Advisory Opinions

Whether the option prices contained in a 1966 amendment to a lease of property owned by the Profit-Sharing Plan for Employees of Southwestern Drug Corporation and Southwestern Drug Corporation may be considered in determining the fair market value of the Property under section 414(c)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and Labor Department regulation 29 CFR 2550.414c-3(b)(3).

Whether section 514 of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts Puerto Rican laws H.B. 943 (No. 33), approved May 6, 1983, to add section 19.031 to Act No. 77 of June 19, 1957, as amended, known as the "Insurance Code of Puerto Rico" and Act No. 113, approved June 2, 1976, to add a new chapter 19 to Act No. 77, with respect to collectively bargained employee benefit plans covered by title I of ERISA.

Whether two individual retirement programs to be implemented by Armco, Inc. and its affiliates constitute employee pension benefit plans within the meaning of section 3(2) of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Whether the Minnesota Timber Producers Association's Group Health Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of section 3(1) of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Whether the Central States Region Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust (the Trust) and/or the Central States Region Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust Medical Plan (the Medical Plan), both created January 1, 1984, are “employee welfare benefit plans” as defined by section 3(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Whether the Mechanics' Lien Laws of the State of California and their related provisions are preempted by section 514 of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) insofar as the California laws permit employee benefit plans covered by ERISA title I to foreclose on real property works of improvement to recover contributions owed those plans by contributing employers for work performed on the real property.

Whether a retiree working full-time as a maintenance refractory bricklayer for the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge River steel facility (Ford), which does not maintain the Bricklayers Pension Trust Fund-Metropolitan Area (the Plan), and who prior to his employment by Ford worked for subcontractors performing bricklaying work at Ford, accruing benefits under the Plan, has been working in the same “industry” as that term is used in the within the meaning of section 203(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Department of Labor’s suspension of benefits regulation (29 CFR §2530.203-3(c)(2)).

Whether a proposed contribution or sale of certain real property to the Profit Sharing Trust for Employees of E-Z Serve, Inc. (the Plan) and simultaneous leaseback of the property to the E-Z Serve, Inc. (the Company) will be exempt from the prohibitions of sections 406 and 407 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by the exemption contained in section 408(e) of ERISA for the acquisition, sale or lease of qualifying employer real property, and whether the land the Company proposes to contribute is qualifying employer real property under section 407(d)(4) of ERISA.

Whether the loss or destruction of records that must be retained under section 107 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) before the end of the six-year retention period prescribed by section 107 discharges persons required to retain the records from their statutory duty to do so.

Whether section 5(g) of Puerto Rico Act. No. 17 (approved April 17, 1931) as amended is preempted under section 514(a) of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.