Advisory Opinions

Whether certain arrangements involving the transfer of funds by the Pension Plan to the Welfare Plan would be prohibited under section 406 of ERISA, and whether the provision of services by the Pension Plan to the Welfare Plan under the arrangement described would be exempt from the prohibitions of ERISA section 406(a) and 406(b)(2) if the conditions of PTE 76-1 and PTE 77-10 are met.

Whether the Rochester Button Pension Plan for Salaried Employees (the Plan) is required to engage an independent qualified public accountant for purposes of conducting an examination of the financial statements of the Plan for the plan year ending September 30, 1985, pursuant to section 103(a)(3)(A) of ERISA, 29 C.F.R. §2520.103-1 and §2520.104-50,

Whether, and to what extent, the Trust constituted an “employee welfare benefit plan” within the meaning of ERISA section 3(1) subject to the fiduciary and other provisions of title I of ERISA.

Whether the Ettelbrick Shoe Company pension plan constitutes an unfunded plan maintained “primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select group of management or highly compensated employees” within the meaning of sections 201(2), 301(a)(3), and 401(a)(1) of title I of ERISA.

Whether a prohibited transaction under section 406 of ERISA would occur if the trustees of the Fund made an investment which was part of an overall agreement obligating an insurance company to invest a specified amount of insurance company assets in construction mortgages within the geographic jurisdiction of the union whose members are participants in the Fund.

Whether the Retirement Plan for Employees of Holy Redeemer Hospital (the Retirement Plan) and the Holy Redeemer Hospital Thrift Plan (the Thrift Plan) would not qualify as church plans within the meaning of ERISA section 3(33), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, would be exempt from coverage under title I of ERISA pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of ERISA.

Whether the Plan established by the Burger King Corporation (the Company) is an unfunded scholarship program within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. §2510.3-1(k) and, therefore, not an "employee welfare benefit plan" subject to the provisions of title I of ERISA.

Whether the receipt of payment by the Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation (FACC) from an unrelated buyer (the Buyer) for the sale by FACC of its leasehold interest, including renewal rights, in certain real property (the Property) are prohibited by ERISA sections 406(a), 406(b) and 414(c) thus FACC would be prohibited  from receiving full payment from the Buyer for the assignment of its entire leasehold interest in the Property.

Whether the professional development programs offered by Main Hurdman & Cranstoun are employee benefit plans under section 3(1) of ERISA and covered by the reporting and disclosure requirements of part 1 of title I of ERISA.

Whether the Audiotronics Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan) is no longer required to engage, pursuant to section 103(a)(3)(A) of ERISA, an independent qualified public accountant to make an examination and report with respect to the financial statements of the Plan.