Proposed Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions, 59434-59445 [2011-24656]
Download as PDF
59434
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
consideration of this request, the
Department has determined that it is
appropriate to modify the proposed
exemption in the manner requested by
the Applicants and, accordingly, has
revised section III(h) of the final
exemption.
After full consideration and review of
the entire record, including the written
comment, the Department has
determined to grant the exemption, as
modified herein. The comment
submitted by the Applicants to the
Department has been included as part of
the public record of the exemption
application. The complete application
file, including all supplemental
submissions received by the
Department, is available for public
inspection in the Public Disclosure
Room of the Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Room N–1513, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
For a complete statement of the facts
and representations supporting the
Department’s decision to grant this
exemption, refer to the Notice published
on October 6, 2010 (75 FR 61932).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Motta of the Department,
telephone (202) 693–8544. (This is not
a toll-free number.)
Pacific Capital Bancorp Amended and
Restated Incentive and Investment and
Salary Savings Plan (the Plan) Located
in Santa Barbara, California
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption No.
2011–20; Exemption Application No.
D–11659]
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Exemption
Section I: Transactions
Effective October 27, 2010, the
restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A),
406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), 406(b)(1),
406(b)(2), and 407(a)(1)(A) of the Act
and the sanctions resulting from the
application of section 4975 of the Code,
by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) and
4975(c)(1)(E) of the Code,8 shall not
apply:
(1) To the acquisition of certain rights
(the Rights) by the Plan in connection
with an offering (the Offering) of shares
of the common stock (the Stock) in
Pacific Capital Bancorp (Bancorp) by
Bancorp, a party in interest with respect
to the Plan, and
(2) To the holding of the Rights
received by the Plan during the
subscription period of the Offering;
provided that the conditions as set forth
8 For purposes of this exemption, references to
specific provisions of Title I of the Act, unless
otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding
provisions of the Code.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
in section II of this exemption were
satisfied for the duration of the
acquisition and holding.
Section II: Conditions
The relief provided in this exemption
is conditioned upon adherence to the
material facts and representations
described, herein, and as set forth in the
application file and upon compliance
with the conditions, as set forth in this
exemption.
(1) The receipt of the Rights by the
Plan occurred in connection with the
Offering and was made available by
Bancorp on the same terms to all
shareholders of the Stock of Bancorp;
(2) The acquisition of the Rights by
the Plan resulted from an independent
act of Bancorp, as a corporate entity,
and all holders of the Rights, including
the Plan, were treated in the same
manner with respect to the acquisition
of such Rights;
(3) Each shareholder of the Stock,
including the Plan, received the same
proportionate number of Rights based
on the number of shares of Stock of
Bancorp held by such shareholder;
(4) The Board of Directors of Bancorp
decided that the Offering should be
made available to all shareholders of the
Stock, including the Plan, as record
owner of the Stock held in the Plan on
behalf of the accounts of the individual
participants (the Invested Participants)
all or a portion of whose accounts in the
Plan are invested in the Stock, in
accordance with provisions under such
Plan for individually-directed
investment of such accounts;
(5) The decision to exercise the Rights
or to refrain from exercising the Rights
was made by each of the Invested
Participants in accordance with the
provision under the Plan for
individually-directed accounts; and
(6) No brokerage fees, commissions,
subscription fees, or any other charges
were paid by the Plan with respect to
the Offering, and no brokerage fees,
commissions, or other monies were paid
by the Plan to any broker in connection
with the exercise of the Rights.
DATES: Effective Date: This exemption is
effective, October 27, 2010, the date the
Plan acquired the Rights.
For a more complete statement of the
facts and representations supporting the
Department’s decision to grant this
exemption refer to the Notice of
Proposed Exemption published on June
13, 2011, at 76 FR 34266.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Angelena C. Le Blanc of the Department,
telephone (202) 693–8540. (This is not
a toll-free number.)
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
General Information
The attention of interested persons is
directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the
subject of an exemption under section
408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve
a fiduciary or other party in interest or
disqualified person from certain other
provisions to which the exemption does
not apply and the general fiduciary
responsibility provisions of section 404
of the Act, which among other things
require a fiduciary to discharge his
duties respecting the plan solely in the
interest of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plan and in a
prudent fashion in accordance with
section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does
it affect the requirement of section
401(a) of the Code that the plan must
operate for the exclusive benefit of the
employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) This exemption is supplemental to
and not in derogation of, any other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including statutory or administrative
exemptions and transactional rules.
Furthermore, the fact that a transaction
is subject to an administrative or
statutory exemption is not dispositive of
whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction; and
(3) The availability of this exemption
is subject to the express condition that
the material facts and representations
contained in the application accurately
describes all material terms of the
transaction which is the subject of the
exemption.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of
September 2011.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2011–24657 Filed 9–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
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–
11676 The Kemper Corporation Pension
Plan (the Plan); L–11618 OregonWashington Carpenters Employers
Apprenticeship and Training Trust
Fund (the Plan); and L–11647 R+L
Carriers Shared Services, LLC
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.
DATES:
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, N.W.,
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 e-mail or FAX.
Any such comments or requests should
be sent either by e-mail to:
moffitt.betty@dol.gov, or by FAX to
(202) 219–0204 by the end of the
scheduled comment period. The
applications for exemption and the
comments received will be available for
public inspection in the Public
Documents Room of the Employee
Benefits Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N–1513,
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
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
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
The Kemper Corporation Pension Plan
(the Plan) Located in Chicago, Illinois
Exemption Application Number
D–11676
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).1 If the proposed
exemption is granted, the restrictions of
section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D), and
406(b)(1) and (2) of the Act and the
sanctions resulting from the application
of section 4975 of the Code, by reason
1 For purposes of this proposed exemption,
references to section 406 of ERISA should be read
to refer as well to the corresponding provisions of
section 4975 of the Code.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59435
of section 4975(c)(1)(A), (D) and (E) of
the Code, shall not apply, effective
September 1, 2011, to the one-time, inkind contribution (the Contribution) of
shares of the common stock of Intermec,
Inc. (the Stock) to the Kemper
Corporation Pension Plan (the Plan) 2 by
the Kemper Corporation (Kemper or the
Applicant), a party in interest with
respect to the Plan, provided that the
following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The Applicant makes cash
contributions to the Plan to the extent
that the cumulative proceeds from the
sale of the Stock at each contribution
due date (determined under section
303(j) of the Act) are less than the
cumulative cash contributions the
Applicant would have been required to
make to the Plan, in the absence of the
Contribution. Such cash contributions
shall be made until all of the Stock
contributed to the Plan is sold;
(b) The Applicant contributes to the
Plan such cash amounts as are needed
for the Plan to attain an Adjusted
Funding Target Attainment Percentage
(AFTAP) of at least 80% as of January
1, 2012, as determined by the Plan’s
actuary (the Actuary), without taking
into account any unsold Stock as of
April 1, 2012;
(c) Solely for purposes of determining
the Plan’s minimum funding
requirements, AFTAP and funding
target attainment percentage, the
Actuary will not count as a Plan asset
any Stock that has not been liquidated
as a contribution to the Plan;
(d) For purposes of determining Plan
contribution amounts, the Stock shall be
considered a contribution only at the
time it is sold, with the contribution
amount being the lesser of the proceeds
from the sale of the Stock, or the value
of the Stock on the date of the
Contribution as determined by the
Independent Fiduciary described below;
(e) The Stock represents no more than
20% of the fair market value of the total
assets of the Plan at the time it is
contributed to the Plan;
(f) The Plan pays no commissions,
costs or other expenses in connection
with the contribution, holding or
subsequent sale of the Stock and any
such expenses paid by the Applicant are
not treated as a contribution to the Plan;
(g) The terms of the Contribution
between the Plan and the Applicant are
no less favorable to the Plan than terms
negotiated at arm’s length under similar
circumstances between unrelated
parties;
(h) Fiduciary Counselors Inc. (the
Independent Fiduciary) represents the
2 Prior to August 25, 2011, the Plan was known
as the Unitrin, Inc. Pension Plan.
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
59436
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
interests of the Plan, the participants
and beneficiaries with respect to the
Contribution;
(i) The Independent Fiduciary
determines that the Contribution is in
the interests of the Plan and of its
participants and beneficiaries and is
protective of the rights of participants
and beneficiaries of the Plan; and
(j) The Independent Fiduciary
monitors the transaction on a
continuing basis and takes all
appropriate actions to safeguard the
interests of the Plan to ensure that the
transaction remains in the interests of
the Plan, and, if not, takes appropriate
action available under the
circumstances.
Effective Date: If granted, this
proposed exemption will be effective as
of September 1, 2011.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. The Kemper Corporation 3 (Kemper
or the Applicant) is a diversified
insurance holding company, with
subsidiaries that principally provide
life, automobile, homeowners and other
insurance products for individuals. The
Applicant reported total shareholders’
equity of over $2.1 billion as of June 30,
2011 and its debt is rated investment
grade by S&P, Moody’s and Fitch. The
Applicant is the sponsor and a named
fiduciary of the Kemper Corporation
Pension Plan (the Plan).
2. The Plan is a defined benefit
pension plan that is tax-qualified under
section 401(a) of the Code. As of January
1, 2011, the Plan had approximately
9,800 participants and beneficiaries.
The fair market value of invested Plan
assets as of June 30, 2011 was $360.9
million. The Plan’s independent
actuary, AON Hewitt (the Actuary) has
determined that the Plan’s Adjusted
Funding Target Attainment Percentage
(AFTAP) as of January 1, 2011 is 80%.
3. The Kemper Corporation Master
Retirement Trust (Master Trust) 4 holds
the assets of the Plan. The Plan’s
Investment Committee is the named
fiduciary for Plan investments under the
Master Trust. The Applicant serves as
the Plan Administrator for the Plan. The
Northern Trust Company serves as
trustee of the Master Trust. The
Investment Committee has the
authority, under the terms of the Master
Trust, to appoint one or more
investment managers with respect to a
portion or all of the Plan’s assets.
4. The Applicant has requested
exemptive relief from the Department
3 Prior to August 25, 2011, Kemper was known as
Unitrin, Inc.
4 Prior to August 25, 2011, the Master Trust was
known as the Unitrin, Inc. Master Retirement Trust.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
for the proposed one-time, in-kind
contribution (the Contribution) of shares
of the common stock of Intermec, Inc.
(the Stock) to the Kemper Corporation
Pension Plan (the Plan). The
Contribution represents an in-kind
contribution to the Plan from the
Applicant, a party in interest, that
would, in the absence of the exemption
proposed herein, violate section
406(a)(1)(A) and (D) and section
406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act.
5. All required minimum
contributions for the 2011 Plan Year
have been made to the Plan, except for
a contribution in the amount of
$5,093,876, which is due on September
15, 2012. Thus, the Contribution is not
needed to satisfy a required minimum
contribution by September 15, 2011.5
6. The Applicant represents that the
Contribution improves the benefit
security of participants because it is
substantially in excess of the
contribution required for the 2011 Plan
year and is being made one year in
advance of the date the final
contribution for the 2011 Plan year is
due. To provide added protection to the
Plan and its participants, the Applicant
has agreed to make cash contributions to
the Plan to the extent that the
cumulative proceeds from the sale of the
Stock at each contribution due date
(determined under section 303(j) of the
Act) are less than the cumulative cash
contributions the Applicant would have
been required to make to the Plan, in the
absence of the Contribution. This
commitment will remain in effect until
all of the Stock contributed to the Plan
has been sold.
7. Trinity Universal Insurance
Company (Trinity), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Applicant, owns
7,661,607 shares of the Stock, with an
approximate fair market value of $56.47
million based upon the closing price of
the Stock on August 31, 2011. The
Applicant and its subsidiaries acquired
the Stock on November 3, 1997 in
connection with Western Atlas Inc.’s
spin-off of Intermec, Inc. (formerly
5 The Applicant is not required to make any cash
contributions to the Plan for the 2011 Plan Year
until September 15, 2012, because the Plan has
satisfied the quarterly contribution requirements
through offsetting such contributions against its
credit balance. The minimum required contribution
for the 2011 Plan Year is $23,216,585, and the
credit balances available to satisfy the minimum
required contributions total $18,627,878. The
difference of $4,588,707 is the amount of the
required contribution due as of January 1, 2011, but,
under section 303(j) of the Act, this amount is not
required to be contributed to the Plan until
September 15, 2012. However, if the amount is
contributed after January 1, 2011, it must be
increased by interest. Thus, the adjusted minimum
required contribution as of September 15, 2012 is
$5,093,876.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
known as UNOVA Inc.) to the
shareholders of Western Atlas. Intermec,
Inc. (Intermec) is a publicly traded
company listed on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol ‘‘IN.’’ The
Applicant proposes to acquire the Stock
owned by Trinity and contribute it to
the Plan. The Stock would represent
approximately 13.5% of invested Plan
assets (based on their fair market value
as of June 30, 2011), on a pro forma
basis, after taking into account the
Contribution (based on the closing price
of the Stock on August 31, 2011).
8. The Investment Committee has
appointed Fiduciary Counselors Inc. as
the Independent Fiduciary to represent
the Plan in connection with the
proposed transaction. The Independent
Fiduciary is an investment adviser,
within the meaning of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, which primarily
acts as an independent fiduciary for
employee benefit plans, such as the
Plan. Fiduciary Counselors Inc. has
represented that it is qualified to assume
these responsibilities and is
independent of the Applicant and its
affiliates. The Independent Fiduciary is
responsible for determining whether
and on what terms the Stock should be
contributed to the Plan; reviewing and
approving the process for liquidating
the Stock as quickly as is prudent,
subject to the limitations hereafter
described and its fiduciary obligations;
and voting proxies and responding to
tender offers with respect to the Stock.
The Independent Fiduciary has
determined that the contribution of the
Stock to the Plan is in the interests of
the Plan and its participants. The
Independent Fiduciary represents that
the Contribution will significantly
improve the funding of the Plan, and
that the Contribution is significantly in
excess of required minimum funding.
9. The Independent Fiduciary
represents that Intermec is a global
business that designs, develops,
integrates sells and resells wired and
wireless automated identification and
data collection products and related
services. As of July 3, 2011, Intermec’s
assets were $870 million and liabilities
totaled $414 million. Intermec’s debt-toequity ratio is just 17%. Intermec’s
operating profit from continuing
operations since 2009 has been at the
breakeven point, excluding additional
restructuring and acquisition costs.
10. The Stock is a marketable security
that trades on the New York Stock
Exchange. There are, however,
limitations on how quickly the Stock
can be liquidated because of Rule 144 of
the Securities and Exchange
Commission (Rule 144). Rule 144 limits
the amount of Stock that the Applicant
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
and its affiliates may sell during any
three-month period because the
Applicant and its affiliates own more
than 10% of Intermec’s outstanding
shares. The Applicant represents that
after the Contribution, the Plan would
be subject to Rule 144 because the Plan
would own more than 10% of the
outstanding stock of Intermec.6
Assuming that the current facts and
circumstances and Rule 144
requirements remain in effect, the
Applicant estimates that Rule 144 will
limit the shares of Stock that may be
sold by the Plan until early May, 2012.
The Applicant further estimates that
based upon the volume of Stock that the
Applicant has been able to sell over the
last several months, the Stock would
likely be completely liquidated by the
Plan by July, 2012.
10. The Independent Fiduciary has
retained a valuation firm, Murray,
Devine & Co., Inc., headquartered in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to advise it
on whether a liquidity discount should
be applied to the market value of the
Stock. The Applicant has agreed to use
the value of the Stock as determined by
the Independent Fiduciary for the
purpose of determining the amount of
the Contribution for funding purposes.
11. The Applicant represents that the
Contribution is administratively
feasible, in the interests of the Plan, its
participants and beneficiaries and
would be protective of the Plan and its
participants and beneficiaries. The
Applicant believes that the Contribution
is administratively feasible because it is
a one-time only Contribution that would
require no further action by the
Department. Moreover, the Plan will
pay no fees, commissions or costs with
respect to the Contribution or the sale of
the Stock by the Plan.
The Applicant states that the
Contribution is in the interests of the
participants and beneficiaries because
the Contribution will increase the
benefit security of the participants by
adding assets to the Plan that are
substantially in excess of the
contribution amount under the
minimum funding requirements. The inkind Contribution is the stock of a wellestablished public company traded on
the New York Stock Exchange so the
Plan has a market to sell the Stock.
The Applicant believes that the
Contribution is protective of the Plan
and its participants and beneficiaries
because an Independent Fiduciary has
been appointed to represent the Plan, its
participants and beneficiaries. Any
potential downside to the Contribution
6 See
17 CFR 230.144(a)(1)(iii).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
is addressed and effectively eliminated
by:
(a) The Applicant’s commitment to
make additional cash contributions to
the Plan if the cumulative proceeds
from the sale of the Stock at each
contribution due date are less than the
cumulative minimum amounts that
would otherwise have been contributed
to the Plan in cash, until all of the Stock
is sold;
(b) The Applicant’s commitment to
contribute such cash amounts as are
needed for the Plan’s AFTAP to be at
least 80% as of January 1, 2012, without
taking into account any unsold Stock as
of April 1, 2012; 7 and
(c) The Applicant’s agreement to only
count the Stock to the extent that it has
been liquidated in determining the
Plan’s contributions, minimum funding
requirements, the AFTAP and the
funding target attainment percentage.
This agreement means that the
contribution of Stock serves as security
for the obligation that the Applicant has
to contribute cash to the Plan if the
proceeds from sales of the Stock are not
equal to what those cash contributions
would have been.
12. In summary, the Applicant
represents that the Contribution will
satisfy the statutory requirements for an
exemption under section 408(a) of the
Act because:
(a) The Applicant will make cash
contributions to the Plan to the extent
that the cumulative proceeds from the
sale of the Stock at each contribution
due date (determined under section
303(j) of the Act) are less than the
cumulative cash contributions the
Applicant would have been required to
make to the Plan, in the absence of the
Contribution. Such cash contributions
shall be made until all of the Stock
contributed to the Plan is sold;
(b) The Applicant will contribute to
the Plan such cash amounts as are
7 In determining the Plan’s AFTAP, Kemper will
only count Stock that has been liquidated as of
April 1, 2012. This date is being used as a
measurement for Stock sales because a
determination must be made as of April 1, 2012 that
the AFTAP is at least 80% to avoid the participants
being subject to benefit restrictions. The Applicant
represents that these benefit restrictions would
affect a significant number of Plan participants. The
Plan provides for elective lump sum distributions
upon termination of employment for certain
participants. The Applicant states that currently up
to 650 participants would be entitled to a lump sum
distribution upon termination of employment
(excluding participants whose benefits have a value
of $5,000 or less and thus, would not be subject to
benefit restrictions). In addition, certain
participants have made employee contributions to
the Plan which they are entitled to withdraw. If the
benefit restrictions become applicable, the Plan’s
actuary estimates that approximately 92
participants would have the right to withdraw these
contributions restricted.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59437
needed for the Plan to attain an AFTAP
of at least 80% as of January 1, 2012, as
determined by the Actuary, without
taking into account any unsold Stock as
of April 1, 2012;
(c) For purposes of determining the
Plan’s minimum funding requirements,
AFTAP and funding target attainment
percentage, the Actuary will not count
as a Plan asset any Stock that has not
been liquidated as a contribution to the
Plan;
(d) For purposes of determining Plan
contribution amounts, the Stock shall be
considered a contribution only at the
time it is sold, with the contribution
amount being the lesser of the proceeds
from the sale of the Stock, or the value
of the Stock on the date of the
Contribution as determined by the
Independent Fiduciary;
(e) The Stock will represent no more
than 20% of the fair market value of the
total assets of the Plan at the time it is
contributed to the Plan;
(f) The Plan will pay no commissions,
costs or other expenses in connection
with the contribution, holding or
subsequent sale of the Stock, and any
such expenses paid by the Applicant
will not be treated as a contribution to
the Plan;
(g) The terms of the Contribution
between the Plan and the Applicant will
be no less favorable to the Plan than
terms negotiated at arm’s length under
similar circumstances between
unrelated parties;
(h) An Independent Fiduciary will
represent the interests of the Plan, the
participants and beneficiaries with
respect to the Contribution;
(i) The Independent Fiduciary will
have determined that the Contribution
is in the interests of the Plan and of its
participants and beneficiaries and
protective of the rights of participants
and beneficiaries of the Plan;
(j) The Independent Fiduciary intends
to sell the Stock into the market as
quickly as is prudent under the
circumstances, subject to the limitations
of SEC Rule 144 and the Independent
Fiduciary’s fiduciary responsibilities
under ERISA; and
(k) The Independent Fiduciary will
monitor the transaction on a continuing
basis and take all appropriate actions to
safeguard the interests of the Plan to
ensure that the transaction remains in
the interests of the Plan, and, if not, take
any appropriate actions available under
the circumstances.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of the proposed exemption
will be given to interested persons
within 5 days of the publication of the
notice of proposed exemption in the
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
59438
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
Federal Register. The notice will be
given to interested persons by first class
mail or by return receipt requested
electronic mail. 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 35
days of the publication of the notice of
proposed exemption in the Federal
Register.
For Further Information Contact: Gary
H. Lefkowitz of the Department,
telephone (202) 693–8546. (This is not
a toll-free number.)
Oregon-Washington Carpenters
Employers Apprenticeship and
Training Trust Fund (the Plan or the
Applicant) Located in Portland, Oregon
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Application No. L–11618]
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 proposed exemption is
granted, the restrictions of sections
406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the Act, shall not
apply to the sale by the Plan of certain
unimproved real property known as
‘‘Tax Lot 300’’ and ‘‘Tax Lot 400’’
(together, the Tax Lots or the Property),
to the Pacific Northwest Regional
Council of Carpenters (the Union), a
party in interest with respect to the
Plan, provided that the following
conditions are satisfied:
(a) The sale is a one-time transaction
for cash;
(b) At the time of the sale, the Plan
receives the greater of either: (1)
$390,000; or (2) the fair market value of
the Property as established by a
qualified, independent appraiser in an
updated appraisal of such Property on
the date of the sale;
(c) The Plan pays no fees,
commissions or other expenses
associated with the sale;
(d) 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 third
party;
(e) The Plan trustees appointed by the
Union (the Union Trustees) recuse
themselves from discussions and voting
with respect to the Plan’s decision to
enter into the proposed sale; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
(f) The Plan trustees appointed by the
employer associations (the Employer
Trustees), who have no interest in the
proposed sale, (1) determine, among
other things, whether it is in the best
interest of the Plan to proceed with the
sale of the Property; (2) review and
approve the methodology used in the
appraisal that is being relied upon; and
(3) ensure that such methodology is
applied by the qualified, independent
appraiser in determining the fair market
value of the Property on the date of the
sale.
Summary of Facts and Representations
The Parties
1. The Plan is a multiemployer, TaftHartley trust fund. The Plan was
established on December 28, 1965, and
is now maintained, pursuant to a Plan
Agreement between the OregonColumbia Chapter; the Associated
General Contractors of America, Inc.;
the Associated Wall and Ceiling
Contractors of Oregon and Southwest
Washington, Inc.; the Home Builders
Association of Metropolitan Portland;
the General & Concrete Contractors
Association, Inc. (collectively, the
Employers); and the Union. As of
February 28, 2011, the Plan had total
assets of $12,465,988.34. As of May 31,
2011, the Plan had approximately 4,122
participants.
2. The Plan is administered by a
twelve member Board of Trustees, six of
whom are appointed by the Employers
and six of whom are appointed by the
Union. The Trustees have ultimate
fiduciary, operational, and investment
discretion over the Plan’s assets. The
Plan’s current Union Trustees are
Gerald Auvil (Chairman of the Board of
Trustees), Boyd Martin, Hank
Mroczkowski, Ronald Robbins, Doug
Tweedy, and Ben Embree. The Plan’s
current Employer Trustees are Jim
McKune, Yasmine Branden, Jeff Herd,
Gayland Looney (Secretary-Treasurer),
Lonnie Kronsteiner, and Doug McClain.
Pursuant to the voting rules under the
Plan Agreement and to avoid any selfdealing or conflict of interest issues, the
Union Trustees are required to recuse
themselves from discussions and voting
with respect to the Plan’s decision to
enter into the proposed exemption
transaction that is described herein.
3. The Plan is headquartered in
Portland, Oregon. It was created to
provide training and education to
member apprentices and journeymen
who are construction carpenters,
acoustical applicators, boat builders,
bridge carpenters, cabinet makers,
divers, dock and wharf carpenters, floor
layers, gypsum drywall and system
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
installers, insulation applicators,
lathers, maintenance carpenters,
millwright pile drivers, residential
carpenters, scaffold erectors, and
shipwright and tradeshow workers.
The Union is headquartered in Kent,
Washington, and it was chartered on
January 1, 1996. Its geographic
jurisdiction covers the States of
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana,
and Wyoming. According to the
Applicant, the Union’s mission and
purpose, include but are not limited to,
promoting and protecting the interests
of its membership, encouraging the
apprenticeship system and higher
standards of skill, and securing
adequate pay for its membership’s work.
The Property Acquisition
4. On January 25, 2005, the Plan
purchased the Property from an
unrelated party, IBC Portland I, LLC of
Evergreen, Colorado, in order to
establish a training facility for its
members. Prior to the acquisition, the
Plan had been looking for a new training
facility site and it had hired a
commercial real estate consultant, Bruce
J. Korter, CRE, Director, Real Estate for
Washington Capital Management of
Portland, Oregon, to assist the Board of
Trustees with finding a suitable
property. The Trustees had looked at
many facilities and even considered
purchasing a parcel of unimproved land
on which to construct the training
facility.
The original purchase price of
$4,200,000 8 included the subject
Property, Tax Lot 500 and a building
situated on Tax Lot 500. The building
serves as the Plan’s principal training
facility (the Training Center).9
The Property is located at NE 158th
Avenue and NE Mason Street, Portland,
Oregon. It consists of two parcels, Tax
Lot 300, which is approximately 0.71
acres or 30,909 square feet of land, and
Tax Lot 400, which is approximately
0.92 acres or 40,030 square feet of land.
Adjacent to the Property are Tax Lot 500
and the Training Center, which are
located at 4424 NE 158th Avenue,
Portland, Oregon. Tax Lot 500 consists
of approximately 4.64 acres or 202,118
square feet of land. Currently, the
8 As a result of negotiations, the seller later agreed
to accept a $100,000 reduction in the purchase
price in exchange for several conditions of
purchase, including paying for street improvements
as they pertain to the property being purchased by
the Plan. Thus, the modified purchase price was
$4,100,000. The final cost to the Plan was
$4,221,716.02, which included $121,716.02 of
additional charges, including $94,351 for the 158th
Ave. street improvements.
9 The Property, Tax Lot 500 and the Training
Center are collectively referred to herein as the
‘‘Entire Property.’’
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Property is vacant and does not produce
any income. The Union owns no real
estate that is within close proximity to
the Entire Property.
The Plan financed the cost of the
Training Center and Tax Lot 500 with a
$2,250,000, 20 year loan from AEGON
USA Realty Advisors, Inc. (AEGON) of
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, an unrelated party.
The loan is secured by the Training
Center and Tax Lot 500. It carries
interest at the rate of 6.75% and requires
monthly payments of $16,564.13 that
include both principal and interest,
commencing March 2005. The Plan paid
the remaining $1,950,000 balance for
the Training Center and Tax Lot 500 in
cash.
Plan’s Intentions Regarding the Property
5. According to the Applicant, the
Plan had the seller divide the Entire
Property into three separate tax lots
prior to the purchase. This action was
meant to facilitate the Plan’s future sale
of either or both Tax Lots 300 and 400,
should a decision be made to dispose of
these parcels, and not to have such
property serve as security for the
AEGON loan.
Also, according to the Applicant, the
Plan’s interest in the Entire Property
prompted preliminary discussions about
determining ways to finance the
purchase. These discussions included
the Union’s purchase, from the seller, of
one of the Tax Lots as a site for its new
headquarters. In this regard, Mr. Korter,
the real estate consultant, had suggested
that the Plan apply for a loan for the
Training Center, but not include the
Property as security for such loan. Mr.
Korter also suggested that the Union
prepare a letter of intent to demonstrate
its commitment to purchase one of the
Tax Lots from the seller. However, no
such letter of intent from the Union was
ever forthcoming. (According to Jim
McCune, an Employer Trustee, Mr.
Korter believed the letter of intent was
needed by the lender to approve the
financing of the Entire Property.)
The Plan was able to sell the property
at which its training facility was
previously located for $1 million. As a
result, the Plan was able to obtaining
financing without needing to have the
Union or an unrelated party purchase
Tax Lot 300 or Tax Lot 400 from the
seller.
Furthermore, the Applicant states that
following the election of Doug Tweedy
as the Union’s Executive SecretaryTreasurer and CEO in August 2004,
there was a complete changeover of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
Union personnel. The Applicant
explains that there was nothing in the
Plan’s records relating to the acquisition
of the Entire Property to indicate that
the Union’s new executive personnel
had any interest in the Tax Lots for the
Union’s headquarters. In this regard, the
Applicant explains that some time
before May 2005, the Union’s executive
personnel began searching for property
other than the Tax Lots as its
headquarters. On May 21, 2005, the
Union committed to purchase and
renovating a building located at 1636
East Burnside Street, Portland, Oregon
(the East Burnside Property) by
approving the financing. The Applicant
notes that the Union has maintained its
offices at the East Burnside Property
ever since.
Thus, according to the Applicant, the
possibility of the Union building its
headquarters on the Property was not a
consideration after the August 2004
election of Mr. Tweedy, which was well
before the Entire Property was acquired
by the Plan on January 25, 2005.
Plan’s Use of the Property
6. Since the time of acquisition, the
Plan has used the Property for training
purposes, including surveying and
building layout. The Applicant states
that one of the ideas being considered
for the use of Tax Lot 300 and Tax Lot
400 is to provide parking spaces for
apprentices and Training Center
employees so that the present south side
parking lot can be used to expand the
Training Center.
Plan’s Acquisition and Holding Costs
Regarding the Property
7. Because the Entire Property was
listed for sale as a single parcel of land,
the Applicant explains that there was no
separate breakdown of the purchase
price for Tax Lot 300, Tax Lot 400, Tax
Lot 500, and the Training Center. In an
appraisal report dated August 13, 2004
that was prepared on the Property for
possible use as collateral for a federallyrelated loan transaction (see
Representation 5), Tax Lot 300 was
appraised at $154,660, as of July 19,
2004. In that same appraisal report, Tax
Lot 400 was appraised at $200,155 as of
July 19, 2004.10
10 In
a separate appraisal report dated August 11,
2004, Mr. Hickok placed the fair market value of
Tax Lot 500 and the Training Center at $4,000,000,
also as of July 19, 2004. As noted previously, the
original purchase price included the Entire
Property.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59439
The appraisal was performed by
Robert Hickok, MAI, MRICS, a qualified,
independent appraiser affiliated with
Integra Realty Resources, a real estate
valuation and consulting firm located in
Portland, Oregon. Mr. Hickok is also a
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
and he is licensed in the States of
Oregon and Washington. The Applicant
represents that Mr. Hickok is a
qualified, independent appraiser, and
that less than 1% of his annual income
is derived from the Applicant and its
affiliates.
Thus, due to the absence of an actual
purchase price for the Property, the
Applicant has estimated this price to be
$147,760.06 for Tax Lot 300 and
$194,198.94 for Tax Lot 400, as of
January 25, 2005 based on the allocation
percentage the Tax Lot represented to
the total appraised value of the Entire
Property, as determined by Mr. Hickok
in his July and August 2004 appraisals.
The Applicant then applied each
allocation percentage to the aggregate
purchase price. Thus, the Plan’s
acquisition cost for the Property was
$341,959.11
8. At the time of the purchase
transaction, the Plan also paid half of
the improvement costs on NE 158th
Avenue, where the Property is located.
The improvements that were made to
NE 158th Avenue included the
construction of curbs, gutters, and
sidewalks, storm and sanitary sewers,
water mains, and street pavement.
Additionally, fire hydrants and trees
were relocated and traffic control
signage, pavement striping and marking,
and permanent barricades were
installed. The Plan’s share of the
improvement costs was approximately
$94,351.
Following the purchase transaction,
the Plan has incurred maintenance costs
associated with the Property and it has
paid drainage taxes to Multnomah
County, Oregon. Thus, the Plan’s
aggregate acquisition and holding costs
incurred with respect to the Property
between 2005 and 2010 is $363,486.51.
A summary of the Plan’s acquisition
and holding costs as they relate to the
Property for the period 2005–2010 is
shown in the table below:
11 Based on the Applicant’s calculations, the
acquisition costs for Tax Lot 300 and 400 were
$147,760.06 (3.5% of the $154,600 appraised value)
and $194,198.94 (4.6% of the $200,155 appraised
value), respectively. The acquisition cost for Tax
Lot 500 and the Training Center was $3,879,757.02
(91.9% of the $4,000,000 appraised value).
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
59440
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
ACQUISITION AND HOLDING COSTS FOR TAX LOTS (TLS) 300 AND 400 FROM 2005–2010
Property expenses
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TL 300 and
TL 400 totals
TL 300 Acq. Cost * .......
TL 300 Maint. Costs **
TL 300 Taxes *** ..........
$147,760.06
1,352.58
253.01
........................
1,352.58
211.33
........................
1,352.58
221.93
........................
1,352.58
234.20
........................
1,352.58
237.26
........................
1,352.58
253.28
$147,760.06
8,115.48
1,411.01
TL 300 Totals ........
$149,365.65
1,563.91
1,574.51
1,586.78
1,589.84
1,605.86
157,286.55
TL 400 Acq. Cost 111*
TL 400 Maint. Costs **
TL 400 Taxes *** ..........
$194,198.94
1,752.00
327.67
........................
1,752.00
330.88
........................
1,752.00
171.85
........................
1,752.00
209.80
........................
1,752.00
218.09
........................
1,752.00
230.73
194,198.94
10,512.00
1,489.02
TL 400 Totals ........
$196,278.61
2,082.88
1,923.85
1,961.80
1,970.09
1,982.73
206,199.96
TL 300 and TL
400 Totals ..
$345,644.26
3,646.79
3,498.36
3,548.58
3,559.93
3,588.59
363,486.51
* Maintenance Costs. The maintenance costs of $695/month were divided and allocated based on square footage of land (excluding the Training Center).
** Taxes. The 2005 through 2010 Multnomah County Property Tax assessments for Tax Lot 300 and Tax Lot 400 were used to calculate property taxes.
*** Insurance Costs. No insurance cost was allocated to Tax Lots 300 and 400 because, as explained by the Plan’s insurance agent of record,
Joseph P. Herrle, general liability insurance coverage extends automatically to any property that adjoins the Plan’s business location (i.e., the
Training Center Building) at no additional premium charge.
Request for Exemptive Relief
9. The Applicant requests an
individual exemption from the
Department in order to sell the Property
to the Union. The Union’s objective in
buying the Property is to construct its
Oregon and Southwest Washington
headquarters building. The Applicant
represents that the sale of the Property
is in the best interest of the Plan and its
participants because: (a) The Plan has
no apparent or immediate need or use
for the Property; and (b) the Plan does
not derive any income from the
Property. The sale of the Property will
allow the Plan to convert the Property
to cash and will permit the Plan to then
invest the cash in a vehicle more
appropriate to the Plan’s investment
needs and to meet its commitments that
require liquidity. If the Union constructs
its headquarters on the Property it
would be a convenience to the
participants receiving training and
education as they are represented by the
Union.
Efforts to Sell the Property to Unrelated
Parties
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10. The Applicant represents that it
has not made efforts to sell the Property
to unrelated third parties for the
following reasons 12:
12 In the exemption application, the Applicant
initially represented that the Trustees had not made
any efforts to sell the Property to unrelated parties
because at the time of the Plan’s acquisition of the
Entire Property, ‘‘the Trustees foresaw that the
Property would be a good location to build the
Union headquarters because of its proximity to the
Training Center.’’ As noted above, the Applicant
provided further information to the Department to
support the Trustees’ actual intentions regarding
the Property. Notwithstanding the supporting
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
• Limited Use of the Property to
Potential Purchasers. According to the
Applicant, Tax Lot 300 and Tax Lot 400
are zoned ‘‘IG2, General Industrial 2,’’
which permits various industrial uses.
Because the Tax Lots are both less than
one acre in size, which is not customary
for industrial neighborhoods, only
atypical small industrial buildings
could potentially be built on the
Property. The Applicant explains that
there is currently limited demand for
additional industrial development. The
Applicant also explains that Mr. Hickok,
the independent appraiser, determined
that industrial use of the Property was
not considered financially feasible
because a newly-developed use would
not have a value commensurate with its
cost. Since the Property is not
appropriate for most industrial uses, the
Applicant states that this limits the
number of potential buyers and would
likely result in a lower sale price for an
industrial use other than the Union’s
office building use. Further, the
Applicant indicates that there are
currently four larger industrial buildings
that remain unsold to the east of the
Training Center and undeveloped land
to the south of the Training Center.
documentation, the Department is still concerned
that the Applicant’s statement raises issues under
the general standards of fiduciary conduct of
section 404 of the Act and the prohibited
transaction provisions of 406 of the Act with
respect to the Plan’s acquisition and holding of the
Property. Accordingly, the Department is not
passing on the prudence of the Plan’s investment
in the Property, nor is it providing exemptive relief
herein from section 406 of the Act for any
prohibited transactions that may have occurred
during the Plan’s acquisition and holding of such
Property.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Inability of an Unrelated Purchaser
to Receive Municipal Construction
Approval or Have a Use Ancillary to the
Training Center. According to the
Applicant, an unrelated purchaser
would not likely receive approval from
the City of Portland to construct an
office building on the Property.
However, the Applicant believes that
the Union would receive such approval
because it represents the Plan
participants being trained in the
Training Center. In addition, the
Applicant states that it is not expected
that an unrelated purchaser’s use of the
Property would be ancillary to the
Training Center as the Union’s potential
use.
• Cash Flow Problems Experienced by
the Plan. The Applicant states that the
Plan had a reduced cash flow in 2008
and 2009 due to the recession. As a
result, there had been fewer jobs for
carpenters and fewer contributions to
the Plan. The Applicant explains that
the need for apprentice and journeymen
training has increased as labor
agreements have increased their training
requirements. The Applicant further
explains that the Trustees recognized
that Union headquarters building would
be a complimentary and nonintrusive
use to the Training Center and a
convenience to the Plan participants
receiving training, as they are
represented by the Union. After Mr.
Hickok completed his 2009 appraisal of
Property, the Applicant indicates that
the Union commenced the process
involved to purchase the Property from
the Plan, following approval by the
Employer Trustees of filing an
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
exemption application with the
Department.
• Use of the Property that Does Not
Impair the Training Center or the Safety
of the Apprentices. Due to the proximity
of the Property to the Training Center,
the Applicant states that the Trustees
must ensure that the Property is used in
a manner that will not hinder the use,
and the view of the Training Center
from NE 158th Avenue. Additionally,
the Applicant notes that because the
apprentices are mainly young adults,
the Trustees desire that the Property be
used in a manner that does not
compromise the safety of the
apprentices or create liability issues for
the Plan and the Training Center.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Recent Appraisals of the Property
11. The Property was appraised by
Mr. Hickok who, as noted in
Representation 7, had initially valued
the Property in 2004. Using the Sales
Comparison Approach to valuation, Mr.
Hickok placed the fair market value of
Tax Lot 300 at $170,000 as of October
20, 2009 in an appraisal report dated
November 12, 2009. In that same
appraisal report, Mr. Hickok placed the
fair market value of Tax Lot 400 at
$220,000, for a combined total
appraised value of $390,000 for the
Property. Mr. Hickok explains that the
Sales Comparison Approach to
valuation was the only approach
available for the valuation of the
Property. The Cost Approach was not
available because there are no
improvements that contribute to the
value of the Property. Mr. Hickok
concluded that the Income Approach
was not available because the Property
is not likely to generate rental income in
its current state.
12. The Department requested a 1–2
page addendum to the 2009 appraisal
asking Mr. Hickok whether there had
been a change in the fair market value
of the Property since the date of the
2009 appraisal. On April 18, 2011, the
Applicant’s representative submitted a
summary appraisal report, effective
March 22, 2011. Using the Sales
Comparison Approach to valuation in
the updated appraisal, Mr. Hickok again
placed the fair market value of Tax Lot
300 at $170,000, and Tax Lot 400 at
$220,000. Thus, the Property had a
combined total appraised value of
$390,000 as of March 22, 2011.
Conditions of the Proposed Sale
13. The Plan will pay no real estate
commissions or other expenses
associated with the sale. The Union will
pay the Plan in cash, the greater of
either: (a) $390,000 or (b) the fair market
value of the Property, as established by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
59441
a qualified, independent appraiser on
the date of the transaction, as reflected
in an updated appraisal of such
Property.
14. The Employer Trustees have
determined, among other things, that it
is in the best interest of the Plan to
proceed with the sale of the Property. In
addition, the Trustees have reviewed
and approved the methodology used in
the appraisal that is being relied upon,
and they will ensure that such
methodology is applied by the qualified
independent appraiser in determining
the fair market value of the Property on
the date of the sale.
statement will inform interested persons
of their right to comment and/or to
request a hearing with respect to the
proposed exemptions. Written
comments and hearing requests are due
within 45 days of the publication of the
proposed exemption in the Federal
Register.
For Further Information Contact: Ms.
Jan D. Broady of the Department at (202)
693–8556. (This is not a toll-free
number).
Summary
15. In summary, it is represented that
the proposed transaction will satisfy the
statutory criteria for an exemption
under section 408(a) of the Act because:
(a) The sale will be a one-time
transaction for cash;
(b) At the time of the sale, the Plan
will receive the greater of either: (1)
$390,000; or (2) the fair market value of
the Property as established by a
qualified, independent appraiser in an
updated appraisal of such Property on
the date of the sale;
(c) The Plan will pay no fees,
commissions or other expenses
associated with the sale;
(d) 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
third party;
(e) The Union Trustees will recuse
themselves from discussions and voting
with respect to the Plan’s decision to
enter into the proposed sale; and
(f) The Employer Trustees, who have
no interest in the proposed sale will (1)
determine, among other things, whether
it is in the best interest of the Plan to
proceed with the sale of the Property;
(2) review and approve the methodology
used in the appraisal that is being relied
upon; and (3) ensure that such
methodology is applied by the qualified,
independent appraiser in determining
the fair market value of the Property on
the date of the sale.
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 receipt of
premiums related therefrom, by Royal
Assurance, Inc. (Royal Assurance), in
connection with insurance contracts
sold by Unum Life Insurance Company
of America (Unum), or any successor
insurance company to Unum which is
unrelated, to the R+L Carriers Shared
Services, LLC to provide group life,
short-term disability (STD), long-term
disability (LTD), and Accidental Death
and Dismemberment (AD&D) insurance
benefits to employees of the R+L
Companies 13 under an employee
welfare benefit plan (the
Plan) 14sponsored by the R+L Carriers
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of the proposed exemption
will be provided to the Employers and
the Union within 15 days of the
publication of the notice of proposed
exemption in the Federal Register. The
Plan will provide notice to interested
persons by first-class mail. Such notice
will contain a copy of the proposed
exemption, as published in the Federal
Register, and a supplemental statement
as required pursuant to 29 CFR
2570.43(b)(2). The supplemental
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
R+L Carriers Shared Services, LLC,
Located in Wilmington, Ohio
[Application No. L–11647]
13 The individual related employers comprising
the R+L Companies are: (1) R+L Carriers Shared
Services, LLC; (2) Strategic Management, LLC; (3)
Paramount Transportation Logistics Services, LLC;
(4) R+L Carriers Payroll, LLC; (5) Paramount Labor
Leasing Southern, LLC; (6) Paramount Labor
Leasing Eastern, LLC; (7) Paramount Labor Leasing
Southern, LLC; (8) Golden Ocala Management, Inc.;
(9) Royal Resorts, LLC; (10) ABCO Transportation,
Inc.; (11) Spirit Express Trucking, Inc.; (12) Royal
Shell Property Management, Inc.; (13) Quality
Quest Linen Service, Inc.; (14) Royal Shell
Vacations, Inc.; (15) AFC LS, LLC; and (16) AFC
Worldwide Express, Inc. The foregoing employers,
along with the captive insurer, Royal Assurance,
constitute the applicants requesting an individual
exemption for the proposed transaction described
herein.
14 The applicants represent that Mr. Ralph
‘‘Larry’’ Roberts, Sr., the founder of the R+L
Companies, is the owner (either directly, or
indirectly through the combined voting interests of
his spouse and his children) of 50 percent or more
of the combined voting power of all classes of stock
entitled to vote of each of the employers
constituting the R+L Companies whose employees
are covered under the Plan. Therefore, according to
the applicants, Mr. Roberts is a party in interest
with respect to the Plan for purposes of section
3(14)(E) of the Act. The applicants further represent
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
Continued
26SEN1
59442
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Shared Services, LLC, provided the
following conditions are met:
(a) Royal Assurance—
(1) Is a party in interest with respect
to the Plan by reason of a stock or
partnership affiliation with R+L Carriers
Shared Services LLC 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 Director of the
Department of Insurance 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, Arizona) by
the Director of the Arizona Department
of Insurance 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 Plan pays no more than
adequate consideration for the
insurance contracts;
(c) No commissions are paid by the
Plan with respect to the direct sale of
such contracts or the reinsurance
thereof;
(d) In the initial year of any contract
involving Royal Assurance, there will be
an immediate and objectively
determined benefit to the Plan’s
participants and beneficiaries in the
form of increased benefits;
(e) In subsequent years, the formula
used to calculate premiums by Unum or
any successor insurer will be similar to
formulae used by other insurers
providing comparable coverage under
that Mr. Roberts is the owner, either directly or
indirectly, of 50 percent or more of the combined
voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote
of the captive, Royal Assurance; accordingly, the
applicants represent that Royal Assurance is a party
in interest with respect to the Plan for purposes of
section 3(14)(G) of the Act. In this regard, the
Department is providing no opinion herein as to
whether Mr. Roberts is a party in interest with
respect to the Plan for purposes of section 3(14)(E)
of the Act; similarly, the Department is providing
no opinion herein as to whether Royal Assurance
is a party in interest with respect to the Plan for
purposes of section 3(14)(G) of the Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
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;
(f) The Plan only contracts with
insurers with a financial strength rating
of ‘‘A’’ or better from A. M. Best
Company (A. M. Best). The reinsurance
arrangement between the insurer and
Royal Assurance will be indemnity
insurance only, i.e., the insurer will not
be relieved of liability to the Plan
should Royal Assurance be unable or
unwilling to cover any liability arising
from the reinsurance arrangement;
(g) The Plan retains an independent
fiduciary to analyze the transaction and
render an opinion that the requirements
of sections (a) through (f) have been
satisfied. For purposes of the proposed
exemption, the independent fiduciary is
a person who:
(1) Is not directly or indirectly,
through one or more intermediaries,
controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with an applicant (this
relationship hereinafter referred to as an
affiliate);
(2) Is not an officer, director,
employee of, or partner in, Royal
Assurance or any other applicant (or an
affiliate of either);
(3) Is not a corporation or partnership
in which Royal Assurance or any other
applicant has an ownership interest or
is a partner;
(4) Does not have an ownership
interest in Royal Assurance, or any of
the other applicants, or their Affiliates;
(5) Is not a fiduciary with respect to
the Plan prior to the appointment; and
(6) Has acknowledged in writing
acceptance of fiduciary responsibility
and has agreed not to participate in any
decision with respect to any transaction
in which the independent Fiduciary has
an interest that might affect its best
judgment as a fiduciary.
For purposes of this definition of an
‘‘independent fiduciary,’’ no
organization or individual may serve as
an independent fiduciary for any fiscal
year if the gross income received by
such organization or individual (or
partnership or corporation of which
such individual is an officer, director, or
10 percent or more partner or
shareholder) from Royal Assurance, any
other applicant, or their affiliates
(including amounts received for services
as independent fiduciary under any
prohibited transaction exception
granted by the Department) for that
fiscal year exceeds one percent of that
organization or individual’s annual
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
gross income from all sources for the
prior fiscal year.
In addition, no organization or
individual who is an independent
fiduciary, and no partnership or
corporation of which such organization
or individual is an officer, director, or
10 percent or more partner or
shareholder, may acquire any property
from, sell any property to, or borrow
funds from Royal Assurance, any other
applicant, or their affiliates during the
period that such organization or
individual serves as independent
fiduciary, and continuing for a period of
six months after such organization or
individual ceases to be an independent
fiduciary, or negotiates any such
transaction during the period that such
organization or individual serves as
independent fiduciary.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. The R+L Companies comprise a
group of enterprises, primarily focused
on the trucking and transportation
services industries, that are under
common ownership. The R+L
Companies are a major nationwide
interstate motor carrier network
providing ‘‘less-than-truckload’’
transportation services, i.e., partial-load
shipments to one or more destinations,
or full trailer-load shipments directed to
multiple destinations. Today, the R+L
Companies have approximately 9,000
employees with operations extending to
all 50 states, Canada, Puerto Rico and
the Dominican Republic.
2. Royal Assurance is a captive
insurance company that was established
for the purpose of insuring or reinsuring
certain risks associated with the
business operations of the R+L
Companies, and that shares common
ownership with the R+L Companies.
The applicants represent that Royal
Assurance has insured the R+L
Companies’ property and casualty risks,
and also reinsured the employee benefit
plans of the R+L Companies. The
applicants further state that Royal
Assurance was incorporated in Arizona
on August 13, 2008. On December 3,
2008, the Director of the Arizona
Department of Insurance granted Royal
Assurance a Certificate of Authority to
transact the business of a captive
insurance company in the State of
Arizona. The Certificate of Authority
grants Royal Assurance the authority to
transact the following kinds of
insurance business within the State of
Arizona: Casualty, Workers’
Compensation, Property, Life
Reinsurance, and Disability
Reinsurance.
3. The independent certified public
accounting firm of Saslow Lufkin &
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
Buggy, LLP has served as Royal
Assurance’s auditor since its
incorporation. Saslow Lufkin & Buggy,
LLP currently examines Royal
Assurance’s reserves on an annual basis
in connection with the employee benefit
business to be reinsured by Royal
Assurance to ensure that appropriate
reserve levels are maintained. The
applicants represent that, as of
December 31, 2009 (the most recent date
for which audited financial statements
from Saslow Lufkin & Buggy, LLP are
available), Royal Assurance disclosed
approximately $335,719 in gross annual
premiums and $1,349,327 in total assets
(audited financial statements for Royal
Assurance for calendar year 2010,
according to the applicants, are not yet
available).
4. The R+L Carriers Shared Services,
LLC Plan (the Plan) is maintained for
employees of the R+L Companies. The
Plan provides both basic and
supplemental life and disability
coverage. The Plan has historically
insured with the Unum Life Insurance
Company of America (‘‘Unum’’).
However, pursuant to the transaction for
which an exemption is being sought,
Royal Assurance would now be utilized
for the reinsurance of benefits and
would make substantial improvements
to the Plan in anticipation of that
transaction.
5. Specifically, the new benefits (at no
additional cost or obligation to the
participants) are as follows:
(a) Accidental Death and
Dismemberment Benefit—Upon grant of
the exemption, the Plan would provide
a completely new $10,000 AD&D
benefit, in addition to the basic benefits
that are currently available under the
existing life insurance and disability
coverages. The AD&D enhancement
would pay the full $10,000 amount in
the event of accidental death, in
addition to the basic life insurance
benefit and any additional life insurance
benefit options selected by the
participant. The new AD&D benefit
would pay an enhanced benefit in
accordance with a predetermined
schedule for automobile-related deaths
occurring while seatbelts and/or air bags
are in use. Moreover, the new AD&D
benefit would include a schedule of
education benefits for qualified children
in the event a Plan participant dies as
a result of an accidental injury. Such
benefits are in addition to any life
insurance benefit that may be available.
The new AD&D enhancement would
also operate alongside any benefits that
would otherwise be available under the
Plan’s existing LTD and/or STD
coverages. Specifically, the AD&D
enhancement would pay the full
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
$10,000 amount in the event of grievous
injury involving loss of both hands, both
feet, or both eyes. The full $10,000
amount would also be payable in the
event of the loss of two different
appendages or organs, e.g., loss of a
hand and a foot. One-half of the new
benefit would be paid if a single organ
or appendage were lost. These enhanced
benefits would be available in addition
to any available benefits under the LTD
or STD coverages;
(b) Short-Term Disability Benefit—
Under this benefit enhancement, the
current $150 maximum weekly benefit
amount (under ‘‘Option A’’ of the STD
program) would be increased to $175.
Neither the amount of STD benefits, nor
eligibility for such benefits, will be
restricted or reduced as a result of this
new enhancement;
(c) Long-Term Disability Accelerated
Death Benefit—The LTD benefit under
the Plan will be enhanced by providing
a new, previously unavailable,
accelerated survivorship benefit to the
beneficiaries of LTD-eligible employees.
Under this benefit improvement, when
an employee on LTD has a life
expectancy of 6 months or less, the
employee’s beneficiaries will be eligible
to receive a benefit payment equal to the
LTD program’s death benefit, i.e., 3
months of LTD benefit payments;
(d) LTD Child Care Expense Benefit—
Employees eligible for LTD benefits
would be entitled to additional child
care benefits under the LTD program.
The enhanced expense allowance would
be increased from the current level of
$250 per month to $350 per month;
(e) LTD Dependent/Elder Care
Benefit—The enhanced LTD program
would include additional benefits to
cover the personal care costs of nonchild dependents (e.g., elderly parents)
during the period of the employee’s
disability. The enhanced expense
allowance would be increased from the
current level of $250 per month to $350
per month; and
(f) LTD Worksite Modification
Benefit—The enhanced LTD program
would include a provision for an
increase in the worksite modification
benefit to $1,500 from the current
$1,000 amount. The worksite
modification benefit will defray the cost
of workplace modifications that can
enable a disabled employee to remain at
work or return to work.
6. The Plan’s life and disability
benefits are now insured by Unum,
which currently has an ‘‘A’’ rating from
A. M. Best. The applicants represent
that if the Plan chooses another insurer
in the future, that insurer will have a
financial strength rating of ‘‘A’’ or better
from A. M. Best. The applicants
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59443
anticipate that, upon the granting of the
exemption proposed herein, Unum will
enter into reinsurance agreements with
Royal Assurance.
Unum will continue to insure the
Plan, with the enhanced new benefits.
However, Unum will reinsure up to
100% of the risk with Royal Assurance.
The percentage of the risk to be insured
will be specified in the reinsurance
agreements between Unum and Royal
Assurance. The reinsurance agreements
between Unum and Royal Assurance
will be indemnity reinsurance only, so
that Unum will not be relieved of its
liability to the Plan should Royal
Assurance be unwilling or unable to
cover any liability arising from the
reinsurance arrangement.
The Plan will pay no more than
adequate consideration for the
insurance contracts with Unum or any
successor insurer. The formula used to
calculate premiums by Unum or any
successor insurer 15 will be similar to
formulae used by other insurers
providing life insurance 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
providing coverage under the Plan and
its competitors with the same or a better
rating providing the same coverage
under comparable programs.
7. In connection with this exemption
request, Milliman, Inc. (Milliman) has
been engaged as the independent
fiduciary (Independent Fiduciary) on
behalf of the Plan. Milliman is an
international firm of consultants and
actuaries with expertise in all facets of
employee benefits, including insurance.
William J. Thompson, FSA, MAAA (Mr.
Thompson), a Principal and Consulting
Actuary employed by Milliman, has
represented Milliman for purposes of
making the Independent Fiduciary
representations. Milliman’s consultants
are frequently retained to advise
corporations on the insurance
arrangements underlying their benefit
programs and have considerable
expertise in the area of reinsurance and
captive insurers.
8. For purposes of demonstrating
independence, the Independent
Fiduciary has represented that:
(a) It is not an Affiliate of Unum,
Royal Assurance, or any of the other
applicants;
(b) Neither the Independent Fiduciary
nor Mr. Thompson is an officer,
15 The applicants state that any successor insurer
would be a legal reserve life insurance company
with assets of such a size as to afford similar
protection and responsibility.
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
59444
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
director, employee of, or partner in
Unum, Royal Assurance, or any of the
other applicants;
(c) The Independent Fiduciary is not
a corporation in which Unum, Royal
Assurance, or any of the other
applicants, has an ownership interest or
is a partner;
(d) The Independent Fiduciary does
not have an ownership interest in Royal
Assurance, any of the other applicants,
or Unum, or in any Affiliate of those
firms;
(e) The Independent Fiduciary was
not a fiduciary with respect to the Plan
prior to its appointment for this
transaction;
(f) The Independent Fiduciary has
acknowledged in writing its acceptance
of fiduciary obligations and has agreed
not to participate in any decision with
respect to any transaction in which it
has an interest that might affect their
fiduciary duty;
(g) The gross income received by the
Independent Fiduciary and Mr.
Thompson (both separately and
combined) from Royal Assurance, the
other applicants, Unum, or their
Affiliates (including amounts received
for services as Independent Fiduciary
for representing the interests of the Plan
with respect to the exemption
transaction, for monitoring compliance
with the terms and conditions of any
administrative exemption granted by the
Department, and for taking whatever
actions may be necessary and
appropriate to safeguard the interests of
the Plan and its participants and
beneficiaries), does not exceed one
percent of the gross annual income of
the Independent Fiduciary from all
sources for the prior fiscal year; and
(h) The Independent Fiduciary did
not acquire any property from, sell
property to, or borrow funds from, Royal
Assurance, any of the other applicants,
Unum, or their Affiliates.
9. The Independent Fiduciary
represents that Royal Assurance is
licensed in the State of Arizona since
December 3, 2008 to reinsure life and
disability insurance business. The
Independent Fiduciary confirmed that
Royal Assurance has undergone an
examination by Saslow Lufkin & Buggy,
LLP, an independent certified public
accountant, for its 2008 taxable year.
The Independent Fiduciary reviewed
their audited financial report and is
satisfied that there are no issues to be
resolved. In addition, the Independent
Fiduciary had an opportunity to review
the unaudited financial statements of
Royal Assurance for the 2009 taxable
year, and found no evidence to
contradict the view that the unaudited
statements present fairly, in all material
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
respects, the financial position of Royal
Assurance as of December 31, 2009. The
Independent Fiduciary further
represents that future reserves will be
reviewed by a qualified independent
actuary approved by the State of
Arizona.
10. The Independent Fiduciary has
concluded that, as a result of the
reinsurance agreement described in
representation 6, above, the Plan’s risks
will be 100% covered by Unum, a
carrier with a current rating of ‘‘A’’ by
A. M. Best, even if Royal Assurance
were unable or unwilling to cover the
Plans’ liabilities it is assuming as a
result of the reinsurance agreement. The
Independent Fiduciary represents that it
has reviewed the terms of the proposed
reinsurance agreement between Unum
and Royal Assurance, and has
concurred that the agreement provides
that Royal Assurance’s risk would revert
back to Unum at no further cost to the
Plan should Royal Assurance be unable
or unwilling to pay the benefits.
11. The Independent Fiduciary has
represented that it reviewed the Plan’s
benefits before the reinsurance
transaction and the benefits to be
implemented following the reinsurance
transaction. After conducting this
review, the Independent Fiduciary
concluded that there would be an
immediate benefit, in the form of the
various benefit enhancements set forth
above in Representation 5, to the Plan’s
participants from the reinsurance
transaction. In reaching its conclusion,
the Independent Fiduciary notes, inter
alia, that the R+L Companies have
represented that the benefit
enhancements described in
Representation 5 would be provided at
no additional cost or obligation to
employees covered by the Plan, and
would cover all employees affected by
the proposed transaction.
12. The Independent Fiduciary has
made the following representations
concerning the determination of the
initial premium to the Plan under the
proposed arrangement. It concluded that
the Plan is paying no more than
adequate consideration for the Unum
life and disability insurance contracts.
In reaching this conclusion, the
Independent Fiduciary noted that the
current rates have been in place since
1998 for the disability program, and
2003 for the life program. As such, the
Plan has accepted these rate levels as
reasonable for several years, and the
rates will not be increased upon
implementation of the reinsurance
transaction even though the benefits
will be enhanced. The Independent
Fiduciary reviewed documentation of
historical claims and premium
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
experience, as well as the current rate
table. The Independent Fiduciary has
stated that the retention being charged
by the fronting carriers produces
anticipated loss ratios for the life and
disability business that are within
typical marketplace levels for larger
groups. The Independent Fiduciary also
noted that, if full credibility was given
to the life and disability experience of
the R+L Companies, and using the
carrier’s anticipated loss ratios, the
premium rates in recent years would be
lower than the rates being charged.
However, the Independent Fiduciary
stated that, in its opinion, there is
enough volatility in the life and LTD
experience that the credibility being
assigned to the business as a whole is
reasonable.
13. The current Independent
Fidiciary, Milliman, will represent the
interests of the Plan as the independent
fiduciary at all times,16 will monitor
compliance by the parties with the
terms and conditions of the proposed
reinsurance transaction, and will take
whatever action is necessary and
appropriate to safeguard the interests of
the Plan and of its participants and
beneficiaries.
14. The applicants represent that the
proposed reinsurance transaction will
meet the following conditions of PTE
79–41 covering direct insurance
transactions:
(a) The applicants represent that Mr.
Roberts is the owner, either directly or
indirectly, of 50 percent or more of the
combined voting power of all classes of
stock entitled to vote of the captive,
Royal Assurance; accordingly, the
applicants represent that Royal
Assurance is a party in interest with
respect to the Plan for purposes of
section 3(14)(G) of the Act;
(b) Royal Assurance is licensed to
conduct reinsurance transactions by the
State of Arizona. The law under which
Royal Assurance is licensed requires
that an actuarial review of reserves be
conducted annually by an independent
firm of actuaries and reported to the
appropriate regulatory authority;
(c) Royal Assurance has undergone an
examination by the independent
certified public accountant firm of
Saslow Lufkin & Buggy, LLP for its last
completed taxable year;
16 In this regard, the applicants make the
following representation regarding a successor
independent fiduciary. Specifically, should it
becomes necessary in the future to appoint a
successor independent fiduciary to replace
Milliman and Mr. Thompson, the Applicants will
notify the Department sixty (60) days in advance of
the appointment of the successor fiduciary. Any
such successor will have the responsibilities,
experience and independence similar to those of
Milliman and Mr. Thompson.
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 186 / Monday, September 26, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(d) Royal Assurance has received a
Certificate of Authority from its
domiciliary state (Arizona), which has
neither been revoked nor suspended;
(e) The Plan will pay no more than
adequate consideration for the
insurance. In addition, in the initial year
of the proposed reinsurance transaction,
there will be an immediate and
objectively determined benefit to the
Plan’s participants and beneficiaries in
the form of increased benefits; and
(f) No commissions will be paid by
the Plan with respect to the reinsurance
arrangement with Royal Assurance, as
described herein.
In addition, the Plan’s interests will
be represented by a qualified,
Independent Fiduciary (i.e., Milliman or
its successor), who has initially
determined that the proposed
reinsurance transactions will be in the
interest of, and protective of, the Plan
and its participants and beneficiaries.
The Independent Fiduciary will also
confirm on an annual basis that the Plan
is paying a rate comparable to that
which would be charged by a
comparably-rated insurer for a program
of the approximate size of the Plan with
comparable claims experience.
15. In summary, the applicants
represent that the proposed reinsurance
transactions will meet the criteria of
section 408(a) of the Act because:
(a) The Plan’s participants and
beneficiaries are afforded insurance
protection by Unum, a carrier with a
current rating of ‘‘A’’ from A. M. Best,
at competitive market rates arrived at
through arm’s length negotiations;
(b) Unum will enter into a reinsurance
agreement with Royal Assurance, a
sound, viable insurance company which
has been in business since 2008;
(c) The protections described in
Representation 14, above, provided to
the Plan and its participants and
beneficiaries under the proposed
reinsurance transactions are based on
those required for direct insurance by a
‘‘captive’’ insurer, under the conditions
of PTE 79–41 (notwithstanding certain
other requirements related to, among
other things, the amount of gross
premiums or annuity considerations
received from customers who are not
related to, or affiliated with the
insurer); 17
17 The proposal of this exemption should not be
interpreted as an endorsement by the Department
of the transactions described herein. The
Department notes that the fiduciary responsibility
provisions of Part 4 of Title I of the Act apply to
the fiduciary’s decision to engage in the reinsurance
arrangement. Specifically, section 404(a)(1) of the
Act requires, among other things, that a plan
fiduciary act prudently, solely in the interest of the
plan’s participants and beneficiaries, and for the
exclusive purpose of providing benefits to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Sep 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
(d) The Independent Fiduciary has
reviewed the proposed reinsurance
transaction and has determined that the
transaction is appropriate for, and in the
interests of, the Plan and that there will
be an immediate benefit to the Plan’s
participants as a result thereof by reason
of an improvement in benefits under the
terms of the Plan; and
(e) The Independent Fiduciary will
monitor compliance by the parties with
the terms and conditions of the
exemption, and will take whatever
action is necessary and appropriate to
safeguard the interests of the Plans and
of their participants and beneficiaries.
Notice To Interested Persons: A copy
of this Notice of Proposed Exemption
(the Notice) shall be provided to all
interested persons via first-class mail
within thirty (30) days of the date of
publication of the Notice in the Federal
Register. Comments and requests for a
hearing are due no later than sixty (60)
days after publication of the Notice in
the Federal Register.
For Further Information Contact: Mr.
Gary Lefkowitz of the Department at
(202) 693–8546. This is not a toll-free
number.
General Information
The attention of interested persons is
directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the
subject of an exemption under section
408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve
a fiduciary or other party in interest or
disqualified person from certain other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including any prohibited transaction
provisions to which the exemption does
not apply and the general fiduciary
responsibility provisions of section 404
of the Act, which, among other things,
require a fiduciary to discharge his
duties respecting the plan solely in the
interest of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plan and in a
prudent fashion in accordance with
section 404(a)(1)(b) of the Act; nor does
participants and beneficiaries when making
investment decisions on behalf of the plan. In this
regard, the Department is not providing any opinion
as to whether a particular insurance or investment
product, strategy or arrangement would be
considered prudent or in the best interests of a plan,
as required by section 404 of the Act. The
determination of the prudence of a particular
product or arrangement must be made by a plan
fiduciary after appropriate consideration to those
facts and circumstances that, given the scope of
such fiduciary’s investment duties, the fiduciary
knows or should know are relevant to the particular
product or arrangement involved, including the
plan’s potential exposure to losses and the role a
particular insurance or investment product plays in
that portion of the plan’s investment portfolio with
respect to which the fiduciary has investment
duties and responsibilities (see 29 CFR 2550.404a–
1).
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59445
it affect the requirement of section
401(a) of the Code that the plan must
operate for the exclusive benefit of the
employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) Before an exemption may be
granted under section 408(a) of the Act
and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code,
the Department must find that the
exemption is administratively feasible,
in the interests of the plan and of its
participants and beneficiaries, and
protective of the rights of participants
and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The proposed exemptions, if
granted, will be supplemental to, and
not in derogation of, any other
provisions of the Act and/or the Code,
including statutory or administrative
exemptions and transitional rules.
Furthermore, the fact that a transaction
is subject to an administrative or
statutory exemption is not dispositive of
whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction; and
(4) The proposed exemptions, if
granted, will be subject to the express
condition that the material facts and
representations contained in each
application are true and complete, and
that each application accurately
describes all material terms of the
transaction which is the subject of the
exemption.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of
August 2011.
Ivan Strasfeld,
Director of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2011–24656 Filed 9–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
Withdrawal of Proposed Exemption
From Certain Prohibited Transaction
Restrictions
In the Federal Register dated May 5,
2011 (76 FR 25719), the Department of
Labor (the Department) published a
notice of proposed exemption from the
prohibited transaction restrictions of the
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 and from certain taxes
imposed by the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986. The notice concerned an
application, D–11639, filed on behalf of
Wolverine Bronze Company Profit
Sharing Plan and Trust (the Plan) and
BDR Oil, LLC located in Roseville,
Michigan, involving the proposed sale,
for cash at fair market value, of a note
receivable and royalty interests
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59434-59445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24656]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 59435]]
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-
11676 The Kemper Corporation Pension Plan (the Plan); L-11618 Oregon-
Washington Carpenters Employers Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund
(the Plan); and L-11647 R+L Carriers Shared Services, LLC
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, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20210. Attention: Application No. ------, stated in each
Notice of Proposed Exemption. Interested persons are also invited to
submit comments and/or hearing requests to EBSA via e-mail or FAX. Any
such comments or requests should be sent either by e-mail to:
moffitt.betty@dol.gov, or by FAX to (202) 219-0204 by the end of the
scheduled comment period. The applications for exemption and the
comments received will be available for public inspection in the Public
Documents Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N-1513, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
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.
The Kemper Corporation Pension Plan (the Plan) Located in Chicago,
Illinois
Exemption Application Number D-11676
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).\1\ If the proposed exemption is granted, the
restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D), and 406(b)(1) and (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, effective September 1, 2011, to the one-
time, in-kind contribution (the Contribution) of shares of the common
stock of Intermec, Inc. (the Stock) to the Kemper Corporation Pension
Plan (the Plan) \2\ by the Kemper Corporation (Kemper or the
Applicant), a party in interest with respect to the Plan, provided that
the following conditions are satisfied:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this proposed exemption, references to
section 406 of ERISA should be read to refer as well to the
corresponding provisions of section 4975 of the Code.
\2\ Prior to August 25, 2011, the Plan was known as the Unitrin,
Inc. Pension Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) The Applicant makes cash contributions to the Plan to the
extent that the cumulative proceeds from the sale of the Stock at each
contribution due date (determined under section 303(j) of the Act) are
less than the cumulative cash contributions the Applicant would have
been required to make to the Plan, in the absence of the Contribution.
Such cash contributions shall be made until all of the Stock
contributed to the Plan is sold;
(b) The Applicant contributes to the Plan such cash amounts as are
needed for the Plan to attain an Adjusted Funding Target Attainment
Percentage (AFTAP) of at least 80% as of January 1, 2012, as determined
by the Plan's actuary (the Actuary), without taking into account any
unsold Stock as of April 1, 2012;
(c) Solely for purposes of determining the Plan's minimum funding
requirements, AFTAP and funding target attainment percentage, the
Actuary will not count as a Plan asset any Stock that has not been
liquidated as a contribution to the Plan;
(d) For purposes of determining Plan contribution amounts, the
Stock shall be considered a contribution only at the time it is sold,
with the contribution amount being the lesser of the proceeds from the
sale of the Stock, or the value of the Stock on the date of the
Contribution as determined by the Independent Fiduciary described
below;
(e) The Stock represents no more than 20% of the fair market value
of the total assets of the Plan at the time it is contributed to the
Plan;
(f) The Plan pays no commissions, costs or other expenses in
connection with the contribution, holding or subsequent sale of the
Stock and any such expenses paid by the Applicant are not treated as a
contribution to the Plan;
(g) The terms of the Contribution between the Plan and the
Applicant are no less favorable to the Plan than terms negotiated at
arm's length under similar circumstances between unrelated parties;
(h) Fiduciary Counselors Inc. (the Independent Fiduciary)
represents the
[[Page 59436]]
interests of the Plan, the participants and beneficiaries with respect
to the Contribution;
(i) The Independent Fiduciary determines that the Contribution is
in the interests of the Plan and of its participants and beneficiaries
and is protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of
the Plan; and
(j) The Independent Fiduciary monitors the transaction on a
continuing basis and takes all appropriate actions to safeguard the
interests of the Plan to ensure that the transaction remains in the
interests of the Plan, and, if not, takes appropriate action available
under the circumstances.
Effective Date: If granted, this proposed exemption will be
effective as of September 1, 2011.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. The Kemper Corporation \3\ (Kemper or the Applicant) is a
diversified insurance holding company, with subsidiaries that
principally provide life, automobile, homeowners and other insurance
products for individuals. The Applicant reported total shareholders'
equity of over $2.1 billion as of June 30, 2011 and its debt is rated
investment grade by S&P, Moody's and Fitch. The Applicant is the
sponsor and a named fiduciary of the Kemper Corporation Pension Plan
(the Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Prior to August 25, 2011, Kemper was known as Unitrin, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Plan is a defined benefit pension plan that is tax-qualified
under section 401(a) of the Code. As of January 1, 2011, the Plan had
approximately 9,800 participants and beneficiaries. The fair market
value of invested Plan assets as of June 30, 2011 was $360.9 million.
The Plan's independent actuary, AON Hewitt (the Actuary) has determined
that the Plan's Adjusted Funding Target Attainment Percentage (AFTAP)
as of January 1, 2011 is 80%.
3. The Kemper Corporation Master Retirement Trust (Master Trust)
\4\ holds the assets of the Plan. The Plan's Investment Committee is
the named fiduciary for Plan investments under the Master Trust. The
Applicant serves as the Plan Administrator for the Plan. The Northern
Trust Company serves as trustee of the Master Trust. The Investment
Committee has the authority, under the terms of the Master Trust, to
appoint one or more investment managers with respect to a portion or
all of the Plan's assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Prior to August 25, 2011, the Master Trust was known as the
Unitrin, Inc. Master Retirement Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The Applicant has requested exemptive relief from the Department
for the proposed one-time, in-kind contribution (the Contribution) of
shares of the common stock of Intermec, Inc. (the Stock) to the Kemper
Corporation Pension Plan (the Plan). The Contribution represents an in-
kind contribution to the Plan from the Applicant, a party in interest,
that would, in the absence of the exemption proposed herein, violate
section 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) and section 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the
Act.
5. All required minimum contributions for the 2011 Plan Year have
been made to the Plan, except for a contribution in the amount of
$5,093,876, which is due on September 15, 2012. Thus, the Contribution
is not needed to satisfy a required minimum contribution by September
15, 2011.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Applicant is not required to make any cash contributions
to the Plan for the 2011 Plan Year until September 15, 2012, because
the Plan has satisfied the quarterly contribution requirements
through offsetting such contributions against its credit balance.
The minimum required contribution for the 2011 Plan Year is
$23,216,585, and the credit balances available to satisfy the
minimum required contributions total $18,627,878. The difference of
$4,588,707 is the amount of the required contribution due as of
January 1, 2011, but, under section 303(j) of the Act, this amount
is not required to be contributed to the Plan until September 15,
2012. However, if the amount is contributed after January 1, 2011,
it must be increased by interest. Thus, the adjusted minimum
required contribution as of September 15, 2012 is $5,093,876.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The Applicant represents that the Contribution improves the
benefit security of participants because it is substantially in excess
of the contribution required for the 2011 Plan year and is being made
one year in advance of the date the final contribution for the 2011
Plan year is due. To provide added protection to the Plan and its
participants, the Applicant has agreed to make cash contributions to
the Plan to the extent that the cumulative proceeds from the sale of
the Stock at each contribution due date (determined under section
303(j) of the Act) are less than the cumulative cash contributions the
Applicant would have been required to make to the Plan, in the absence
of the Contribution. This commitment will remain in effect until all of
the Stock contributed to the Plan has been sold.
7. Trinity Universal Insurance Company (Trinity), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Applicant, owns 7,661,607 shares of the Stock, with
an approximate fair market value of $56.47 million based upon the
closing price of the Stock on August 31, 2011. The Applicant and its
subsidiaries acquired the Stock on November 3, 1997 in connection with
Western Atlas Inc.'s spin-off of Intermec, Inc. (formerly known as
UNOVA Inc.) to the shareholders of Western Atlas. Intermec, Inc.
(Intermec) is a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol ``IN.'' The Applicant proposes to acquire the
Stock owned by Trinity and contribute it to the Plan. The Stock would
represent approximately 13.5% of invested Plan assets (based on their
fair market value as of June 30, 2011), on a pro forma basis, after
taking into account the Contribution (based on the closing price of the
Stock on August 31, 2011).
8. The Investment Committee has appointed Fiduciary Counselors Inc.
as the Independent Fiduciary to represent the Plan in connection with
the proposed transaction. The Independent Fiduciary is an investment
adviser, within the meaning of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,
which primarily acts as an independent fiduciary for employee benefit
plans, such as the Plan. Fiduciary Counselors Inc. has represented that
it is qualified to assume these responsibilities and is independent of
the Applicant and its affiliates. The Independent Fiduciary is
responsible for determining whether and on what terms the Stock should
be contributed to the Plan; reviewing and approving the process for
liquidating the Stock as quickly as is prudent, subject to the
limitations hereafter described and its fiduciary obligations; and
voting proxies and responding to tender offers with respect to the
Stock. The Independent Fiduciary has determined that the contribution
of the Stock to the Plan is in the interests of the Plan and its
participants. The Independent Fiduciary represents that the
Contribution will significantly improve the funding of the Plan, and
that the Contribution is significantly in excess of required minimum
funding.
9. The Independent Fiduciary represents that Intermec is a global
business that designs, develops, integrates sells and resells wired and
wireless automated identification and data collection products and
related services. As of July 3, 2011, Intermec's assets were $870
million and liabilities totaled $414 million. Intermec's debt-to-equity
ratio is just 17%. Intermec's operating profit from continuing
operations since 2009 has been at the breakeven point, excluding
additional restructuring and acquisition costs.
10. The Stock is a marketable security that trades on the New York
Stock Exchange. There are, however, limitations on how quickly the
Stock can be liquidated because of Rule 144 of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (Rule 144). Rule 144 limits the amount of Stock
that the Applicant
[[Page 59437]]
and its affiliates may sell during any three-month period because the
Applicant and its affiliates own more than 10% of Intermec's
outstanding shares. The Applicant represents that after the
Contribution, the Plan would be subject to Rule 144 because the Plan
would own more than 10% of the outstanding stock of Intermec.\6\
Assuming that the current facts and circumstances and Rule 144
requirements remain in effect, the Applicant estimates that Rule 144
will limit the shares of Stock that may be sold by the Plan until early
May, 2012. The Applicant further estimates that based upon the volume
of Stock that the Applicant has been able to sell over the last several
months, the Stock would likely be completely liquidated by the Plan by
July, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 17 CFR 230.144(a)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Independent Fiduciary has retained a valuation firm,
Murray, Devine & Co., Inc., headquartered in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, to advise it on whether a liquidity discount should be
applied to the market value of the Stock. The Applicant has agreed to
use the value of the Stock as determined by the Independent Fiduciary
for the purpose of determining the amount of the Contribution for
funding purposes.
11. The Applicant represents that the Contribution is
administratively feasible, in the interests of the Plan, its
participants and beneficiaries and would be protective of the Plan and
its participants and beneficiaries. The Applicant believes that the
Contribution is administratively feasible because it is a one-time only
Contribution that would require no further action by the Department.
Moreover, the Plan will pay no fees, commissions or costs with respect
to the Contribution or the sale of the Stock by the Plan.
The Applicant states that the Contribution is in the interests of
the participants and beneficiaries because the Contribution will
increase the benefit security of the participants by adding assets to
the Plan that are substantially in excess of the contribution amount
under the minimum funding requirements. The in-kind Contribution is the
stock of a well-established public company traded on the New York Stock
Exchange so the Plan has a market to sell the Stock.
The Applicant believes that the Contribution is protective of the
Plan and its participants and beneficiaries because an Independent
Fiduciary has been appointed to represent the Plan, its participants
and beneficiaries. Any potential downside to the Contribution is
addressed and effectively eliminated by:
(a) The Applicant's commitment to make additional cash
contributions to the Plan if the cumulative proceeds from the sale of
the Stock at each contribution due date are less than the cumulative
minimum amounts that would otherwise have been contributed to the Plan
in cash, until all of the Stock is sold;
(b) The Applicant's commitment to contribute such cash amounts as
are needed for the Plan's AFTAP to be at least 80% as of January 1,
2012, without taking into account any unsold Stock as of April 1, 2012;
\7\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In determining the Plan's AFTAP, Kemper will only count
Stock that has been liquidated as of April 1, 2012. This date is
being used as a measurement for Stock sales because a determination
must be made as of April 1, 2012 that the AFTAP is at least 80% to
avoid the participants being subject to benefit restrictions. The
Applicant represents that these benefit restrictions would affect a
significant number of Plan participants. The Plan provides for
elective lump sum distributions upon termination of employment for
certain participants. The Applicant states that currently up to 650
participants would be entitled to a lump sum distribution upon
termination of employment (excluding participants whose benefits
have a value of $5,000 or less and thus, would not be subject to
benefit restrictions). In addition, certain participants have made
employee contributions to the Plan which they are entitled to
withdraw. If the benefit restrictions become applicable, the Plan's
actuary estimates that approximately 92 participants would have the
right to withdraw these contributions restricted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The Applicant's agreement to only count the Stock to the extent
that it has been liquidated in determining the Plan's contributions,
minimum funding requirements, the AFTAP and the funding target
attainment percentage. This agreement means that the contribution of
Stock serves as security for the obligation that the Applicant has to
contribute cash to the Plan if the proceeds from sales of the Stock are
not equal to what those cash contributions would have been.
12. In summary, the Applicant represents that the Contribution will
satisfy the statutory requirements for an exemption under section
408(a) of the Act because:
(a) The Applicant will make cash contributions to the Plan to the
extent that the cumulative proceeds from the sale of the Stock at each
contribution due date (determined under section 303(j) of the Act) are
less than the cumulative cash contributions the Applicant would have
been required to make to the Plan, in the absence of the Contribution.
Such cash contributions shall be made until all of the Stock
contributed to the Plan is sold;
(b) The Applicant will contribute to the Plan such cash amounts as
are needed for the Plan to attain an AFTAP of at least 80% as of
January 1, 2012, as determined by the Actuary, without taking into
account any unsold Stock as of April 1, 2012;
(c) For purposes of determining the Plan's minimum funding
requirements, AFTAP and funding target attainment percentage, the
Actuary will not count as a Plan asset any Stock that has not been
liquidated as a contribution to the Plan;
(d) For purposes of determining Plan contribution amounts, the
Stock shall be considered a contribution only at the time it is sold,
with the contribution amount being the lesser of the proceeds from the
sale of the Stock, or the value of the Stock on the date of the
Contribution as determined by the Independent Fiduciary;
(e) The Stock will represent no more than 20% of the fair market
value of the total assets of the Plan at the time it is contributed to
the Plan;
(f) The Plan will pay no commissions, costs or other expenses in
connection with the contribution, holding or subsequent sale of the
Stock, and any such expenses paid by the Applicant will not be treated
as a contribution to the Plan;
(g) The terms of the Contribution between the Plan and the
Applicant will be no less favorable to the Plan than terms negotiated
at arm's length under similar circumstances between unrelated parties;
(h) An Independent Fiduciary will represent the interests of the
Plan, the participants and beneficiaries with respect to the
Contribution;
(i) The Independent Fiduciary will have determined that the
Contribution is in the interests of the Plan and of its participants
and beneficiaries and protective of the rights of participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan;
(j) The Independent Fiduciary intends to sell the Stock into the
market as quickly as is prudent under the circumstances, subject to the
limitations of SEC Rule 144 and the Independent Fiduciary's fiduciary
responsibilities under ERISA; and
(k) The Independent Fiduciary will monitor the transaction on a
continuing basis and take all appropriate actions to safeguard the
interests of the Plan to ensure that the transaction remains in the
interests of the Plan, and, if not, take any appropriate actions
available under the circumstances.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of the proposed exemption will be given to interested
persons within 5 days of the publication of the notice of proposed
exemption in the
[[Page 59438]]
Federal Register. The notice will be given to interested persons by
first class mail or by return receipt requested electronic mail. 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 35 days of the publication
of the notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register.
For Further Information Contact: Gary H. Lefkowitz of the
Department, telephone (202) 693-8546. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Oregon-Washington Carpenters Employers Apprenticeship and Training
Trust Fund (the Plan or the Applicant) Located in Portland, Oregon
[Application No. L-11618]
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 proposed exemption is granted, the
restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the Act, shall not
apply to the sale by the Plan of certain unimproved real property known
as ``Tax Lot 300'' and ``Tax Lot 400'' (together, the Tax Lots or the
Property), to the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters (the
Union), a party in interest with respect to the Plan, provided that the
following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The sale is a one-time transaction for cash;
(b) At the time of the sale, the Plan receives the greater of
either: (1) $390,000; or (2) the fair market value of the Property as
established by a qualified, independent appraiser in an updated
appraisal of such Property on the date of the sale;
(c) The Plan pays no fees, commissions or other expenses associated
with the sale;
(d) 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 third party;
(e) The Plan trustees appointed by the Union (the Union Trustees)
recuse themselves from discussions and voting with respect to the
Plan's decision to enter into the proposed sale; and
(f) The Plan trustees appointed by the employer associations (the
Employer Trustees), who have no interest in the proposed sale, (1)
determine, among other things, whether it is in the best interest of
the Plan to proceed with the sale of the Property; (2) review and
approve the methodology used in the appraisal that is being relied
upon; and (3) ensure that such methodology is applied by the qualified,
independent appraiser in determining the fair market value of the
Property on the date of the sale.
Summary of Facts and Representations
The Parties
1. The Plan is a multiemployer, Taft-Hartley trust fund. The Plan
was established on December 28, 1965, and is now maintained, pursuant
to a Plan Agreement between the Oregon-Columbia Chapter; the Associated
General Contractors of America, Inc.; the Associated Wall and Ceiling
Contractors of Oregon and Southwest Washington, Inc.; the Home Builders
Association of Metropolitan Portland; the General & Concrete
Contractors Association, Inc. (collectively, the Employers); and the
Union. As of February 28, 2011, the Plan had total assets of
$12,465,988.34. As of May 31, 2011, the Plan had approximately 4,122
participants.
2. The Plan is administered by a twelve member Board of Trustees,
six of whom are appointed by the Employers and six of whom are
appointed by the Union. The Trustees have ultimate fiduciary,
operational, and investment discretion over the Plan's assets. The
Plan's current Union Trustees are Gerald Auvil (Chairman of the Board
of Trustees), Boyd Martin, Hank Mroczkowski, Ronald Robbins, Doug
Tweedy, and Ben Embree. The Plan's current Employer Trustees are Jim
McKune, Yasmine Branden, Jeff Herd, Gayland Looney (Secretary-
Treasurer), Lonnie Kronsteiner, and Doug McClain.
Pursuant to the voting rules under the Plan Agreement and to avoid
any self-dealing or conflict of interest issues, the Union Trustees are
required to recuse themselves from discussions and voting with respect
to the Plan's decision to enter into the proposed exemption transaction
that is described herein.
3. The Plan is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. It was created to
provide training and education to member apprentices and journeymen who
are construction carpenters, acoustical applicators, boat builders,
bridge carpenters, cabinet makers, divers, dock and wharf carpenters,
floor layers, gypsum drywall and system installers, insulation
applicators, lathers, maintenance carpenters, millwright pile drivers,
residential carpenters, scaffold erectors, and shipwright and tradeshow
workers.
The Union is headquartered in Kent, Washington, and it was
chartered on January 1, 1996. Its geographic jurisdiction covers the
States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. According to
the Applicant, the Union's mission and purpose, include but are not
limited to, promoting and protecting the interests of its membership,
encouraging the apprenticeship system and higher standards of skill,
and securing adequate pay for its membership's work.
The Property Acquisition
4. On January 25, 2005, the Plan purchased the Property from an
unrelated party, IBC Portland I, LLC of Evergreen, Colorado, in order
to establish a training facility for its members. Prior to the
acquisition, the Plan had been looking for a new training facility site
and it had hired a commercial real estate consultant, Bruce J. Korter,
CRE, Director, Real Estate for Washington Capital Management of
Portland, Oregon, to assist the Board of Trustees with finding a
suitable property. The Trustees had looked at many facilities and even
considered purchasing a parcel of unimproved land on which to construct
the training facility.
The original purchase price of $4,200,000 \8\ included the subject
Property, Tax Lot 500 and a building situated on Tax Lot 500. The
building serves as the Plan's principal training facility (the Training
Center).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As a result of negotiations, the seller later agreed to
accept a $100,000 reduction in the purchase price in exchange for
several conditions of purchase, including paying for street
improvements as they pertain to the property being purchased by the
Plan. Thus, the modified purchase price was $4,100,000. The final
cost to the Plan was $4,221,716.02, which included $121,716.02 of
additional charges, including $94,351 for the 158th Ave. street
improvements.
\9\ The Property, Tax Lot 500 and the Training Center are
collectively referred to herein as the ``Entire Property.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Property is located at NE 158th Avenue and NE Mason Street,
Portland, Oregon. It consists of two parcels, Tax Lot 300, which is
approximately 0.71 acres or 30,909 square feet of land, and Tax Lot
400, which is approximately 0.92 acres or 40,030 square feet of land.
Adjacent to the Property are Tax Lot 500 and the Training Center, which
are located at 4424 NE 158th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Tax Lot 500
consists of approximately 4.64 acres or 202,118 square feet of land.
Currently, the
[[Page 59439]]
Property is vacant and does not produce any income. The Union owns no
real estate that is within close proximity to the Entire Property.
The Plan financed the cost of the Training Center and Tax Lot 500
with a $2,250,000, 20 year loan from AEGON USA Realty Advisors, Inc.
(AEGON) of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, an unrelated party. The loan is secured
by the Training Center and Tax Lot 500. It carries interest at the rate
of 6.75% and requires monthly payments of $16,564.13 that include both
principal and interest, commencing March 2005. The Plan paid the
remaining $1,950,000 balance for the Training Center and Tax Lot 500 in
cash.
Plan's Intentions Regarding the Property
5. According to the Applicant, the Plan had the seller divide the
Entire Property into three separate tax lots prior to the purchase.
This action was meant to facilitate the Plan's future sale of either or
both Tax Lots 300 and 400, should a decision be made to dispose of
these parcels, and not to have such property serve as security for the
AEGON loan.
Also, according to the Applicant, the Plan's interest in the Entire
Property prompted preliminary discussions about determining ways to
finance the purchase. These discussions included the Union's purchase,
from the seller, of one of the Tax Lots as a site for its new
headquarters. In this regard, Mr. Korter, the real estate consultant,
had suggested that the Plan apply for a loan for the Training Center,
but not include the Property as security for such loan. Mr. Korter also
suggested that the Union prepare a letter of intent to demonstrate its
commitment to purchase one of the Tax Lots from the seller. However, no
such letter of intent from the Union was ever forthcoming. (According
to Jim McCune, an Employer Trustee, Mr. Korter believed the letter of
intent was needed by the lender to approve the financing of the Entire
Property.)
The Plan was able to sell the property at which its training
facility was previously located for $1 million. As a result, the Plan
was able to obtaining financing without needing to have the Union or an
unrelated party purchase Tax Lot 300 or Tax Lot 400 from the seller.
Furthermore, the Applicant states that following the election of
Doug Tweedy as the Union's Executive Secretary-Treasurer and CEO in
August 2004, there was a complete changeover of Union personnel. The
Applicant explains that there was nothing in the Plan's records
relating to the acquisition of the Entire Property to indicate that the
Union's new executive personnel had any interest in the Tax Lots for
the Union's headquarters. In this regard, the Applicant explains that
some time before May 2005, the Union's executive personnel began
searching for property other than the Tax Lots as its headquarters. On
May 21, 2005, the Union committed to purchase and renovating a building
located at 1636 East Burnside Street, Portland, Oregon (the East
Burnside Property) by approving the financing. The Applicant notes that
the Union has maintained its offices at the East Burnside Property ever
since.
Thus, according to the Applicant, the possibility of the Union
building its headquarters on the Property was not a consideration after
the August 2004 election of Mr. Tweedy, which was well before the
Entire Property was acquired by the Plan on January 25, 2005.
Plan's Use of the Property
6. Since the time of acquisition, the Plan has used the Property
for training purposes, including surveying and building layout. The
Applicant states that one of the ideas being considered for the use of
Tax Lot 300 and Tax Lot 400 is to provide parking spaces for
apprentices and Training Center employees so that the present south
side parking lot can be used to expand the Training Center.
Plan's Acquisition and Holding Costs Regarding the Property
7. Because the Entire Property was listed for sale as a single
parcel of land, the Applicant explains that there was no separate
breakdown of the purchase price for Tax Lot 300, Tax Lot 400, Tax Lot
500, and the Training Center. In an appraisal report dated August 13,
2004 that was prepared on the Property for possible use as collateral
for a federally-related loan transaction (see Representation 5), Tax
Lot 300 was appraised at $154,660, as of July 19, 2004. In that same
appraisal report, Tax Lot 400 was appraised at $200,155 as of July 19,
2004.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In a separate appraisal report dated August 11, 2004, Mr.
Hickok placed the fair market value of Tax Lot 500 and the Training
Center at $4,000,000, also as of July 19, 2004. As noted previously,
the original purchase price included the Entire Property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appraisal was performed by Robert Hickok, MAI, MRICS, a
qualified, independent appraiser affiliated with Integra Realty
Resources, a real estate valuation and consulting firm located in
Portland, Oregon. Mr. Hickok is also a Certified General Real Estate
Appraiser and he is licensed in the States of Oregon and Washington.
The Applicant represents that Mr. Hickok is a qualified, independent
appraiser, and that less than 1% of his annual income is derived from
the Applicant and its affiliates.
Thus, due to the absence of an actual purchase price for the
Property, the Applicant has estimated this price to be $147,760.06 for
Tax Lot 300 and $194,198.94 for Tax Lot 400, as of January 25, 2005
based on the allocation percentage the Tax Lot represented to the total
appraised value of the Entire Property, as determined by Mr. Hickok in
his July and August 2004 appraisals. The Applicant then applied each
allocation percentage to the aggregate purchase price. Thus, the Plan's
acquisition cost for the Property was $341,959.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Based on the Applicant's calculations, the acquisition
costs for Tax Lot 300 and 400 were $147,760.06 (3.5% of the $154,600
appraised value) and $194,198.94 (4.6% of the $200,155 appraised
value), respectively. The acquisition cost for Tax Lot 500 and the
Training Center was $3,879,757.02 (91.9% of the $4,000,000 appraised
value).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. At the time of the purchase transaction, the Plan also paid half
of the improvement costs on NE 158th Avenue, where the Property is
located. The improvements that were made to NE 158th Avenue included
the construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, storm and sanitary
sewers, water mains, and street pavement. Additionally, fire hydrants
and trees were relocated and traffic control signage, pavement striping
and marking, and permanent barricades were installed. The Plan's share
of the improvement costs was approximately $94,351.
Following the purchase transaction, the Plan has incurred
maintenance costs associated with the Property and it has paid drainage
taxes to Multnomah County, Oregon. Thus, the Plan's aggregate
acquisition and holding costs incurred with respect to the Property
between 2005 and 2010 is $363,486.51.
A summary of the Plan's acquisition and holding costs as they
relate to the Property for the period 2005-2010 is shown in the table
below:
[[Page 59440]]
Acquisition and Holding Costs for Tax Lots (TLs) 300 and 400 From 2005-2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL 300 and TL
Property expenses 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 400 totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL 300 Acq. Cost *...................... $147,760.06 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. $147,760.06
TL 300 Maint. Costs **.................. 1,352.58 1,352.58 1,352.58 1,352.58 1,352.58 1,352.58 8,115.48
TL 300 Taxes ***........................ 253.01 211.33 221.93 234.20 237.26 253.28 1,411.01
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL 300 Totals....................... $149,365.65 1,563.91 1,574.51 1,586.78 1,589.84 1,605.86 157,286.55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL 400 Acq. Cost 111*................... $194,198.94 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 194,198.94
TL 400 Maint. Costs **.................. 1,752.00 1,752.00 1,752.00 1,752.00 1,752.00 1,752.00 10,512.00
TL 400 Taxes ***........................ 327.67 330.88 171.85 209.80 218.09 230.73 1,489.02
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL 400 Totals....................... $196,278.61 2,082.88 1,923.85 1,961.80 1,970.09 1,982.73 206,199.96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL 300 and TL 400 Totals........ $345,644.26 3,646.79 3,498.36 3,548.58 3,559.93 3,588.59 363,486.51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Maintenance Costs. The maintenance costs of $695/month were divided and allocated based on square footage of land (excluding the Training Center).
** Taxes. The 2005 through 2010 Multnomah County Property Tax assessments for Tax Lot 300 and Tax Lot 400 were used to calculate property taxes.
*** Insurance Costs. No insurance cost was allocated to Tax Lots 300 and 400 because, as explained by the Plan's insurance agent of record, Joseph P.
Herrle, general liability insurance coverage extends automatically to any property that adjoins the Plan's business location (i.e., the Training
Center Building) at no additional premium charge.
Request for Exemptive Relief
9. The Applicant requests an individual exemption from the
Department in order to sell the Property to the Union. The Union's
objective in buying the Property is to construct its Oregon and
Southwest Washington headquarters building. The Applicant represents
that the sale of the Property is in the best interest of the Plan and
its participants because: (a) The Plan has no apparent or immediate
need or use for the Property; and (b) the Plan does not derive any
income from the Property. The sale of the Property will allow the Plan
to convert the Property to cash and will permit the Plan to then invest
the cash in a vehicle more appropriate to the Plan's investment needs
and to meet its commitments that require liquidity. If the Union
constructs its headquarters on the Property it would be a convenience
to the participants receiving training and education as they are
represented by the Union.
Efforts to Sell the Property to Unrelated Parties
10. The Applicant represents that it has not made efforts to sell
the Property to unrelated third parties for the following reasons \12\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In the exemption application, the Applicant initially
represented that the Trustees had not made any efforts to sell the
Property to unrelated parties because at the time of the Plan's
acquisition of the Entire Property, ``the Trustees foresaw that the
Property would be a good location to build the Union headquarters
because of its proximity to the Training Center.'' As noted above,
the Applicant provided further information to the Department to
support the Trustees' actual intentions regarding the Property.
Notwithstanding the supporting documentation, the Department is
still concerned that the Applicant's statement raises issues under
the general standards of fiduciary conduct of section 404 of the Act
and the prohibited transaction provisions of 406 of the Act with
respect to the Plan's acquisition and holding of the Property.
Accordingly, the Department is not passing on the prudence of the
Plan's investment in the Property, nor is it providing exemptive
relief herein from section 406 of the Act for any prohibited
transactions that may have occurred during the Plan's acquisition
and holding of such Property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limited Use of the Property to Potential Purchasers.
According to the Applicant, Tax Lot 300 and Tax Lot 400 are zoned
``IG2, General Industrial 2,'' which permits various industrial uses.
Because the Tax Lots are both less than one acre in size, which is not
customary for industrial neighborhoods, only atypical small industrial
buildings could potentially be built on the Property. The Applicant
explains that there is currently limited demand for additional
industrial development. The Applicant also explains that Mr. Hickok,
the independent appraiser, determined that industrial use of the
Property was not considered financially feasible because a newly-
developed use would not have a value commensurate with its cost. Since
the Property is not appropriate for most industrial uses, the Applicant
states that this limits the number of potential buyers and would likely
result in a lower sale price for an industrial use other than the
Union's office building use. Further, the Applicant indicates that
there are currently four larger industrial buildings that remain unsold
to the east of the Training Center and undeveloped land to the south of
the Training Center.
Inability of an Unrelated Purchaser to Receive Municipal
Construction Approval or Have a Use Ancillary to the Training Center.
According to the Applicant, an unrelated purchaser would not likely
receive approval from the City of Portland to construct an office
building on the Property. However, the Applicant believes that the
Union would receive such approval because it represents the Plan
participants being trained in the Training Center. In addition, the
Applicant states that it is not expected that an unrelated purchaser's
use of the Property would be ancillary to the Training Center as the
Union's potential use.
Cash Flow Problems Experienced by the Plan. The Applicant
states that the Plan had a reduced cash flow in 2008 and 2009 due to
the recession. As a result, there had been fewer jobs for carpenters
and fewer contributions to the Plan. The Applicant explains that the
need for apprentice and journeymen training has increased as labor
agreements have increased their training requirements. The Applicant
further explains that the Trustees recognized that Union headquarters
building would be a complimentary and nonintrusive use to the Training
Center and a convenience to the Plan participants receiving training,
as they are represented by the Union. After Mr. Hickok completed his
2009 appraisal of Property, the Applicant indicates that the Union
commenced the process involved to purchase the Property from the Plan,
following approval by the Employer Trustees of filing an
[[Page 59441]]
exemption application with the Department.
Use of the Property that Does Not Impair the Training
Center or the Safety of the Apprentices. Due to the proximity of the
Property to the Training Center, the Applicant states that the Trustees
must ensure that the Property is used in a manner that will not hinder
the use, and the view of the Training Center from NE 158th Avenue.
Additionally, the Applicant notes that because the apprentices are
mainly young adults, the Trustees desire that the Property be used in a
manner that does not compromise the safety of the apprentices or create
liability issues for the Plan and the Training Center.
Recent Appraisals of the Property
11. The Property was appraised by Mr. Hickok who, as noted in
Representation 7, had initially valued the Property in 2004. Using the
Sales Comparison Approach to valuation, Mr. Hickok placed the fair
market value of Tax Lot 300 at $170,000 as of October 20, 2009 in an
appraisal report dated November 12, 2009. In that same appraisal
report, Mr. Hickok placed the fair market value of Tax Lot 400 at
$220,000, for a combined total appraised value of $390,000 for the
Property. Mr. Hickok explains that the Sales Comparison Approach to
valuation was the only approach available for the valuation of the
Property. The Cost Approach was not available because there are no
improvements that contribute to the value of the Property. Mr. Hickok
concluded that the Income Approach was not available because the
Property is not likely to generate rental income in its current state.
12. The Department requested a 1-2 page addendum to the 2009
appraisal asking Mr. Hickok whether there had been a change in the fair
market value of the Property since the date of the 2009 appraisal. On
April 18, 2011, the Applicant's representative submitted a summary
appraisal report, effective March 22, 2011. Using the Sales Comparison
Approach to valuation in the updated appraisal, Mr. Hickok again placed
the fair market value of Tax Lot 300 at $170,000, and Tax Lot 400 at
$220,000. Thus, the Property had a combined total appraised value of
$390,000 as of March 22, 2011.
Conditions of the Proposed Sale
13. The Plan will pay no real estate commissions or other expenses
associated with the sale. The Union will pay the Plan in cash, the
greater of either: (a) $390,000 or (b) the fair market value of the
Property, as established by a qualified, independent appraiser on the
date of the transaction, as reflected in an updated appraisal of such
Property.
14. The Employer Trustees have determined, among other things, that
it is in the best interest of the Plan to proceed with the sale of the
Property. In addition, the Trustees have reviewed and approved the
methodology used in the appraisal that is being relied upon, and they
will ensure that such methodology is applied by the qualified
independent appraiser in determining the fair market value of the
Property on the date of the sale.
Summary
15. In summary, it is represented that the proposed transaction
will satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption under section
408(a) of the Act because:
(a) The sale will be a one-time transaction for cash;
(b) At the time of the sale, the Plan will receive the greater of
either: (1) $390,000; or (2) the fair market value of the Property as
established by a qualified, independent appraiser in an updated
appraisal of such Property on the date of the sale;
(c) The Plan will pay no fees, commissions or other expenses
associated with the sale;
(d) 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 third party;
(e) The Union Trustees will recuse themselves from discussions and
voting with respect to the Plan's decision to enter into the proposed
sale; and
(f) The Employer Trustees, who have no interest in the proposed
sale will (1) determine, among other things, whether it is in the best
interest of the Plan to proceed with the sale of the Property; (2)
review and approve the methodology used in the appraisal that is being
relied upon; and (3) ensure that such methodology is applied by the
qualified, independent appraiser in determining the fair market value
of the Property on the date of the sale.
Notice to Interested Persons
Notice of the proposed exemption will be provided to the Employers
and the Union within 15 days of the publication of the notice of
proposed exemption in the Federal Register. The Plan will provide
notice to interested persons by first-class mail. Such notice will
contain a copy of the 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 and/or to request a hearing with
respect to the proposed exemptions. Written comments and hearing
requests are due within 45 days of the publication of the proposed
exemption in the Federal Register.
For Further Information Contact: Ms. Jan D. Broady of the
Department at (202) 693-8556. (This is not a toll-free number).
R+L Carriers Shared Services, LLC, Located in Wilmington, Ohio
[Application No. L-11647]
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 receipt of premiums related therefrom, by
Royal Assurance, Inc. (Royal Assurance), in connection with insurance
contracts sold by Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Unum), or any
successor insurance company to Unum which is unrelated, to the R+L
Carriers Shared Services, LLC to provide group life, short-term
disability (STD), long-term disability (LTD), and Accidental Death and
Dismemberment (AD&D) insurance benefits to employees of the R+L
Companies \13\ under an employee welfare benefit plan (the Plan)
\14\sponsored by the R+L Carriers
[[Page 59442]]
Shared Services, LLC, provided the following conditions are met:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The individual related employers comprising the R+L
Companies are: (1) R+L Carriers Shared Services, LLC; (2) Strategic
Management, LLC; (3) Paramount Transportation Logistics Services,
LLC; (4) R+L Carriers Payroll, LLC; (5) Paramount Labor Leasing
Southern, LLC; (6) Paramount Labor Leasing Eastern, LLC; (7)
Paramount Labor Leasing Southern, LLC; (8) Golden Ocala Management,
Inc.; (9) Royal Resorts, LLC; (10) ABCO Transportation, Inc.; (11)
Spirit Express Trucking, Inc.; (12) Royal Shell Property Management,
Inc.; (13) Quality Quest Linen Service, Inc.; (14) Royal Shell
Vacations, Inc.; (15) AFC LS, LLC; and (16) AFC Worldwide Express,
Inc. The foregoing employers, along with the captive insurer, Royal
Assurance, constitute the applicants requesting an individual
exemption for the proposed transaction described herein.
\14\ The applicants represent that Mr. Ralph ``Larry'' Roberts,
Sr., the founder of the R+L Companies, is the owner (either
directly, or indirectly through the combined voting interests of his
spouse and his children) of 50 percent or more of the combined
voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote of each of the
employers constituting the R+L Companies whose employees are covered
under the Plan. Therefore, according to the applicants, Mr. Roberts
is a party in interest with respect to the Plan for purposes of
section 3(14)(E) of the Act. The applicants further represent that
Mr. Roberts is the owner, either directly or indirectly, of 50
percent or more of the combined voting power of all classes of stock
entitled to vote of the captive, Royal Assurance; accordingly, the
applicants represent that Royal Assurance is a party in interest
with respect to the Plan for purposes of section 3(14)(G) of the
Act. In this regard, the Department is providing no opinion herein
as to whether Mr. Roberts is a party in interest with respect to the
Plan for purposes of section 3(14)(E) of the Act; similarly, the
Department is providing no opinion herein as to whether Royal
Assurance is a party in interest with respect to the Plan for
purposes of section 3(14)(G) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Royal Assurance--
(1) Is a party in interest with respect to the Plan by reason of a
stock or partnership affiliation with R+L Carriers Shared Services LLC
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 Director of
the Department of Insurance 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, Arizona) by the Director
of the Arizona Department of Insurance 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 Plan pays no more than adequate consideration for the
insurance contracts;
(c) No commissions are paid by the Plan with respect to the direct
sale of such contracts or the reinsurance thereof;
(d) In the initial year of any contract involving Royal Assurance,
there will be an immediate and objectively determined benefit to the
Plan's participants and beneficiaries in the form of increased
benefits;
(e) In subsequent years, the formula used to calculate premiums by
Unum 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;
(f) The Plan only contracts with insurers with a financial strength
rating of ``A'' or better from A. M. Best Company (A. M. Best). The
reinsurance arrangement between the insurer and Royal Assurance will be
indemnity insurance only, i.e., the insurer will not be relieved of
liability to the Plan should Royal Assurance be unable or unwilling to
cover any liability arising from the reinsurance arrangement;
(g) The Plan retains an independent fiduciary to analyze the
transaction and render an opinion that the requirements of sections (a)
through (f) have been satisfied. For purposes of the proposed
exemption, the independent fiduciary is a person who:
(1) Is not directly or indirectly, through one or more
intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control
with an applicant (this relationship hereinafter referred to as an
affiliate);
(2) Is not an officer, director, employee of, or partner in, Royal
Assurance or any other applicant (or an affiliate of either);
(3) Is not a corporation or partnership in which Royal Assurance or
any other applicant has an ownership interest or is a partner;
(4) Does not have an ownership interest in Royal Assurance, or any
of the other applicants, or their Affiliates;
(5) Is not a fiduciary with respect to the Plan prior to the
appointment; and
(6) Has acknowledged in writing acceptance of fiduciary
responsibility and has agreed not to participate in any decision with
respect to any transaction in which the independent Fiduciary has an
interest that might affect its best judgment as a fiduciary.
For purposes of this definition of an ``independent fiduciary,'' no
organization or individual may serve as an independent fiduciary for
any fiscal year if the gross income received by such organization or
individual (or partnership or corporation of which such individual is
an officer, director, or 10 percent or more partner or shareholder)
from Royal Assurance, any other applicant, or their affiliates
(including amounts received for services as independent fiduciary under
any prohibited transaction exception granted by the Department) for
that fiscal year exceeds one percent of that organization or
individual's annual gross income from all sources for the prior fiscal
year.
In addition, no organization or individual who is an independent
fiduciary, and no partnership or corporation of which such organization
or individual is an officer, director, or 10 percent or more partner or
shareholder, may acquire any property from, sell any property to, or
borrow funds from Royal Assurance, any other applicant, or their
affiliates during the period that such organization or individual
serves as independent fiduciary, and continuing for a period of six
months after such organization or individual ceases to be an
independent fiduciary, or negotiates any such transaction during the
period that such organization or individual serves as independent
fiduciary.
Summary of Facts and Representations
1. The R+L Companies comprise a group of enterprises, primarily
focused on the trucking and transportation services industries, that
are under common ownership. The R+L Companies are a major nationwide
interstate motor carrier network providing ``less-than-truckload''
transportation services, i.e., partial-load shipments to one or more
destinations, or full trailer-load shipments directed to multiple
destinations. Today, the R+L Companies have approximately 9,000
employees with operations extending to all 50 states, Canada, Puerto
Rico and the Dominican Republic.
2. Royal Assurance is a captive insurance company that was
established for the purpose of insuring or reinsuring certain risks
associated with the business operations of the R+L Companies, and that
shares common ownership with the R+L Companies. The applicants
represent that Royal Assurance has insured the R+L Companies' property
and casualty risks, and also reinsured the employee benefit plans of
the R+L Companies. The applicants further state that Royal Assurance
was incorporated in Arizona on August 13, 2008. On December 3, 2008,
the Director of the Arizona Department of Insurance granted Royal
Assurance a Certificate of Authority to transact the business of a
captive insurance company in the State of Arizona. The Certificate of
Authority grants Royal Assurance the authority to transact the
following kinds of insurance business within the State of Arizona:
Casualty, Workers' Compensation, Property, Life Reinsurance, and
Disability Reinsurance.
3. The independent certified public accounting firm of Saslow
Lufkin &
[[Page 59443]]
Buggy, LLP has served as Royal Assurance's auditor since its
incorporation. Saslow Lufkin & Buggy, LLP currently examines Royal
Assurance's reserves on an annual basis in connection with the employee
benefit business to be reinsured by Royal Assurance to ensure that
appropriate reserve levels are maintained. The applicants represent
that, as of December 31, 2009 (the most recent date for which audited
financial statements from Saslow Lufkin & Buggy, LLP are available),
Royal Assurance disclosed approximately $335,719 in gross annual
premiums and $1,349,327 in total assets (audited financial statements
for Royal Assurance for calendar year 2010, according to the
applicants, are not yet available).
4. The R+L Carriers Shared Services, LLC Plan (the Plan) is
maintained for employees of the R+L Companies. The Plan provides both
basic and supplemental life and disability coverage. The Plan has
historically insured with the Unum Life Insurance Company of America
(``Unum''). However, pursuant to the transaction for which an exemption
is being sought, Royal Assurance would now be utilized for the
reinsurance of benefits and would make substantial improvements to the
Plan in anticip