Advisory Opinions

Requests for interpretations and other rulings under Title 1 of ERISA are handled by the Office of Regulations and Interpretations under the provisions established by ERISA Procedure 76-1. The office answers inquiries from individuals and organizations in the form of advisory opinions, which apply the law to a specific set of facts, or information letters, which merely call attention to well established principles or interpretations.

Data Dictionary

Start Date

Select Reference

**2004**
AO/ Date/ Reference	Recipient	Description of Request
2004-05A 05/24/2004 406(a)(1)(D), 406(b)(1) 406(b)(2)	Mr. William R. Charyk Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5339	Whether the execution of a securities transaction between a plan and party in interest through an alternative trading system constitutes a prohibited transaction under ERISA.
2004-04A 05/20/2004 407(d)(3) 407(d)(9)	Steven J. Sacher Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 607 14th Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-2018	Whether an amendment of defined benefit plan reducing future benefit accruals will affect the grandfathered status under OBRA '87 of a floor offset arrangement of which the defined benefit plan is a part with a stock bonus plan.
2004-03A 04/30/2004 3(1) 3(3)	David F. Thompson, Esq. 1051 Valley Road Lake Forest, IL 60045	Whether the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 150 Holiday and Vacation Fund is an "employee benefit plan" within the meaning of section 3(3) of ERISA.
2004-02A 02/17/2004 206(d)(3)	Terry-Lynne Lastovich Dorsey & Whitney LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498	Whether a domestic relations order that changes a prior assignment of benefits to an alternate payee to reduce the amount assigned to the alternate payee may be a qualified domestic relations order within the meaning of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA.
2004-01A 01/27/2004 3(32)	Albert L. Goldman, Esq. Angoff, Goldman, Manning, Wanger & Hynes, PC 24 School Street - 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02108	Whether the Health Fund, Legal Fund, and Paraprofessional Fund (collectively, Funds), are "governmental plan[s]," as defined in ERISA § 3(32), and, therefore, excluded from Title I coverage by § 4(b)(1) of ERISA.

**2003**
AO/ Date/ Reference	Recipient	Description of Request
2003-18A 12/23/2003 3(32)	Charles G. Spalding, Esq. Gilbert, Harrell, Gilbert, Sumerford & Martin First Federal Plaza 777 Gloucester Street, Suite 200 P.O. Box 19 Brunswick, Georgia 31521-0190	Whether the Glynn-Brunswick Memorial Hospital Retirement Plan is a "governmental plan" within the meaning of ERISA section 3(32) that is excepted from coverage under Title I by section 4(b)(1) of ERISA.
2003-17A 12/12/2003 3(5)	Ralph L. Hawkins Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 2600 Century Square 1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-1688	Whether HEWT is a single employee welfare benefit plan maintained by a "group or association of employers" within the meaning of section 3(5) of ERISA.
2003-16A 11/21/2003 3(32)	Stephanie B. Gracia, Esq. Hallett & Perrin, PC 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 3900 Dallas, Texas 75201	Whether the status of the LCRA Plans as "governmental plan(s)" within the meaning of section 3(32) of ERISA would be adversely affected if they were extended to cover the employees of GenTex Power Corporation.
2003-15A 11/17/2003 3(14)(G) 406(a)	William A. Schmidt Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP 1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Second Floor Washington, DC 20036-1800 Jacob I. Friedman Proskauer Rose LLP 1585 Broadway New York, NY 10036-8299	Whether a limited partnership in which employee benefit plans invest would be deemed a party in interest with respect to the plans under section 3(14)(G) of ERISA where the plan trustee would hold more than fifty percent of the interests in the limited partnership on behalf of the plans.
2003-14A 10/08/2003 407(d)(5) 407(f)(1)	Mr. Steven J. Sacher Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 607 14th Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-2018	Whether certain stock is a qualifying employer security in connection with a proposed exchange between GM and several employee benefit plans that it sponsors. The exchange is part of a broader transaction, whereby GM plans to split-off its subsidiary, Hughes Electronics Corporation.