Advisory Opinions

The application of Prohibited Transaction Exemption 77-4 (PTE 77-4) regarding the Frank Russell Trust Company and its affiliates. Specifically, whether Frank Russell Investment Management Company’s waiver of the investment advisory fee, otherwise payable by the Plans to Frank Russell Group in connection with the investment of plan assets in the Funds, complies with the requirements of paragraph (c) of section II of PTE 77-4. Whether paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of section II of PTE 77-4 require written disclosure and approval of fees paid to parties unrelated to Frank Russell Investment Management Company, or any affiliate, with respect to the investment of plan assets in the Funds. Whether PTE 77-4 provides relief for the purchase or sale of shares of the Funds subsequent to the approval by a Plan fiduciary, independent of and unrelated to Frank Russell Trust Company, of a program for the purchase or sale of shares in the Funds, without prior approval of each such purchase or sale by the independent Plan fiduciary.

Whether Prohibited Transaction Exemption 77-4 (PTE 77-4) applies to the proposed purchase and sale of shares of the PNC Serviced Funds by Plans for which PNC serves as fiduciary, without the waiver or credit of fees for Secondary Services paid to PNC Group by the PNC Group Serviced Funds.

Whether the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. of Michigan Employee Benefit Plan would be "fully insured" within the meaning of section 514(b)(6)(D) of ERISA if the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. of Michigan enters into a proposed contractual arrangement with First Security Health and Life Assurance Company with respect to payment of benefits under the Plan.

Whether a proposed group health program that would provide accident, medical, surgical and dental benefits to employees of the Coordination Council for North American Affairs resident in the United States, who would include Republic of China (Taiwan) nationals, United States nationals, and individuals maintaining both Republic of China and United States citizenship, would be an employee welfare benefit plan covered by Title I of ERISA.

Whether the Fleming Employees' Supplemental Disability Plan, established by a group of employees of Fleming Foods Companies, Inc. to provide disability benefits that would supplement disability benefits provided by Fleming to its employees through a disability insurance program, is an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of section 3(1) of Title I of ERISA.

Whether certain employee benefit plans for individuals whose employment is with the Georgia Baptist Medical Center, NewtonHouse Nursing Home, and Harvest Heights Nursing Home, which are collectively known as the Georgia Baptist Health Care System, constitute church plans within the meaning of section 3(33) of Title I of ERISA, and, accordingly, whether the plans may be excluded from the requirements of Title I of ERISA by section 4(b)(2).

Whether Pittsburgh Mercy Health System, Inc. employee benefit plans constitute church plans within the meaning of section 3(33) of Title I of ERISA and, accordingly, whether they are excluded from the requirements of Title I of ERISA by section 4(b)(2) thereof.

Whether the reimbursement of Allied-Signal Inc. (ASI) by the ASI- sponsored Master Trust Plans for the direct expenses incurred by ASI in providing investment management services to such plans would not constitute a prohibited transaction under section 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Whether Section 5 of Puerto Rico Act No. 17 of April 17, 1931, as amended, (P.R. Act 17) is preempted under section 514(a) of Title I of ERISA to the extent Section 5 prohibits payroll deductions for the purposes of funding employee benefit plans covered by Title I of ERISA.

Whether the State of New Jersey may interpret section 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to permit it to apply its laws to an employee benefit plan until the plan obtains an advisory opinion from the Department of Labor that establishes that section 514(a) preempts the operation of the state law with respect to the plan.