith (V.P. of Operations, prior
to his termination of employment on
January 1, 2011) and Douglas Smith
(V.P. of Manufacturing, prior to his
termination of employment on January
1, 2011)—these 3 individuals are
brothers, and are collectively known as
the Alternative Investment Group (the
AIG). The AIG determined that they
were not able to diversify their
investments in the Plan so as to
12 According to the valuation completed by
Andrew M. Malec, Ph.D. of Gordon Advisors, an
ORRI is an investment in which an investor
receives cash flow from oil sales resulting from
production in the oil well according to the
ownership percentage, net of oil well production
tax, but does not pay for drilling or monthly
operating expenses of the well. In addition, the life
of an ORRI investment is perpetual (subject to the
terms of the lease), changes in the working interest
holder will not affect the standing of the interest
holder of the royalties, and the owner of the royalty
interest benefits from future oil sales on any
additional wells drilled on the lease.
13 Prior to such conversion, the Department’s
Cincinnati Regional Office conducted an
investigation of the Plan and focused on, among
other things, the valuation of the ORRIs. As a result
of the investigation, the Plan modified its valuation
of the ORRIs that was used for purposes of valuing
the individual account balances. The applicant
represents that this modification satisfied the
Regional Office’s requirements, and that the Plan
will use the same modified valuation for the
proposed transaction as was used for other
purposes including the conversion of the Plan from
a ‘‘traditional’’ profit sharing plan to a 401(k) plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
minimize risk. The discretionary
trustees then concluded that in order for
the AIG to fully participate in the new
Plan design and minimize fiduciary
risk, the Alternative Investments should
be liquidated so that the proceeds may
be reinvested in the investment
offerings provided under the Plan. As a
result, the AIG proposes to purchase the
Alternative Investments from the Plan.
3. The principal amount of the Note,
dated June 1, 2007, was $65,000.00. The
Note bears interest on the unpaid
principal balance at the fixed rate of 10
percent per annum and is payable in
equal monthly installments of $1,381.06
which includes both principal and
interest. Payments under the Note
commenced on July 1, 2007 and will
continue until a final installment equal
to the total unpaid principal balance is
due on June 1, 2012. To date, all
required payments on the Note have
been paid as due.
The Note was executed by the Plan
and Mr. Robert O. Keller, Jr., an
unrelated third party, and secured by a
lien interest on a 1980 Diesel Truck
owned by Mr. Keller. According to the
applicant, the Plan has incurred no
costs in connection with the
administration of the Note.
4. At the time of the conversion, a fair
market value of $36,254.83 was assigned
to the Note by the Plan trustee. The Note
was recently valued by Andrew Malec
with Gordon Advisors, P.C., (Gordon
Advisors) located in Troy, Michigan,
who has a PhD in economics. Mr. Malec
used a different methodology than
originally used by the Plan trustees, and
determined at that time that a fair
market value of $37,950.00 was
appropriate. Mr. Malec’s calculation,
which uses the present value of the
expected cash flows from the Note,
results in an amount of $1,450.17 more
than the opening balances actually
credited to the participants and
beneficiaries. The applicant represents
that the methodology used by Gordon
Advisors for purposes of establishing
the value of the Note will be used for
the proposed transaction. The applicant
further represents that the resulting
$1,450.17 difference between the value
originally assigned to the Note by the
trustee, as compared to the value
determined by Gordon Advisors, will be
reallocated to the participant and
beneficiary account balances to reflect
the change in calculation for the
opening balances.
The applicant represents Mr. Malec to
be a qualified independent appraiser
with an expertise in valuing privatelyheld securities, spanning across a broad
range of industries. Mr. Malec’s
experience has involved performing for
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
numerous purposes including
acquisitions, fairness opinions, financial
reporting, gift and estate taxation,
litigation, marital dissolution, purchase
price allocation, shareholder disputes,
other tax and corporate related matters,
and shareholder planning. The
previously referenced cash flow
methodology used by Mr. Malec takes
into account that the rate of return on
a debt security is composed of a
nominal risk-free rate of interest 14 plus
several factors that reflect inflation, the
risk of the security, and the security’s
marketability. As a result, Mr. Malec
concluded that a 6.98% rate of return
should apply to the cash flow stream of
the Note as of the valuation date. As of
December 22, 2010, the estimated fair
market value of the Note is $23,628.00.
There were 18 remaining payments on
the Note as of December 27, 2010.
5. The ORRIs also were valued by
Andrew Malec. Based on the valuation
of the ORRIs completed on February 9,
2010, the Plan maintains investments in
23 ORRIs. These ORRIs represent
interests in various oil wells located
within the state of Texas. The Plan
originally acquired the ORRIs on March
12, 1990 from Peter Nunez, an unrelated
third party, for the purchase price of
$141,205.12. As of December 31, 2009,
the estimated fair market value of the
ORRIs is $555,000.00.
In determining the required rate of
return for the ORRIs, the Dividend
Discount Model (DDM), an Income
Approach, was used. The DDM is a
procedure for valuing the price of a
stock by using predicted dividends and
discounting them back to present value.
It is essentially a method for valuing
stocks based on the net present value of
the future dividends. Mr. Malec stressed
the importance of an appropriate rate of
return commensurate with achieving the
expected cash flow based on the fact
that investors typically place a great
deal of weight upon the expected future
cash flow earned on the various ORRI
investments. Therefore, the appraiser
represents that the DDM is an
appropriate methodology for valuing the
ORRIs because it estimates the annual
cash flow to be received by the royalty
interest (i.e. the ‘‘stream of payments’’ to
the investor) by taking into account the
rate of return proportionate with
realizing this estimated cash flow.
6. The applicant proposes the sale of
the Alternative Investments from the
Plan to the AIG through BDR Oil, LLC
(BDR), a Michigan limited liability
company and entity owned by the AIG,
at fair market value at the time of the
14 Mr. Malec selected this component of the rate
of return based on 1-Year U.S. Treasury Notes.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
closing of the Sale. The Alternative
Investments constitute approximately
9% of the total Plan assets (as of
December 31, 2009). The applicant
represents that the Sale of the
Alternative Investments to BDR is in the
best interests of the Plan because the
administrative burden of separately
accounting for and valuing the
Alternative Investments would no
longer be necessary, thereby reducing
the costs to the Plan. Further, the
participants comprising the AIG would
be able to diversify their investments in
the Plan, which will, in turn, ensure
that the Plan will have sufficient
liquidity to pay the benefits when due.
7. The applicant represents that the
Sale will be a one-time transaction for
cash and that the Plan will incur no
fees, commissions, or other expenses in
connection with the Sale. BDR will bear
the costs of the exemption application
and of notifying interested persons. The
applicant further represents that to-date
the valuations performed by Mr. Malec
were paid by Wolverine on behalf of the
Plan for yearly valuation purposes, but
that the update of the valuation for the
Sale will be paid by BDR. The applicant
also represents that the fees that will be
paid to Gordon Advisors by BDR
represent less than 1% of the firm’s
annual income.
8. It is also represented that a Plan
fiduciary, Charles Arent, who is neither
a party to the proposed subject
transaction nor a relation to the AIG
members, both has and will continue to
review and approve the methodology
used by the qualified independent
appraiser, thereby ensuring that such
methodology is properly applied, and
that it is prudent to go forward with the
proposed transaction. With respect to
the Sale, the applicant represents that
Richard A. Smith has recused himself
from his fiduciary responsibilities to the
Plan.
9. The Plan has not waived or
released and does not waive or release
any claims, demands, and/or causes of
action which such Plan may have
against BDR and/or the AIG in
connection with the sale of assets to
BDR.
10. In summary, the applicant
represents that the proposed transaction
satisfies the criteria for an exemption
under section 408(a) for the following
reasons: (a) The Sale is a one-time
transaction for cash; (b) the terms and
conditions of the Sale are at least as
favorable as those obtainable in an arm’s
length transaction with an unrelated
third party; (c) the Plan will receive no
less than the fair market value of the
Alternative Investments at the closing of
the proposed transaction; (d) the fair
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25721
market value of the Alternative
Investments are to be determined by a
qualified independent appraiser; (e) all
valuations will be updated on the date
that the Sale is consummated; (f) the
Plan pays no commissions, fees or other
expenses in connection with the Sale;
(g) the Sale was not part of an
arrangement, agreement, or
understanding designed to benefit a
party in interest to the Plan and is a
result of the Plan’s conversion from a
‘‘traditional’’ profit sharing plan to a
401(k) plan; (h) the Plan will reallocate
$1,450.17 to the account balances of its
participants and beneficiaries,
excluding the AIG, to reflect the
difference between the value assigned to
the Note by the Plan trustee on the date
of the Plan conversion, and the value of
the Note on that same date by the
qualified independent appraiser; (i) the
Plan fiduciary who is not an interested
party to the proposed transaction,
Charles Arent, (1) determines, among
other things, whether it is in the best
interest of the Plan to proceed with the
sale of the Alternative Investments; (2)
reviews and approves the methodology
used in the appraisal that is being relied
upon; and (3) ensures that such
methodology is applied by the qualified
independent appraiser in determining
the fair market value of the Alternative
Investments, as updated, on the day of
the Sale; and (j) the Plan has not waived
or released and does not waive or
release any claims, demands, and/or
causes of action which such Plan may
have in connection with the Sale.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Breyana A. Penn of the Department,
telephone (202) 693–8546. (This is not
a toll-free number.)
Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon)
and Cellco Partnership, doing business
as Verizon Wireless (Verizon Wireless;
collectively, the Applicants)
Located in Basking Ridge, New Jersey
[Application Nos. L–11651 and L–
11652]
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering
granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of the Act
and in accordance with the procedures
set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, Subpart
B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10,
1990). If the exemption is granted, the
restrictions of sections 406(a) and (b) of
the Act shall not apply to the
reinsurance of risks and the receipt of
premiums therefrom by Exchange
Indemnity Company (EIC), a whollyowned subsidiary of Verizon, in
connection with an insurance contract
sold by Prudential Life Insurance
Company (Prudential) or any successor
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
25722
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
insurance company to Prudential which
is unrelated to Verizon, to provide
group-term life insurance to certain
employees and retirees of Verizon and
Verizon Wireless under The Plan for
Group Insurance maintained by Verizon
and the Verizon Wireless Health and
Welfare Benefits Plan maintained by
Verizon Wireless (collectively, the
Plans), provided the following
conditions are met:
(a) EIC—
(1) Is a party in interest with respect
to the Plan by reason of a stock or
partnership affiliation with Verizon that
is described in section 3(14)(E) or (G) of
the Act,
(2) Is licensed to sell insurance or
conduct reinsurance operations in at
least one State as defined in section
3(10) of the Act,
(3) Has obtained a Certificate of
Authority from the Insurance
Commissioner of its domiciliary state
which has neither been revoked nor
suspended,
(4)(A) Has undergone and shall
continue to undergo an examination by
an independent certified public
accountant for its last completed taxable
year immediately prior to the taxable
year of the reinsurance transaction; or
(B) Has undergone a financial
examination (within the meaning of the
law of its domiciliary State, Vermont) by
the Insurance Commissioner of Vermont
within 5 years prior to the end of the
year preceding the year in which the
reinsurance transaction occurred, and
(5) Is licensed to conduct reinsurance
transactions by a State whose law
requires that an actuarial review of
reserves be conducted annually by an
independent firm of actuaries and
reported to the appropriate regulatory
authority;
(b) The Plans pay no more than
adequate consideration for the
insurance contracts;
(c) In subsequent years, the formula
used to calculate premiums by
Prudential or any successor insurer will
be similar to formulae used by other
insurers providing comparable coverage
under similar programs. Furthermore,
the premium charge calculated in
accordance with the formula will be
reasonable and will be comparable to
the premium charged by the insurer and
its competitors with the same or a better
rating providing the same coverage
under comparable programs;
(d) The Plans only contract with
insurers with a rating of A or better from
A.M. Best Company. The reinsurance
arrangement between the insurer and
EIC will be indemnity insurance only,
i.e., the insurer will not be relieved of
liability to the Plans should EIC be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
unable or unwilling to cover any
liability arising from the reinsurance
arrangement;
(e) No commissions, costs or other
expenses are paid with respect to the
reinsurance of such contracts; and
(f) For each taxable year of EIC, the
gross premiums and annuity
considerations received in that taxable
year by EIC for life and health insurance
or annuity contracts for all employee
benefit plans (and their employers) with
respect to which EIC is a party in
interest by reason of a relationship to
such employer described in section
3(14)(E) or (G) of the Act does not
exceed 50% of the gross premiums and
annuity considerations received for all
lines of insurance (whether direct
insurance or reinsurance) in that taxable
year by EIC. For purposes of this
condition (f):
(1) The term ‘‘gross premiums and
annuity considerations received’’ means
as to the numerator the total of
premiums and annuity considerations
received, both for the subject
reinsurance transactions as well as for
any direct sale or other reinsurance of
life insurance, health insurance or
annuity contracts to such plans (and
their employers) by EIC. This total is to
be reduced (in both the numerator and
the denominator of the fraction) by
experience refunds paid or credited in
that taxable year by EIC.
(2) all premium and annuity
considerations written by EIC for plans
which it alone maintains are to be
excluded from both the numerator and
the denominator of the fraction.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. Verizon Communications, Inc.
(Verizon) is a world-wide
telecommunications company. Verizon
maintains The Plan for Group
Insurance, a welfare plan within the
meaning of section 3(1) of the Act, for
the benefit of its employees. The Plan
for Group Insurance provides various
types of welfare benefits and includes a
group-term life insurance component
(basic, supplemental and dependent
coverage), which is fully insured.
2. (2) Verizon Wireless is a Delaware
Partnership and is a worldwide cellular
telephone company. Verizon Wireless is
a majority owned subsidiary of Verizon.
Verizon Wireless maintains the Verizon
Wireless Health and Welfare Benefits
Plan, a welfare plan within the meaning
of section 3(1) of the Act, for the benefit
of its employees. The Verizon Wireless
Health and Welfare Benefits Plan
provides various types of welfare
benefits and includes a group-term life
insurance component (basic,
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
supplemental and dependent coverage),
which is fully insured.
3. EIC is a 100% owned subsidiary of
Verizon (EIC is 53% owned by NYNEX
and 47% owned by GTE, each of which
are wholly owned subsidiaries of
Verizon). EIC is domiciled in the State
of Vermont. As of September 30, 2010,
EIC reported approximately $918
million in 2010 gross annual premiums
and $1,713 million in total assets. The
Applicants represent that for each
taxable year of EIC, the total amount of
premiums, both for the subject
reinsurance transactions as well as for
any direct sale or other reinsurance of
life insurance and health insurance for
all employee benefit plans for which
EIC is a party in interest by reason of a
relationship to the sponsoring employer
described in section 3(14)(E) or (G) of
the Act have not exceeded and will not
exceed 50% of the gross premiums
received by EIC from all lines of
insurance in that taxable year.
4. The group-term life insurance
component of The Plan for Group
Insurance has approximately 74,774
participants and beneficiaries and the
group-term life insurance component of
the Verizon Wireless Health and
Welfare Benefits Plan has approximately
66,522 participants and beneficiaries.
The proposed reinsurance shall only
apply with respect to certain
participants (the Affected Participants)
in the Plans. Affected Participants shall
include: (a) Non-union represented
employees and their dependents; (b)
retirees who were non-union
represented employees while employed,
and their dependents; and (c) union
represented employees and retirees of
Verizon Wireless.
5. The life insurance is currently
underwritten by Prudential Life
Insurance Company (Prudential), an
unaffiliated insurance carrier. Verizon
and Verizon Wireless have entered into
a policy with Prudential for 100% of
this coverage. Verizon proposes to use
its subsidiary, EIC, to reinsure 100% of
the risk through a reinsurance contract
between EIC and Prudential in which
Prudential would pay 100% of the
premiums to EIC. The Applicants
represent that there is no additional cost
to the Plan as a result of the reinsurance
arrangement. From the Affected
Participants’ perspective, they have a
binding contract with Prudential, which
is legally responsible for the group-term
life insurance risk associated under the
Plan. Prudential is liable to provide the
promised coverage regardless of the
proposed reinsurance arrangement.
6. The Applicants represent that the
proposed transaction will not in any
way affect the cost to the insureds of the
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Notices
group-term life insurance contracts, and
the Plans will pay no more than
adequate consideration for the
insurance. Verizon, Verizon Wireless
and/or EIC will not profit from the
reinsurance arrangement at the expense
of the Plans or the Affected Participants.
Also, the Affected Participants are
afforded insurance protection from
Prudential at competitive rates arrived
at through arm’s-length negotiations.
Prudential is rated ‘‘A+’’ by the A. M.
Best Company, whose insurance ratings
are widely used in financial and
regulatory circles. Prudential has assets
in excess of $667 billion. Prudential will
continue to have the ultimate
responsibility in the event of loss to pay
insurance benefits to the employee’s
beneficiary. The Applicants represent
that EIC is a sound, viable company
which is dependent upon insurance
customers that are unrelated to itself
and its affiliates for premium revenue.
7. The Applicants represent that the
proposed reinsurance transaction will
meet all of the conditions of PTE 79–41
covering direct insurance transactions:
(a) EIC is a party in interest with respect
to the Plans (within the meaning of
section 3(14)(G) of the Act) by reason of
stock affiliation with Verizon and
Verizon Wireless, which maintain the
Plans.
(b) EIC is licensed to do business in
the State of Vermont.
(c) EIC has undergone an examination
by an independent certified public
accountant for its fiscal year ending
December 31, 2009.
(d) EIC has received a Certificate of
Authority from its domiciliary State (as
defined in Act section 3(10)), the State
of Vermont, which has neither been
revoked nor suspended.
(e) The Plans will pay no more than
adequate consideration for the
insurance. The proposed transaction
will not in any way affect the cost to the
insureds of the group-term life
insurance transaction.
(f) No commissions, costs or other
expenses will be paid with respect to
the acquisition of reinsurance by
Prudential from EIC.
(g) For each taxable year of EIC, the
‘‘gross premiums and annuity
considerations received’’ in that taxable
year for group life and health insurance
(both direct insurance and reinsurance)
for all employee benefit plans (and their
employers) with respect to which EIC is
a party in interest by reason of a
relationship to such employer described
in section 3(14)(E) or (G) of the Act will
not exceed 50% of the ‘‘gross premiums
and annuity considerations received’’ by
EIC from all lines of insurance in that
taxable year. All of the premium income
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
of EIC comes from reinsurance. EIC has
received no premiums for the groupterm life insurance in the past.
8. In summary, the Applicants
represent that the proposed transaction
will meet the criteria of section 408(a)
of the Act because: (a) Plan participants
and beneficiaries are afforded insurance
protection by Prudential, an ‘‘A+’’ rated
group insurer, at competitive market
rates arrived at through arm’s-length
negotiations; (b) EIC is a sound, viable
insurance company which does a
substantial amount of public business
outside its affiliated group of
companies; and (c) each of the
protections provided to the Plans and
the Affected Participants and their
beneficiaries by PTE 79–41 will be met
under the proposed reinsurance
transaction.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General Information
The attention of interested persons is
directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the
subject of an exemption under section
408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve
a fiduciary or other party in interest or
disqualified person from certain other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including any prohibited transaction
provisions to which the exemption does
not apply and the general fiduciary
responsibility provisions of section 404
of the Act, which, among other things,
require a fiduciary to discharge his
duties respecting the plan solely in the
interest of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plan and in a
prudent fashion in accordance with
section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does
it affect the requirement of section
401(a) of the Code that the plan must
operate for the exclusive benefit of the
employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) Before an exemption may be
granted under section 408(a) of the Act
and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code,
the Department must find that the
exemption is administratively feasible,
in the interests of the plan and of its
participants and beneficiaries, and
protective of the rights of participants
and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The proposed exemptions, if
granted, will be supplemental to, and
not in derogation of, any other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including statutory or administrative
exemptions and transitional rules.
Furthermore, the fact that a transaction
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 2nd day of
May, 2011.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2011–10999 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
Gary
H. Lefkowitz of the Department,
telephone (202) 693–8546. (This is not
a toll-free number.)
PO 00000
25723
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Proposed Information Collection for
Growing America Through
Entrepreneurship (GATE) II Evaluation;
Comment Request
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Labor
(Department), as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to
provide the general public and federal
agencies with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and or
continuing collections of information in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program
helps to ensure that requested data can
be provided in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and financial
resources) is minimized, collection
instruments are clearly understood, and
the impact of collection requirements on
respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Employment and
Training Administration (ETA) is
soliciting comments on a new data
collection for the GATE II Evaluation. A
copy of the proposed information
collection request (ICR) can be obtained
by contacting the office listed below in
the addressee section of this notice.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted to the office listed in the
addressee section below on or before
July 5, 2011.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25711-25723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10999]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Proposed Exemptions from Certain Prohibited Transaction
Restrictions
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 (ERISA or the Act) and/or the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). This notice includes the
following proposed exemptions: D-11513, North Trust Corporation; D-
11634, The United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund (the Fund); D-
11639, Wolverine Bronze Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (the Plan); and
L-11651 and L-11652, Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon and Cellco
Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless (Verizon Wireless;
collectively, the Applicants) et al.]
DATES: 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.
ADDRESSES: 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.
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-5700, 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
[[Page 25712]]
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.
Warning: If you submit written comments or hearing requests, do not
include any personally-identifiable or confidential business
information that you do not want to be publicly-disclosed. All comments
and hearing requests are posted on the Internet exactly as they are
received, and they can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.
The Department will make no deletions, modifications or redactions to
the comments or hearing requests received, as they are public records.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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).
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.
Northern Trust Corporation
Located in Chicago, IL
[Application No. D-11513]
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of 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, 32847, August 10, 1990).
Section I. Transactions
If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of section
406(a)(1)(A) and (D) and section 406(b)(1) and (2) of ERISA and the
sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code,
by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A), (D), and (E) of the Code, shall not
apply, effective October 31, 2008, to the sale (the Sale) by a Plan (as
defined in Section III(e)) of an Auction Rate Security (ARS, as defined
in Section III(c)) to Northern Trust Corporation or an affiliate
thereof (Northern), if the conditions of Section II are met.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to
section 406 of ERISA should be read to refer also to the
corresponding provisions of section 4975 of the Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section II. Conditions
(a) The Plan acquired the ARS in connection with brokerage or
advisory services provided by Northern to the Plan;
(b) The last auction for the ARS was unsuccessful;
(c) The Sale is made pursuant to a written offer by Northern (the
Offer) containing all of the material terms of the Sale, in which the
Plan would have the opportunity to sell the ARS but would be under no
obligation to do so, and would include but is not limited to the
following:
(i) Northern will distribute each Offer to its eligible customers,
marked, or otherwise prepared in a manner reasonably designed to
prominently indicate to the recipient the subject matter, importance,
and time-sensitivity of the information provided;
(ii) Acceptance of an Offer would cause Northern to purchase the
eligible ARS at the next applicable coupon interest payment date as
described therein. Purchase dates may vary depending on when an Offer
is accepted and when the next coupon interest payment date for such
eligible ARS occurs;
(iii) Acceptance of the Offer could be withdrawn at any time until
three business days prior to the payment date; and
(iv) The Offer will comply with ``plain English'' standards and
will include: A reference to a Web site containing a description of the
eligibility criteria used by Northern; a reference to where the Plan
fiduciary can find a list of eligible ARS held in the account
(including the amount and other identifying information); the
background of the Offer; the methods and timing by which eligible
customers may accept the Offer; the manner of determining the purchase
dates for eligible ARS pursuant to the Offer; the timing of payment for
eligible ARS purchased pursuant to the Offer; the methods and timing by
which a customer may elect to withdraw its acceptance of the Offer; the
expiration date of the Offer; a suggestion that eligible customers
consult their tax advisors to determine the tax consequences, if any,
of accepting the Offer and to ensure that accounting and financial
reporting complies with applicable accounting guidance; and how to
obtain additional information concerning the Offer;
(d) The Sale is a one-time transaction for no consideration other
than cash payment against prompt delivery of the ARS;
(e) The sales price for the ARS is equal to the par value of the
ARS, plus any accrued but unpaid interest or dividends as applicable,
as of the date of the Sale;
(f) The Plan does not waive any rights or claims in connection with
the Sale;
(g) The decision to accept the Offer or retain the ARS is made by
an Independent Fiduciary (as defined in Section III(d)).\2\
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of an individual retirement
account (IRA) which is beneficially owned by an employee, officer,
director or partner of Northern, the decision to accept the Offer or
retain the ARS may be made by such employee, officer, director, or
partner;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Department notes that ERISA's general standards of
fiduciary conduct would apply to the transactions described herein.
In this regard, section 404 requires, among other things, that a
fiduciary discharge his duties respecting a plan solely in the
interest of the plan's participants and beneficiaries and in a
prudent manner. Accordingly, a plan fiduciary must act prudently
with respect to, among other things, the decision to sell the ARS to
Northern for the par value of the ARS. The Department further
emphasizes that it expects plan fiduciaries, prior to entering into
any of the transactions, to fully understand the risks associated
with this type of transaction, following disclosure by Northern of
all the relevant information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) Neither Northern nor an affiliate thereof exercises investment
discretion or renders investment advice, within the meaning of 29 CFR
2510.3-21(c), in connection with the decision to sell or retain the
ARS;
(i) The Plan does not pay any commissions or any other transaction
costs with respect to the Sale;
(j) The Sale is not part of an arrangement, agreement, or
understanding designed to benefit a party in interest or disqualified
person to the Plan;
[[Page 25713]]
(k) Northern maintains, or causes to be maintained, for a period of
six (6) years from the date of the Sale such records as are necessary
to enable the persons described below in paragraph (l)(i), to determine
whether the conditions of this proposed exemption, if granted, have
been met, except that--
(i) No party in interest or disqualified person with respect to a
Plan which engages in a Sale, other than Northern and its affiliates,
as applicable, shall be subject to a civil penalty under section 502(i)
of ERISA or the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code,
if such records are not maintained, or not available for examination,
as required, below by paragraph (l)(i); and
(ii) A separate prohibited transaction shall not be considered to
have occurred solely because, due to circumstances beyond the control
of Northern or its affiliates, as applicable, such records are lost or
destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period; and
(l)(i) Except as provided below in paragraph (l)(ii), and
notwithstanding any provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b) of section
504 of ERISA, the records referred to above in paragraph (k) 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 the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission; or
(B) Any fiduciary of any Plan, including an IRA owner, that engages
in a Sale, or any duly authorized employee or representative of such
fiduciary; or
(C) Any employer of participants and beneficiaries and any employee
organization whose members are covered by a Plan that engages in the
Sale, or any authorized employee or representative of these entities;
(ii) None of the persons described above in paragraph (l)(i)(B)-(C)
shall be authorized to examine trade secrets of Northern, or commercial
or financial information which is privileged or confidential; and
(iii) Should Northern refuse to disclose information on the basis
that such information is exempt from disclosure, Northern shall, by the
close of the thirtieth (30th) day following the request, provide a
written notice advising that person of the reasons for the refusal and
that the Department may request such information.
III. Definitions
For purposes of this exemption:
(a) The term ``affiliate'' of another person means: (1) Any person
directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries,
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such person;
(2) any officer, director, partner, employee, or relative (as defined
in section 3(15) of ERISA) of such other person; and (3) any
corporation or partnership of which such other person is an officer,
director, partner, or employee;
(b) The term ``control'' means the power to exercise a controlling
influence over the management or policies of a person other than an
individual;
(c) The term ``Auction Rate Security'' or ``ARS'' means a debt
obligation of a corporation, business entity, municipality or other
governmental agency with a nominal long-term maturity for which the
interest rate is reset through a Dutch Auction typically held every 7,
14, 28, 35 or 49 days, with interest paid at the end of each auction
period. The term also means preferred stock issued by a corporation or
other business entity for which the dividend is reset and paid through
the same process;
(d) The term ``Independent Fiduciary'' shall mean the fiduciary of
the Plan making the decision to engage the Plan in the covered
transactions, provided that such fiduciary may not be Northern or an
affiliate thereof; and
(e) The term ``Plan'' means an individual retirement account (an
IRA) or similar account described in section 4975(e)(1)(B) through (F)
of the Code; or an employee benefit plan as defined in section 3(3) of
ERISA.
Effective Date: If granted, this proposed exemption will be effective
as of October 31, 2008.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. Northern Trust Corporation (hereinafter, either ``Northern'' or
the ``applicant'') is a financial holding company that is a leading
provider of investment management, asset and fund administration,
fiduciary, and banking solutions for corporations, institutions, and
affluent individuals. Northern conducts business through various U.S.
and non-U.S. subsidiaries, including The Northern Trust Company (the
``Bank''), an Illinois bank headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
The Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System, its deposits
are insured by the FDIC, and it is subject to regulation by both of
those entities, as well as by the Division of Banking of the Illinois
Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. Northern's
national bank subsidiaries are members of the Federal Reserve System
and are subject to regulation by the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, with deposits insured by the FDIC to the extent provided by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Northern Trust Bank, FSB is a
federal savings bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve System
and is subject to regulation by the Office of Thrift Supervision and
the FDIC.
Northern also has a number of direct and indirect subsidiary
registered investment advisers that are subject to the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, and a subsidiary broker-dealer, Northern Trust
Securities, Inc. (NTSI), an SEC registered broker-dealer that is
subject to the supervision of various governmental and self-regulatory
bodies.
Northern has a network of 79 offices in 18 states and has
international offices in 16 locations in North America, Europe, and the
Asia-Pacific region. As of December 31, 2009, Northern had consolidated
total assets of $74.3 trillion and stockholders' equity of $6.3
trillion. The Bank, founded in 1889, conducts its business through its
U.S. operations, its Toronto, London, and Singapore branches, and
various U.S. and non-U.S. subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2009, the
Bank had assets under management of $627.2 billion and assets under
custody of $3.7 trillion.
2. In connection with the liquidity problems in the Auction Rate
Securities (ARS) market, Northern offered to purchase certain ARS from
certain client accounts, including certain Plan (as defined in Section
III(e)) accounts.\3\ The ARS typically trade through Dutch Auctions.\4\
While many of these
[[Page 25714]]
securities continue to be rated by independent credit rating agencies
as investment grade credit, many ARS continue to experience failed
auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ARS may be issued as either debt or preferred stock. In the
case of debt, they generally have a long-term nominal maturity and
an interest rate that is reset through a Dutch Auction process. In
the case of preferred stock, they generally have no maturity and a
dividend that is reset through a Dutch Auction process. A Dutch
Auction is a competitive process used to determine rates on each
auction date. Bids are submitted to the auction agent by the broker-
dealer on behalf of the investors interested in selling their
securities. The auction agent matches bids with securities offered
by the bondholders and the winning bid is the highest price (lowest
interest rate or dividend) at which the auction clears. That means
the lowest interest rate at which the total number of securities
demanded equals the total number auctioned. If the market does not
clear, then there is a failed auction, and the securities may not be
sold in their entirety.
\4\ In a Dutch Auction, prospective investors may submit a bid
that specifies the par amount of the securities they wish to acquire
and the minimum interest rate or dividend they are willing to
accept. Existing holders may submit (i) a hold order, which means
they want to hold their position at whatever rate is set via the
auction, (ii) a hold at rate order, which means they want to hold
their position but only if the rate is set at or above their
specified level, or (iii) a sell order, which means they wish to
exit their position, regardless of the rate set via the auction. The
auctions generally take place periodically (i.e., daily or 7, 28, 35
or 49 day periods are typical). The securities trade at par and are
bought or sold on designated auction dates, presuming a successful
auction. These securities also may be redeemed by issuers (through
announced full or partial redemptions). Although they nominally are
long term instruments, because of the interest rate and dividend
reset features, they historically have been priced and traded as
short term instruments due to the auction process. They generally
are issued in minimum denominations ranging from $25,000 to
$100,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Northern is a party in interest or disqualified person with
respect to the ERISA or the Code Plan accounts, Northern requests an
administrative exemption granting both retroactive and prospective
relief for the sale (the Sale) by a Plan of an ARS to Northern where
the auctions for those securities have failed. The applicant opines
that, in instances where Northern is not a fiduciary, section
408(b)(17) of ERISA should provide the necessary exemptive relief.\5\
In some cases, Northern has discretionary authority with respect to the
Plan accounts. In other cases, Northern may have provided advice such
that IRA owners or other Plan fiduciaries could claim that Northern is
a fiduciary. Where Northern is or could be a fiduciary with respect to
a Plan, exemptive relief is necessary to cover Northern's purchases of
eligible ARS from specified Plan accounts, including (i) individual
retirement accounts or similar accounts (which may be beneficially
owned by an employee, officer, director or partner of Northern); and
(ii) employee benefit plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Department expresses no opinion herein as to whether the
conditions of section 408(b)(17) of ERISA were or are satisfied by
any purchase of ARS from a Plan by Northern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Northern made one or more written offers (an ``Offer'') to all
of its eligible customers to purchase all eligible ARS held by such
customers for cash at par value, plus accrued but unpaid interest,
pursuant to the relevant Offer, described further in Item 4, below.
Each Offer was open for a minimum of 30 days from the date it was first
distributed by Northern to its eligible customers, or for such longer
period as determined by Northern from time to time.
Acceptance of an Offer would cause Northern to purchase the
eligible ARS on the next applicable coupon interest payment date as
described in the relevant Offer Document. Purchase dates may vary
depending on when an Offer is accepted and when the next coupon
interest payment date for such eligible ARS occurs.
Acceptance of the Offer could be withdrawn at any time until three
business days prior to the payment date. If an eligible customer has
not accepted the Offer and the eligible customer holds an account with
respect to which Northern has discretionary control, Northern documents
the customer's direction to retain the eligible ARS and clarifies that
Northern has no investment responsibility with respect to those
securities.
4. The Offer that Northern distributed to its eligible customers
was marked, or otherwise prepared in a manner reasonably designed to
prominently indicate to the recipient the subject matter, importance,
and time-sensitivity of the information provided.
The Offer complies with ``plain English'' standards and included
disclosure of, or a fair and adequate summary of, all material aspects
of:
The terms and conditions of the Offer, including reference
to a Web site containing a description of the eligibility criteria used
by Northern;
A list of eligible ARS held in the account (including the
amount, identifying information, and CUSIP);
The background of the Offer;
The methods and timing by which eligible customers may
accept the Offer;
The manner of determining the purchase dates for eligible
ARS pursuant to the Offer;
The timing of payment for eligible ARS purchased pursuant
to the Offer;
The methods and timing by which a customer may elect to
withdraw its acceptance of the Offer;
The expiration date of the Offer;
A suggestion that eligible customers consult their tax
advisors to determine the tax consequences, if any, of accepting the
Offer and to ensure that accounting and financial reporting complies
with applicable accounting guidance;
For advisory clients, disclosure that (a) acceptance of
the Offer by an eligible customer will constitute such customer's
direction to Northern to purchase the eligible ARS, and (b) rejection
of the Offer by an eligible customer will constitute such customer's
direction to Northern to retain the eligible ARS in the account; and
How to obtain additional information concerning the Offer.
All client accounts which accepted the Offer were paid on a date
that coincided with the interest payment date so that there would be no
accrued but unpaid interest, or were paid accrued interest. No
brokerage commissions or other fees were charged.
5. In summary, the applicant represents that the transactions
described herein satisfy the statutory criteria of section 408(a) of
ERISA because, among other things:
(a) Each covered Sale shall be made pursuant to a written Offer;
(b) Each covered Sale shall be a one-time transaction for no
consideration other than cash payment against prompt delivery of the
ARS;
(c) The sales price in each covered Sale shall equal the par value
of the ARS, plus any accrued but unpaid interest or dividends as
applicable, as of the date of the Sale;
(d) Plans would not waive any rights or claims in connection with
any covered Sale as a condition for engaging in such transaction;
(e)(1) the decision to accept an Offer or retain the ARS shall be
made by an Independent Fiduciary; and (2) neither Northern nor an
affiliate thereof shall exercise investment discretion or render
investment advice, within the meaning of 29 CFR 2510.3-21(c), in
connection with the decision to accept the Offer or retain the ARS;
(f) Plans shall not pay any commissions or transaction costs with
respect to any covered Sale;
(g) A covered Sale shall not be part of an arrangement, agreement,
or understanding designed to benefit a party in interest or
disqualified person to the affected Plan.
Notice to Interested Persons
The applicant represents that all the potentially interested
persons cannot be identified and that, therefore, the only practicable
means of notifying interested persons of this proposed exemption is by
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments and
requests for a hearing are due within 45 days from the date of
publication of this notice of proposed exemption in the Federal
Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karin Weng of the Department,
telephone (202) 693-8557. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund (the Plan or the
Applicant) Located in Las Vegas, Nevada [Application No. D-11634]
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the
Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part
2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).\6\ If the
exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A), (D)
[[Page 25715]]
and 406(b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the
application of section 4975(c)(1)(A) and (D) of the Code, shall not
apply to the proposed sale (Sale) of a 10.89 acre parcel of real
property (the Parcel), which is part of larger parcel of real property
(the Nevada Property), from the Plan-owned Bermuda Hidden Well, LLC
(Bermuda LLC) to the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (the
Council), a party in interest with respect to the Plan; provided that
the following conditions are satisfied:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to the
provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer
also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) The terms and conditions of the Sale are at least as favorable
to the Plan as those obtainable in an arm's length transaction with an
unrelated party;
(b) The Sale is a one-time transaction for cash;
(c) As consideration, the Plan receives the greater of $5,383,577,
or the fair market value of the Parcel as determined by a qualified,
independent appraiser (the Appraiser) in an appraisal (the Appraisal)
of the Nevada Property, which is updated on the date of Sale (Sale
Date);
(d) The Plan pays no commissions, costs or fees with respect to the
Sale, except for customary closing costs (the Seller Closing Costs) and
50% of certain rental credits (the Rental Credits) that are paid to
unrelated parties; and
(e) The Plan fiduciaries review and approve the methodology used by
the Appraiser, ensure that such methodology is properly applied in
determining the fair market value of the Parcel, and also determine
whether it is prudent to go forward with the proposed transaction.
Summary of Facts and Representations
The Parties
1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (UBC),
the Plan sponsor, is an international labor organization with 725 local
unions and 37 councils, including the Council. UBC's General President
has the authority to appoint members to the Plan's Board of Trustees
(the Board), with approval of UBC's General Executive Board. UBC is a
fiduciary with respect to the Plan.
2. The Council, which is based in Los Angeles, California, is a
contributing employer to the Plan and some of its employees are covered
by the Plan. The Council is an intermediate labor organization that is
aligned with 35 local unions. In this regard, the Council represents
over 65,000 carpenters in Southern California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah,
New Mexico and West Texas. It has its own by-laws, elected officers,
representatives and employers.
Although the Council is aligned with the UBC, as mentioned above,
it is a separate and autonomous entity from UBC. As a contributing
employer to the Plan, the Council is a party in interest. However, it
is not a fiduciary with respect to the Plan because the Board is not
comprised of any Council members or local union members within the
jurisdiction of the Council. Further, the Council has no discretion
over the management or disposition of the Plan's assets.
3. The Plan is a defined benefit, multiemployer plan, located in
Las Vegas, Nevada. As of December 31, 2009, the Plan had 4,615
participants and beneficiaries. Also, as of December 31, 2009, the Plan
had total assets of $588,857,770.
The Board consists of eight trustees (the Trustees), who include
representatives from UBC, the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters,
the St. Louis Missouri District Council, the Alberta and Northwest
Territories Regional Council and Local Union 745 (which is not in the
territory of the Council). Of the Trustees, four are general officers
of UBC. The four remaining Trustees are officers of councils or local
unions that are not aligned with the Council.
The Board has appointed a subcommittee to make decisions regarding
the Parcel and the Sale described herein. Michael Draper, the District
Vice President of UBC for the Western District of UBC and Frank Libby,
the Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Chicago Regional Council of
Carpenters are the sole members of the subcommittee.
The Nevada Property--History and the Plan's Acquisition
4. The Nevada Property is located at 6855 Bermuda Road Las Vegas,
Nevada, south of the McCarran International Airport. UBC owns a
building to the west of the Nevada Property, located at 6801 Placid
Street, Las Vegas, Nevada. The Nevada Property is zoned as M-1, Light
Industrial district by the City of Las Vegas. The permitted uses for
this district include office, light industrial, general commercial and
auto related uses.
The Nevada Property can be subdivided into two parcels. The Parcel,
itself, a 10.89 acre tract of land, consists solely of asphalt-paved
parking areas with curbs, light poles and some chain link fencing
around the perimeter. The Parcel represents approximately 36.1% of the
Nevada Property. The remaining 19.25 acre tract of land, which is not
subject to the proposed Sale, represents 63.9% of the Nevada Property.
Situated on the 19.25 acre tract are a car rental facility, which has a
passenger terminal, a car wash, a car repair facility with a service
bay, steel canopies, and other site improvements, such as covered
parking spaces, yard lighting, fencing curbing and several booths.
5. On April 19, 2001, the Plan incorporated Bermuda LLC, a limited
liability company, in the State of Delaware, with the Plan serving as
both sole member and owner. Bermuda LLC was formed to hold real
property on behalf of the Plan and specifically to acquire the Nevada
Property.
On June 11, 2001, Bermuda LLC acquired the Nevada Property from LV-
Airport Investors, LLC, an unrelated party, for a total cash price of
$10,464,126. At the time of the acquisition, the Nevada Property was
encumbered by a lease (the Lease) between LV-Airport Investors, LLC, as
lessor and Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC (Alamo), an unrelated party, as
lessee. Alamo, which provided car rental services from the Nevada
Property, used the Nevada Property as its office and as a car pick-up
and return facility.
LV-Airport Investors, LLC had originally entered into the Lease
with Alamo on April 12, 2001. The Lease was subject to separate
guaranty by ANC Rental Corporation, an unrelated party and an affiliate
of Alamo, that would guarantee the rental payments and other
obligations under the Lease on behalf of Alamo.
6. Bermuda LLC assumed the Lease in June 2001 and remains the
lessor under the Lease. Although the Nevada Property has been
continuously leased, the lessee has repeatedly changed from 2001 to the
present. In 2003, Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc. (Vanguard), an
unrelated party, assumed the Lease from Alamo pursuant to an assignment
during bankruptcy proceedings involving ANC Rental Corporation, Alamo
and related entities. In addition, as part of the bankruptcy
proceedings, ANC Rental Corporation's guaranty was eliminated.
Currently, the Lease payments are no longer subject to a guaranty.
7. In April 2007, McCarran International Airport opened a
centralized car return facility. As a result, the Nevada Property would
no longer be used for vehicle pick-ups and returns. Instead, the Nevada
Property would be used henceforth for car cleaning and maintenance. On
April 5, 2007, Vanguard entered into a sublease with the Clark County
Aviation Authority (the Authority) for the Parcel and an additional 7.8
acres of the Nevada Property. Thus, the Authority subleased
approximately 18.69 acres
[[Page 25716]]
from the Plan for $105,883 per month or $.13 per month per square foot.
The sublease expired on April 14, 2009 and it was not renewed.
Currently, the Parcel is not being subleased.
8. By letter dated June 13, 2007, Vanguard advised Bermuda LLC that
all of Vanguard's issued and outstanding stock had been purchased by an
affiliate of Enterprise Rent-A-Car (Enterprise). The Applicant
represents that this purchase would not result in a change in the
Vanguard corporate legal entity, and that Vanguard and/or its
subsidiaries would continue to be responsible for all of its respective
obligations following the purchase with respect to the Plan.
9. Effective August 1, 2009, in accordance with Alamo's bankruptcy
proceedings, Alamo officially assigned the Lease to Enterprise Lease
Company--West, LLC (Enterprise Leasing), an unrelated party, who is the
current lessee of the Nevada Property. The Lease expires on April 30,
2021. There are two 5 year renewal options at market rent that could
possibly extend the Lease until 2031.
10. The Lease is a triple net lease requiring the lessee to pay for
real estate taxes, insurance and maintenance costs. Under the Lease,
the annual basic rent for the Nevada Property was $908,500 for the
first year. Thereafter, the annual rent has been subject to an increase
based upon the lesser of (a) the product obtained by multiplying the
basic rent for the prior rental period by 2%, or (b) the product
obtained by multiplying the basic rent for the prior year by three
times the percentage change in the Department's Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers--U.S. City
Average (CPI) during such prior rental period. The current rent cannot
be reduced below the rent floor set in the prior rental period. For the
rental year ending April 30, 2011, the monthly rent for the Nevada
Property is $88,704.36 per month or $1,064,452.32 per rental year.
The Management and Holding of the Nevada Property
11. Although Bermuda LLC holds the Nevada Property for the Plan,
the Plan and any officers, that it may select, make all management
decisions for Bermuda LLC. From September 1, 2002 through June 30,
2004, the Plan had retained Strategic Property Advisors (SPA) to serve
as the qualified professional asset manager (QPAM) for the Nevada
Property. From July 1, 2004 through the present, the Plan has retained
Strategic Capital Advisers (SCA) to serve as the Plan's QPAM. SPA has
entered into a subadvisory role with SCA and SPA remains a fiduciary
with respect to the Plan. Currently, Commerce TNP, Inc. (Commerce TNP)
serves as the property manager for the Nevada Property.
12. The Nevada Property has annually generated income in excess of
expenses for the Plan since the time of acquisition. For the period
between 2001 through 2005, the Plan income and expenses for the Nevada
Property are presented as follows in Table 1:
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Totals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Rental Income............... 454,250 920,613 939,026 957,806 976,962 4,248,657
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Management Fee.......... 0 0 0 0 0 ...........
Administration Fee................ 97 0 195 0 0 ...........
Engineering Expense............... 0 0 0 0 0 ...........
Statement of Business Publication 25 25 25 25 30 ...........
Fee..............................
Legal Fee......................... 1,100 0 0 0 0 ...........
Appraisal Fee..................... 0 0 0 6,498 0 ...........
Delaware State Franchise Tax...... 0 200 100 305 200 ...........
Nevada Annual List of Managers Fee 0 85 105 155 155 ...........
Nevada/Delaware CSC Reg. Agent Fee 0 350 448 468 488 ...........
Asset Management Fee.............. 0 0 5,000 7,000 13,000 ...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Property Expenses....... 1,222 660 5,873 14,451 13,873 36,079
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Income................ 453,028 919,953 933,153 943,355 963,089 4,212,578
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that the 2001 income reflects the period from
April 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001. Additionally, the 2001 and 2002
expenses are estimates.
13. For the period 2006-2010, the Plan income and expenses for the
Nevada Property are presented as follows in Table 2:
Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Totals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Income..................... 996,501 1,016,431 1,036,760 1,043,581 1,146,200 5,239,473
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Management Fee........... 0 0 12,000 14,400 14,400 ...........
Administration Fee................ 0 0 25 0 0 ...........
Engineering Expense \7\........... 0 0 0 2,500 16,974 ...........
Statement of Business Publication 30 30 30 30 30 ...........
Fee..............................
Legal Fee......................... 0 0 0 0 480 ...........
[[Page 25717]]
Appraisal Fee..................... 0 6,000 2,900 6,000 6,000 ...........
Delaware State Franchise Tax...... 200 200 200 250 250 ...........
Nevada Annual List of Managers Fee 155 155 125 125 125 ...........
Nevada Sec of State-Business 0 0 0 0 200 ...........
License Fee......................
Nevada/Delaware CSC Reg. Agent Fee 508 528 552 582 612 ...........
Asset Management Fee.............. 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 ...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Property Expenses....... 13,893 19,913 28,832 36,887 52,071 151,596
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Income................ 982,608 996,518 1,007,928 1,006,694 1,094,369 5,088,117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. After combining the expenses in Tables 1 and 2, the Plan has
incurred total expenses of $187,675 excluding acquisition costs for the
Nevada Property. The acquisition cost to the Plan was $10,464,126 for
the Nevada Property. Therefore, the total acquisition and holding costs
for the Nevada Property are $10,651,801 (i.e., $10,464,126 acquisition
costs + $187,675 in holding costs). After combining the rental income
in Tables 1 and 2, the Plan's total rental income for the years 2001-
2010 is $9,488,130. After factoring in total rental income, the Plan's
net acquisition and holding costs for the Nevada Property are
$1,163,671 (i.e., total acquisition and holding costs of $10,651,801--
total rental income of $9,488,130).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Plan paid $2,500 in 2009 and $16,974 in 2010 for
engineering fees (Engineering Fees). The Engineering Fees included
the surveying of the Nevada Property and the creation of a new,
separate legal description for the 10.89 acre Parcel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lease Modification and Rental Credit
15. On April 23, 2010, SPA, a sub-adviser to SCA, the Plan's QPAM,
negotiated a modification to the Lease on behalf of the Plan. This
modification would permit the potential termination of Enterprise
Leasing's leasehold interest in the 10.89 Parcel in return for a
termination fee of $100,000 paid to Enterprise Leasing (Lease
Modification Fee). The 19.25 acre tract of land would remain subject to
the Lease. Additionally, the Lease Modification would result in a pro
rata reduction in Enterprise Leasing's rental payments to 63.9% of the
original monthly rent since it would no longer be leasing the Parcel
from the Plan.
In order to free the Parcel for sale, the Lease Modification
requires that Enterprise Leasing agree not to sublease the Parcel until
the proposed Sale is finalized. Therefore, SPA negotiated the Rental
Credit that went into effect beginning in mid-October 2010 through mid-
January 2011. The Applicant represents that the Rental Credit is
necessary because Enterprise Leasing is restricted from subleasing the
Parcel while the Applicant awaits an administrative exemption from the
Department. In accordance with the Lease Modification, the Plan has
been required to provide Enterprise Leasing a $15,000 per month rental
credit since October 2010. The Rental Credit is to be applied in
calendar year 2011. The Rental Credit was renewed in mid-January 2011
through mid-July 2011. To assist the Plan, SPA and the Council later
agreed that the Council would pay $7,500 per month or 50% of the total
Rental Credit.
The Appraisal
16. SPA retained Cushman & Wakefield of Nevada, Inc., located in
Las Vegas, the Plan's current appraiser, to appraise a leased fee
interest in the Nevada Property (i.e., the 10.89 acre Parcel and the
19.25 acre tract) effective March 1, 2010 in an appraisal report dated
June 11, 2010. Associate Director Stephen E. Wilson and Senior Director
Kaye A. Cuba, who are employed by the Appraiser, conducted the
Appraisal. Mr. Wilson entered the real estate business in 1998. He is a
Certified General Appraiser in both Nevada and Arizona and is an
associate member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI). Mr. Wilson is
experienced in appraising multi-family, office, retail, industrial/
warehouse, residential subdivisions and vacant land. He has also
completed professional courses and seminars with various appraisal
organizations including the MAI.
Ms. Cuba has 25 years of experience in the appraisal field
primarily in the banking industry and fee appraisal business. She is an
MAI Appraiser and a Certified General Appraiser in Nevada, California
and Arizona. Ms. Cuba also serves on the Appraisal Institute's
Education Committee and is the 2010 President of its Las Vegas chapter.
She has served as a panelist addressing appraisal review issues at
local chapter seminars and a regional conference. Furthermore, Ms. Cuba
has extensive experience and knowledge in the preparation of appraisals
for commercial properties, including retail properties, restaurants,
residential properties, light industrial properties, health care
facilities, residential subdivisions and vacant land. She joined the
Appraiser in February 2007 as Senior Director of Valuation & Advisory
Services in the Las Vegas office. Her responsibilities include real
estate valuation and consulting services for clients with properties
located in Southern Nevada and Northwest Arizona.
The Appraiser represents that the fees it received from the Council
and its affiliates in 2009 were less than 1% of the Appraiser's annual
gross income within that year. The Appraiser also acknowledges it is
aware that the Appraisal is being used for the purposes of obtaining an
individual exemption from the Department.
17. According to the Appraisal, the Appraiser determined that the
Nevada Property, subject to the Lease had an ``As-Is'' fair market
value of $14,900,000.00 as of March 1, 2010. The Appraiser used the
Cost Approach and the Income Capitalization Approach to valuation. The
Appraiser explains it did not use the Sales Comparison Approach because
the Nevada Property has a specialized land use and public information
regarding similar sale transactions was generally insufficient.
Under the Cost Approach, the Appraiser approximated the cost to
replace the Nevada Property with an equivalent facility. In order to do
so, the Appraiser used sale comparisons to determine that the value of
the underlying land was $11,820,000. After considering such factors as
the replacement cost of the Nevada Property, indirect costs,
entrepreneurial profit, the structures, depreciation and a rent
deficit, the Appraiser concluded that, under the Cost Approach, the
Nevada Property was worth $15,700,000.00 as of March 1, 2010.
Under the Income Capitalization Approach, the Appraiser
approximated
[[Page 25718]]
the anticipated income and expenses (i.e., anticipated economic
benefits) to determine the fair market value of the Nevada Property.
The Appraiser determined that this approach resulted in a fair market
value of $14,900,000 for the Nevada Property as March 1, 2010.
The Appraiser then reconciled the various valuation methods and
determined that the fair market value of the leased fee interest in the
Nevada Property was $14,900,000 as of March 1, 2010. The Appraiser
weighed the Income Capitalization Approach more heavily in the
Appraisal because this methodology mirrored the methodology used by
purchasers of this type of property. Thus, on the basis of the
Appraisal, the fair market value of the Parcel was $5,383,577 as of
March 1, 2010 ($14,900,000 x 10.89 acres/30.14 acres).
It should be noted that the Appraiser, also surveyed local real
estate brokers for the Appraisal. These brokers indicated that upon the
completion of renovations at the adjacent McCarran International
Airport, the Nevada Property could increase in value. The Nevada
Property appraised valued peaked in 2007 when it was appraised at
$21,740,000 by the Appraiser. In an August 4, 2010 letter, the
Appraiser represented that at the date of the Appraisal, the Appraiser
did not anticipate that the completion of the McCarran Airport
renovations would have any significant short-term effect on industrial
land values within the subject's submarket. Moreover, the Appraiser
represented that it did not anticipate that the Nevada Property would
return to its 2007 peak value within the next few years. Instead, any
recovery with the industrial market would require a significant
improvement in the Las Vegas unemployment rate and an improvement in
the local, state and national manufacturing sectors.
The Nevada Property is also located within the vicinity of real
property owned by UBC. In a separate December 15, 2010 letter, Mr.
Wilson stated that the Appraiser did not believe the Nevada Property
had any assemblage value due to its close proximity to UBC's building.
Finally, the Appraiser provided an updated summary appraisal report
(the Summary Appraisal), dated March 3, 2011, which valued a leased fee
interest of the 10.89 acre Parcel and the 19.25 acre tract of land
comprising the Nevada Property (in an ``as is'' condition) at
$11,000,000 as of March 1, 2011. The Summary Appraisal utilized both
the Cost Approach and the Income Capitalization Approach to valuation,
but gave the most weight to the Income Capitalization Approach because
it mirrored the methodology used by purchasers of this property type.
Thus, on the basis of the Summary Appraisal, the fair market value of
the Parcel was $3,960,000 as of March 1, 2011 ($11,000,000 * 10.89
acres/30.14 acres).
Terms of the Sale
18. The Council had been trying to obtain property for the
construction of a training facility over the past five years. The
Council had made offers on several tracts of land and such offers have
either been refused or encountered problems. The Council selected the
Parcel because it is suitable for a training facility and is visible to
freeways. The Council may lease a future facility to the Southwest
Carpenters Training Fund, the Applicant represents that the Council has
not voted whether to enter into such future lease.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Department wishes to point out that any future leasing
of the Parcel by the Council to the Southwest Carpenters Training
Fund for training purposes must be compliant with the terms and
conditions of PTE 78-6, 43 FR 23024 (May 30, 1978). PTE 78-6
exempts, among other transactions, the leasing of real property
other than office space by an apprenticeship plan from a
contributing employer, a wholly-owned subsidiary of such employer,
or an employee organization any of whose members' work results in
contributions being made to the apprenticeship plan. The Department
also notes that PTE 78-6 provides exemptive relief from section
406(a)(1)(A), (C) and (D) of the Act, but no relief from the
fiduciary self-dealing or conflict of interest provisions under
section 406(b)(1) and (2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Plan has not any made efforts to sell the Parcel to
unrelated parties nor has it received any unsolicited purchase offers
from unrelated parties, the Council's purchase of the Parcel would
allow the Plan to receive a profit. In this regard, the proposed Sale
price for the Parcel that will be paid by the Council will be
(excluding certain Seller Costs and Rental Credits) the higher of
$5,383,577 ($14,900,000 \9\ * 10.89 acres/30.14 acres) or the fair
market value of the Parcel on the Sale Date as determined by the
Appraiser in an updated Appraisal on the Sale Date. The pro rata
purchase price for the Parcel was approximately $3,780,834 ($10,464,126
original purchase price * 10.89 acres/30.14 acres). Therefore, the pro
rata gain for the Parcel is $1,602,743 ($5,383,577 purchase price-
$3,780,834 original purchase price) or an approximately 42% gain
($1,602,743 gain/$3,780,847 cost basis) for the Parcel, without taking
into account certain Seller Closing Costs and Rental Credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Council proposes to base the purchase price for the
Parcel on the $14.9 million fair market value of the Nevada Property
as determined as of March 1, 2010 in the Appraisal rather than the
$11 million fair market value for such property as determined as of
March 1, 2011 in the Summary Appraisal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The Plan will pay certain Seller Closing Costs in connection
with the Sale. These Seller Closing Costs include owner's title
insurance of $4,263.79, escrow fees of $1,265, recording fees of
approximately $100 and the Clark County real estate transfer tax which
is estimated to be approximately $27,458.40, or total Seller Closing
Costs of $33,087.19.\10\ The Seller Closing Costs amount to less than 1
percent of the proposed Sale price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Susan Borst, director of the Commerce Real Estate
Solutions, an alliance member of the Appraiser, and a certified
Commercial Investment Member, with over 15 years of real estate
industry experience, represented that it is the customary and normal
practice in Clark County, Nevada for the seller to pay real estate
transfer taxes. Ms. Borst also states that less than 1% of her 2010
annual income was derived from the Council and its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the Seller Closing Costs, the Plan will pay
Enterprise Leasing 50% of all Rental Credits, as described above in
Representation 15. These Rental Credits will cost the Plan a total of
$67,500. Accordingly, the Plan's aggregate costs are estimated at
$100,587.19.
The Applicant represents that a hypothetical sale to an unrelated
third party would require the Plan to pay a sales commission. The
Applicant states that such commissions typically amount to 4% of the
value of the Sale or, in this case, $215,343. In a hypothetical sale to
an unrelated third party, the Plan would pay $248,432 (i.e., a $215,343
commission plus $33,087 in Seller Closing Costs). Thus, according to
the Applicant, the Plan would pay less in closing and transaction costs
in the proposed Sale when compared to a hypothetical sale to an
unrelated third party. (The Department notes, however, that it is
unlikely that a hypothetical buyer would also pay a Lease Modification
Fee and 50% of the Rental Credits like the Council).
Rationale for the Sale
20. The Applicant represents that the following reasons support the
Sale:
The Lease is no longer subject to the ANC Rental
Corporations's guaranty and is appraised at below market value.
Enterprise no longer uses the Nevada Property as its car
pick-up and return site and the Parcel is vacant.
Annual rental increases are subject to the lesser of 2% or
a CPI-linked formula. Accordingly, annual rental increases may not keep
pace with periods of high inflation.
The Lease is subject to two extensions that could lock the
Plan into the Lease until 2031.
[[Page 25719]]
SCA has advised that it would be advantageous to the Plan
to enter into the proposed Sale.
The Council would pay a portion of the costs associated
with the Sale. Aside from purchase price, the Council would pay: (a)
$16,734 to the Plan for its 2010 Engineering Fees; (b) 50% of all
Rental Credits from October 2010 through mid-July 2011 or $67,500; (c)
the Lease Modification Fee of $100,000 to Enterprise Leasing; (d) an
ALTA title insurance upgrade which is approximately $2,842.53; and (e)
escrow charges of approximately $1,265.00. Therefore, the total
transaction costs paid by the Council would be $188,341.53 (which is
more than the Seller Closing Costs and Rental Credits paid by the
Plan).
The Plan would not have to pay a sales commission in
connection with the Sale.
Because the value of the Nevada Property peaked in 2007
and has declined up to the time of the Summary Appraisal, selling the
Parcel would allow the Plan to recognize some profit it has gained
since the purchase of the Nevada Property.
Because the Nevada Property had a 12 month rate of return
of negative 13.39%, the Sale would reduce risks to the Plan from
holding the Parcel and allow the Plan to receive a profit from a
portion of such property.
Exemptive Relief Requested
21. According to the Applicant, the Sale represents a sale and
transfer of plan assets between the Plan and the Council, a party in
interest, that would violate section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the Act.
The Applicant also requests exemptive relief from the fiduciary
conflict of interest provision of section 406(b)(2) of the Act. The
Applicant represents that although none of the Trustees are employees
or officers of the Council, it is possible a potential conflict of
interest exists since two of the Trustees (Mr. Draper and Mr. Libby),
who are members of the Board subcommittee, are UBC officers or officers
of other intermediate labor councils aligned with UBC. Because the
Council is, itself, aligned with UBC, the Applicant contends that these
two Trustees may have interests which are adverse to the interests of
the Plan or the interests of the Plan's participants or beneficiaries.
Therefore, the Applicant asserts that exemptive relief from section
406(b)(2) of the Act is required.
Appropriateness of the Sale
22. The Applicant represents that the proposed Sale by the Plan of
the Parcel to the Council would be administratively feasible because
the Sale would be a one-time transaction for cash. Furthermore, the
Plan would pay no commissions, costs or fees in connection with the
Sale, except for 50% of the Rental Credits and the Seller Closing Costs
which are customarily paid to unrelated parties. Finally, Mr. Draper
and Mr. Libby would review and approve the methodology used by the
Appraiser, ensure that such methodology is properly applied in
determining the fair market value of the Parcel, and also determine
whether it is prudent to go forward with the proposed transaction.
The Applicant states that the proposed Sale would also be in the
interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries because
the Plan would realize a gain of nearly 42% stemming from its
acquisition and holding of the Parcel and further diversify its assets,
and become more liquid. Further, the Applicant states that the proposed
Sale would be protective of the rights of the Plan's participants and
beneficiaries because the Plan would receive the greater of $5,383,577
or the fair market value of the Parcel as determined by the Appraiser
in an Appraisal of the Nevada Property, which is updated on the Sale
Date. Furthermore, the terms of the Sale would be no less favorable to
the Plan than the terms negotiated under similar circumstances at arm's
length with unrelated parties. Accordingly, the Applicant requests an
exemption from the Department.
Summary
23. In summary, the Applicant represents that the Sale will satisfy
the statutory requirements for an exemption under section 408(a) of the
Act because:
(a) The terms and conditions of the Sale will be at least as
favorable to the Plan as those obtainable in an arm's length
transaction with an unrelated party;
(b) The Sale will be a one-time transaction for cash;
(c) As consideration, the Plan will receive the greater of
$5,383,577, or the fair market value of the Parcel as determined by the
Appraiser in an Appraisal of the Nevada Property, which is updated on
the Sale Date;
(d) The Plan will pay no commissions, costs or fees, with respect
to the Sale, except for the Seller Closing Costs and 50% of the Rental
Credits that are paid to unrelated parties; and
(e) The Plan fiduciaries will review and approve the methodology
used by the Appraiser, ensure that such methodology will be properly
applied in determining the fair market value of the Parcel, and also
will determine whether it is prudent to go forward with the proposed
transaction.
Notice to Interested Parties
Notice of the proposed exemption will be given to interested
persons within 20 days of the publication of the notice of proposed
exemption in the Federal Register. The notice will be given to
interested persons by first class mail or personal delivery. Such
notice will contain a copy of the notice of proposed exemption, as
published in the Federal Register, and a supplemental statement, as
required pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2). The supplemental statement
will inform interested persons of their right to comment on and/or to
request a hearing with respect to the pending exemption. Written
comments and hearing requests are due within 50 days of the publication
of the notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anh-Viet Ly of the Department at
(202) 693-8648. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Wolverine Bronze Profit Sharing Plan and Trust (the Plan) and BDR Oil,
LLC
Located in Roseville, Michigan
Exemption Application Number D-11639
Proposed Exemption
The Department is considering granting an exemption under the
authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836,
32847, August 10, 1990).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to
section 406 of ERISA should be read to refer to the corresponding
provisions of section 4975 of the Code as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of section
406(a)(1)(A) and (D), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions
resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason
of section 4975(c)(1)(A), (D) and (E) of the Code, shall not apply, to
the cash sale (the Sale) by the Plan of a note receivable (the Note)
and royalty interests (ORRIs), collectively known as the Alternative
Investments, to BDR Oil, LLC, which is owned by Richard A. Smith,
William Smith and Douglas Smith (also know as the Alternative
Investment Group or the AIG), provided that the following conditions
are met:
(a) The Sale is a one-time transaction for cash;
[[Page 25720]]
(b) The terms and conditions of the Sale are at least as favorable
as those obtainable in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated
third party;
(c) The Plan will receive no less than the fair market value of the
Alternative Investments at the closing of the proposed transaction;
(d) The fair market value of the Alterna