Advisory Opinions

Whether, the Pellerino Consulting Services, Inc. provides consulting services to third party administrator firms, which in turn adjudicate claims and disburse benefits under employer sponsored welfare plans, may be considered paid “solely” from the general assets of the employer; within the meaning of the limited reporting exemption in 29 C.F.R. 2520.104-20(b)(2)(i) and the corresponding instructions to the Annual Return/Report Form 5500 Series.

Whether purchases of securities issued by the parent company of Citizens First National Bank of New Jersey at the direction of fiduciaries of employee benefit plans for which the Bank serves as trustee would be a prohibited transaction under section 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Whether, under the arrangement proposed by the Marsh & McLennan, Inc., an insurance broker, the cash value element of a split-dollar life insurance policy would be considered a plan asset for purposes of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Whether a single-employer, self-funded accident and health benefit program administered by Advanced Administrative Companies is a multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) within the meaning of ERISA section 3(40) and whether such MEWA is an employee benefit plan under section 3(1) of ERISA thus preempting state regulations of the arrangement.

Whether the FCE Health and Welfare Service Industry Trust, established by the Federal Contract Employees Health & Welfare Fund, Inc., is a multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) within the meaning of section 3(40) of Title I of ERISA, and whether the Trust is subject to the applicable regulatory authority of the State of Virginia's insurance laws or is saved from such authority under the general preemption provision of section 514(a) of Title I of ERISA.

Whether the Police Benevolent Association of Richmond, Virginia is not an "employee organization" within the meaning of section 3(4) of ERISA or, if the Department is unable to reach such a conclusion, that the Police Benevolent Association of Richmond, Virginia’s program of benefits is an "employee welfare benefit plan" within the meaning of section 3(1) of ERISA and not an "employee pension benefit plan" within the meaning of section 3(2) of ERISA.

Whether the proposed Simmons Company Short-Term Disability Plan, providing weekly income to certain non-bargaining unit employees unable to perform their regular duties due to illness, injury, or accident, would be an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of section 3(1) of Title I of ERISA or a payroll practice described in §2510.3-1(b)(2).

Whether a state court order executed by court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to Michigan domestic relations law must be reviewed the plan administration to determine if the order meets ; "qualified domestic relations order" (QDRO) exception to the anti-assignment and alienation rules contained in 206(d)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and sections 401(a)(13)(B) and 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Whether the New Jersey Tooling and Manufacturers Association Health Benefit Plan (a.k.a., the NJTMA Employee Benefits Association, Inc.) is a multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) within the meaning of section 3(40) of title I of ERISA and, therefore, subject to applicable state insurance regulations.

Whether the New Jersey Automotive Wholesalers Association Health Benefit Plan, also known as the N.J.A.W.A. Insurance Trust, is a multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) within the meaning of section 3(40) of title I of ERISA and, therefore, subject to applicable state insurance regulation at least to the extent permitted under section 514(b)(6)(A) of that title.