Advisory Opinions

Request for reconsideration or clarification of AO 95-06A, which held that the group health benefits program offered by Mid-Continent Medical Benefits Trust is a “multiple employer welfare arrangement” within the meaning of ERISA section 3(40), and not an employee benefit plan, and that ERISA section 514(a) would not preempt state regulation of the Trust, Profession Administration Group, or "the pooled custodial account" maintained by these entities.

Whether Connecticut General Statutes section 38a-537 is preempted by ERISA section 514(a) or whether section 38a-537 is saved from preemption under ERISA section 514(b) as a law regulating insurance.

Whether Minnesota Statutes section 61A.092 is preempted by ERISA section 514(a) or whether section 61A.092 is saved from preemption under ERISA section 514(b) as a law regulating insurance.

Whether, in a participant-directed eligible individual account plan designed to satisfy the requirements of ERISA section 404(c), the failure of trustees to follow the last affirmative investment directions of participants who can no longer be located would cause the plan to lose its status as a "section 404(c) plan."

Whether section 5(g) of Puerto Rico Act No. 17 of April 17, 1931, as amended, is preempted by ERISA section 514(a) as it may be applied to prohibit a pension plan from requiring repayment of plan loans through payroll deductions.

Whether pension benefit arrangements for employees of Allegheny Lutheran Social Ministries, Inc., an institution of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, are “church plans” within the meaning of ERISA section 3(33) and therefore excluded from the requirements of Title I by section 4(b)(2).

Whether the Employee Staffing of America, Inc.'s Employee Benefit Plan is an “employee welfare benefit plan” maintained by a single employer within the meaning of ERISA section 3(1) or a “multiple employer welfare arrangement” within the meaning of ERISA section 3(40).

Whether the Midwest Express Career Pilot Severance Plan constitutes an “employee welfare benefit plan” under ERISA section 3(1), rather than an “employee pension benefit plan” under ERISA section 3(2).

Whether the status of the Public Employees Defined Contribution Plan, a pension benefit arrangement established under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353D, as a “governmental plan” under ERISA section 3(32) would be adversely affected if it were extended to cover employees of private ambulance services operating within Minnesota.

Whether the statutory exemption under ERISA section 408(b)(2) or Internal Revenue Code section 4975(d)(2) would be available where a plan and a party in interest enter into a settlement agreement which constitutes a prohibited exchange under ERISA section 406(a)(1)(A) and Code section 4975(c)(1)(A).