Advisory Opinions

Whether the Plan is an “employee welfare benefit plan” within the meaning of section 3(1) of ERISA. Whether the Plan is an “employee benefit plan” within the meaning of ERISA section 3(3). Whether the Plan is an “employee benefit plan” as provided in ERISA section 514(b)(2)(B); Whether the Plan is exempt from the participation and vesting requirements of part 2 of title I of ERISA as an “employee welfare benefit plan” within the meaning of section 201(1). Whether the Plan is exempt from the funding requirements of part 3 of title I of ERISA as an “employee welfare benefit plan” as defined in ERISA section 301(a)(1).

Whether a certain understanding denominated the “Letter Agreement” or “Agreement” between the Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) raises issues under part 4 of Title I of ERISA.

Whether a document providing notification of a plan trustee’s change in name must be furnished to plan participants and beneficiaries in accordance with section 104(b)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and 29 C.F.R. §2520.104b-3.

Whether neither the Existing Plans nor the Consolidated Plan are (1) employee welfare benefit plans within the meaning of section 3(1) of ERISA, (2) employee pension benefit plans within the meaning of section 3(2) of ERISA, or (3) employee benefit plans within the meaning of section 3(3) of ERISA.

Whether under the affiliations among Cannon, Services and Administrators: (1) Administrators may continue to serve as the “nominal” plan administrator, (despite the limitation on the availability of Prohibited Transaction Exemption 77-9 (PTE 77-9),1 and (2) Cannon and Services may continue to rely on PTE 77-9 with respect to the classes of transactions described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of Section III of the exemption.

Whether the 1973 Incentive Stock Plan (the Plan) maintained by MCA, Inc. (the Employer) constitutes an employee pension benefit plan within the meaning of section 3(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Whether the compensation being paid by the Fund to Victor Palmieri and Company Incorporated (“VPCO”), an investment manager employed by the Trustees pursuant to two agreements (more fully described in the request), and concerning the effect and lawfulness of certain provisions in those agreements would raise issues under section 404 of ERISA.

Whether various provisions of Part 4 of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) apply to three alternative proposals for the distribution of the assets upon termination of the Painters Palm Coast District Council No. 76 Health and Hospitalization Trust Fund (Health Trust) and the Painters Palm Coast District Council No. 76 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund (Apprenticeship Trust).

Whether the appointment of Harvard as trustee of the Trusts, the performance by Harvard of the functions of trustee of the Trusts, and contributions by Harvard and THU under the terms of each plan to Harvard, as trustee of the Trusts do not constitute prohibited transactions within the meaning of section 406(a) or (b) of ERISA.

Whether the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) -New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) ¬Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA) Health Benefit Trust (the Plan) is a "governmental plan," within the meaning of section 3(32) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).