EBSA
Notices
Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions
[ 3/30/2012]
[ PDF]
Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19340-19345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7705]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Exemptions From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions
AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Grant of Individual Exemptions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains exemptions issued by the Department of
Labor (the Department) from certain of the prohibited transaction
restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA or the Act) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
This notice includes the following Grants: D-11628, Aztec Well
Servicing Company & Related Companies Medical Plan Trust Fund (the
Plan), 2012-04; D-11637, HSBC-North America (U.S.) Tax Reduction
Investment Plan (the Plan), 2012-05; D-11662, Retirement Program for
Employees of EnPro Industries (the Plan), 2012-06; D-11669, Genzyme
Corporation 401(k) Plan and Its Successor Plans (together, the Plan or
the Applicant), 2012-07; and D-11680, Citigroup Inc. (Citigroup or the
Applicant), 2012-08.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice was published in the Federal
Register of the pendency before the Department of a proposal to grant
such exemptions. The notice set forth summaries of facts and
representations contained in the applications for exemption and
referred interested persons to the applications for a complete
statement of the facts and representations. The applications have been
available for public inspection at the Department in Washington, DC The
notice also invited interested persons to submit comments on the
requested exemptions to the Department. In addition the notice stated
that any interested person might submit a written request that a public
hearing be held (where appropriate). The applicants have represented
that they have complied with the requirements of the notification to
interested persons. No requests for a hearing were received by the
Department. Public comments were received by the Department as
described in the granted exemptions.
The notice of proposed exemption was issued and the exemptions are
being granted solely by the Department because, effective December 31,
1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1
(1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to
issue exemptions of the type proposed to the Secretary of Labor.
Statutory Findings
In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act and/or section
4975(c)(2) of the Code and the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part
2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011) \1\ and based
upon the entire record, the Department makes the following findings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department has considered exemption applications
received prior to December 27, 2011 under the exemption procedures
set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August
10, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) The exemption is administratively feasible;
(b) The exemption is in the interests of the plan and
its participants and beneficiaries; and
(c) The exemption is protective of the rights of the participants
and beneficiaries of the plan.
Aztec Well Servicing Company & Related Companies Medical Plan Trust
Fund (the Plan) Located in Aztec, New Mexico
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2012-04; Exemption Application No. D-
11628]
Exemption
Section I
The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A), (C) and (D), 406(b)(1),
and 406(b)(2) of the Act shall not apply to the payment by the Plan to
Basin Occupational & Urgent Care, LLC (BOUC), a party in interest with
respect to the Plan, for the on-site provision to the Plan of urgent
medical care and wellness services by a nurse-practitioner and a
wellness coordinator employed by BOUC, provided that the following
conditions are satisfied:
(a) An independent, qualified fiduciary (I/F), with expertise in
plans providing health and welfare benefits under the Act and the
fiduciary obligations thereunder, acting on behalf of the Plan,
determines prior to entering into the transaction that the transaction
is feasible, in the interest of, and protective of the Plan and the
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan;
(b) Before the Plan enters into the proposed transaction, the I/F
reviews the transaction, ensures that the terms of
[[Page 19341]]
the transaction are at least as favorable to the Plan as an arm's
length transaction with an unrelated party, and determines whether or
not to approve the transaction, in accordance with the fiduciary
provisions of the Act;
(c) The I/F monitors compliance with the terms and conditions of
this exemption, as described herein, and ensures that such terms and
conditions are at all times satisfied;
(d) The I/F monitors compliance with the terms of the written
license agreement (the License) between the Plan and Aztec Well
Servicing Company, and takes any and all steps necessary to ensure that
the Plan is protected, including, but not limited to, exercising its
authority to terminate the License on 10 days' written notice; and
(e) The subject transaction is, in fact, on terms and at all times
remains on terms that are at least as favorable to the Plan as those
that would have been negotiated under similar circumstances at arm's-
length with an unrelated third party.
Section II
The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A), (C) and (D), 406(b)(1),
and 406(b)(2) of the Act shall not apply, effective July 1, 2010, to:
(1) The payment by the Plan's participants to BOUC for medical services
provided as a result of the inclusion of BOUC's clinic, located in
Farmington, New Mexico, as a network provider in the BlueCross
BlueShield of New Mexico (BCBSNM) Network of Health Care Providers; and
(2) the payment by the Plan to BCBSNM of the difference between BOUC's
fee and the participant's co-pay, which difference is then transmitted
by BCBSNM to BOUC, provided that the following conditions are
satisfied:
(a) The terms of the medical services provided by BOUC to Plan
participants are at least as favorable to the participants as those
they could obtain in similar transactions with an unrelated party;
(b) The Plan participants will have access to all of the providers
in BCBSNM's network and will be free to choose whether or not to use
BOUC's clinic;
(c) At least 99% of the providers participating in the BCBSNM are
unrelated to the companies whose employees participate in the Plan, or
any other party in interest with respect to the Plan;
(d) BOUC will be treated no more favorably than any other provider
participating in the BCBSNM; and
(e) The transactions are not part of an agreement, arrangement or
understanding designed to benefit BOUC or any other party in interest
with respect to the Plan.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations
supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to
the notice of proposed exemption published on December 13, 2011 at 76
FR 77610.
DATES: Effective Date: With respect to the transactions described in
Section II, this exemption is effective July 1, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary H. Lefkowitz of the Department,
telephone (202) 693-8546. (This is not a toll-free number.)
HSBC-North America (U.S.) Tax Reduction Investment Plan (the Plan)
Located in Mettawa, Illinois
[Exemption Application No. D-11637 Prohibited Transaction Exemption
2012-05]
Exemption
Effective March 2, 2009, the restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A)
and 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), 406(b)(1), 406(b)(2), and 407(a)(1)(A) of
the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section
4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) and 4975(c)(1)(E)
of the Code,\2\ shall not apply:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For purposes of this exemption, references to specific
provisions of Title I of the Act, unless otherwise specified, refer
also to the corresponding provisions of the Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) To the acquisition of certain rights (the ADS Rights) by the
Plan in connection with an offering (the Offering) of shares of stock
(the Stock) in HSBC Holdings plc (Holdings) by Holdings, a party in
interest with respect to the Plan,
(2) To the holding of the ADS Rights received by the Plan during
the subscription period of the Offering; provided that the conditions
as set forth in Section II of this exemption were satisfied;
Section II: Conditions
The relief provided in this exemption is conditioned upon adherence
to the material facts and representations described, herein, and as set
forth in the application file and upon compliance with the conditions,
as set forth in this exemption.
(1) The receipt by the Plan of the ADS Rights occurred in
connection with the Offering made available by Holdings on the same
terms to all shareholders, such as the Plan, of American Depository
Shares \3\ (the HSBC ADS) which represent the Stock of Holdings;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ American Depository Shares permit investment in foreign
securities to trade on markets in the United States without many of
the complications that would otherwise arise from such cross-border
and cross-currency transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The acquisition of the ADS Rights by the Plan resulted from an
independent act of Holdings, as a corporate entity, and all holders of
the ADS Rights, including the Plan, were treated in the same manner
with respect to the acquisition of such rights;
(3) All holders of the ADS Rights, such as the Plan, received the
same proportionate number of such rights based on the number of HSBC
ADS held; and
(4) All decisions regarding the ADS Rights made by the Plan were
made by an independent, qualified fiduciary which:
(a) Conducted a due diligence review of the Offering;
(b) Determined whether or not to direct the Plan to vote in favor
of the Offering; and
(c) Evaluated a prudent strategy for disposition of the ADS Rights
under the Offering that were allocated to the Plan.
Effective Date: This exemption is effective, on March 2, 2009, the
date of the announcement of the Offering.
Written Comments
In the Notice of Proposed Exemption (the Notice), the Department
invited all interested persons to submit written comments and requests
for a hearing on the proposed exemption within 45 days of the date of
the publication of the Notice in the Federal Register on November 14,
2011.\4\ All comments and requests for hearing were due by December 29,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 76 FR 70495, November 14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the comment period the Department received no requests for
hearing. However, the Department did receive a comment letter, dated
December 29, 2011, from the applicants (the Applicants). In the comment
letter the Applicants requested one (1) amendment to the language of
Section I(1), as set forth on page 70496 in the Notice. In this regard,
the reference to the name, ``HSBC Holding, plc,'' should be changed to
``HSBC Holdings plc.'' The Department concurs with the Applicants'
requested amendment to Section I(1).
In addition the Applicants requested three (3) clarifications to
the Summary of Facts and Representations (the SFR) of the Notice. The
Applicants' requested clarifications to the SFR are discussed, below,
in an order that corresponds to the appearance of the relevant language
in the Notice.
1. In paragraph 4, as set forth in the SFR, on page 70497 of the
Notice, the Applicants clarify that HSBC North
[[Page 19342]]
America Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries comprise all of the
business interests of HSBC Holdings plc in the United States. The
Department concurs with the Applicants' requested clarification.
2. In paragraph 16, as set forth in the SFR, on page 70499 and
70501 of the Notice, the Applicants clarify that further examination of
the fees under each of the options available to the Plan has shown that
a stamp tax (a United Kingdom Stamp Duty Reserve Tax) would not have
been incurred under Option (C). The Plan would only have paid a stamp
tax under Option (A). The Department concurs with the Applicants'
requested clarification.
3. In paragraph 19, as set forth in the SFR, on page 70502 of the
Notice, the Applicants represent that the Offering included a default
procedure to protect the interests of ADS Rights holders who did not
take action with respect to the ADS Rights they received in the
Offering. The Department concurs with the Applicants' requested
clarification.
After full consideration and review of the entire record, including
the written comment letter filed by the Applicants, the Department has
determined to grant the exemption, as amended and clarified above.
Comments submitted by the Applicants to the Department in the comment
letter have been included as part of the public record of the exemption
application. The complete application file (D-11637), including all
supplemental submissions received by the Department, is available for
public inspection in the Public Documents Room of the Employee Benefits
Security Administration, Room N-1513, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations
supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption refer to
the Notice published on November 14, 2011, at 76 FR 70495.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Angelena C. Le Blanc of the
Department, telephone (202) 693-8540. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Retirement Program for Employees of EnPro Industries (Plan) Located in
Charlotte, NC
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2012-06; Exemption Application No. D-
11662]
Exemption
The restrictions of sections 406(a)(1)(A) and 406(b)(1) and (b)(2)
of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section
4975(c)(1)(A) and (E) of the Code, shall not apply, effective July 15,
2011, to the in kind contribution (the Contribution) to the Plan of a
guaranteed investment contract (the Annuity), issued by the
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, an unrelated party, by EnPro
Industries, Inc. (EnPro); provided that the following conditions were
satisfied:
(a) A qualified, independent fiduciary (the Independent Fiduciary),
acting on behalf of the Plan, determined whether the Contribution was
in the interests of the Plan and protective of the Plan's participants
and beneficiaries;
(b) The Independent Fiduciary reviewed, negotiated and approved the
terms of the Contribution on behalf of the Plan in accordance with the
fiduciary provisions of the Act;
(c) A qualified, independent appraiser determined the fair market
value of the Annuity prior to the Contribution, and it updated such
valuation on the date of the Contribution;
(d) The Annuity represented approximately 19% of the Plan's assets
at the time of the Contribution;
(e) The Plan incurred no fees, commissions, or other charges or
expenses in connection with the Contribution;
(f) The terms of the Contribution were no less favorable to the
Plan than the terms negotiated at arm's length under similar
circumstances between unrelated parties; and
(g) EnPro amended the Investment Policy Statement for the Plan in
conformity with the recommendations of the Independent Fiduciary prior
to the Contribution.
Effective Date: This exemption is effective as of July 15, 2011.
Written Comment
In the Notice of Proposed Exemption (76 FR 77619, December 13,
2011) (the Notice), the Department invited all interested persons to
submit written comments and requests for a hearing on the Notice within
forty (40) days of the date of the publication of such Notice in the
Federal Register. All comments and requests for a hearing from
interested persons were due by January 23, 2012.
During the comment period, the Department did not receive any
requests for a public hearing. However, the Department did receive one
written comment from a Plan participant, who sought to clarify whether
the Plan had sufficient funds to cover Plan benefit obligations due
before the Annuity matured on December 31, 2014. In a telephone call to
the participant, a Department representative explained that Paragraph
20 of the Notice included a representation from the Independent
Fiduciary, which had confirmed with the Plan's actuary that the Plan
would be in a position to meet its benefit obligations from the date of
the Contribution until the maturity date of the Annuity.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations
supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to
the Notice published on December 13, 2011 at 76 FR 77619.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anh-Viet Ly of the Department at
(202) 693-8648. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Genzyme Corporation 401(k) Plan and Its Successor Plans (Together, the
Plan or the Applicant) Located in Cambridge, MA
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2012-07; Exemption Application No. D-
11669]
Exemption
The restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) and
section 407(a) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the
application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section
4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code,\5\ shall not apply, effective
April 4, 2011, to (1) the acquisition by the Plan of contingent value
rights (CVRs) as a result of the Plan's ownership of certain common
stock (Genzyme Common Stock) in Genzyme Corporation (Genzyme), the Plan
sponsor, in connection with (a) the purchase of shares (Shares) of
Genzyme Common Stock pursuant to an exchange offer (the Exchange Offer)
and a subsequent offer to the Exchange Offer (the Subsequent Exchange
Offer) by GC Merger Corp. (the Purchaser), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
sanofi-aventis (Sanofi), a party in interest with respect to the Plan,
and (b) the ``short-form'' merger (the Merger) of the Purchaser into
Genzyme (together, the Transactions); (2) the continued holding of CVRs
by the Plan; and (3) the resale of the CVRs by the Plan to Sanofi,
pursuant to the exercise of repurchase rights available under certain
circumstances specified in the Contingent Value Rights Agreement (the
CVR Agreement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For purposes of this exemption, references to section 406 of
the Act should be read to refer as well to the corresponding
provisions of section 4975 of the Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This exemption is subject to the following conditions:
(a) Plan participants holding Genzyme Common Stock received one CVR
for each Share on the effective date of the tender or cancellation of
their Shares, in connection with the Transactions.
(b) The acquisition of CVRs by the Plan occurred in connection with
the Transactions on the same terms and in the same manner as the
acquisition of
[[Page 19343]]
CVRs by all other holders of Genzyme Common Stock, other than Sanofi,
the Purchaser, Genzyme and dissenting shareholders.
(c) The Plan's acquisition of CVRs resulted either (1) from a
decision by a participant or beneficiary to tender Shares allocated to
his or her account or
(2) Following a decision by a participant or beneficiary not to
tender Shares by reason of the Merger.
(d) The Plan did not pay any fees or commissions in connection with
the acquisition of the CVRs, nor does it pay any fees or commissions in
connection with the holding of CVRs or sale of CVRs to Sanofi pursuant
to an exercise of Sanofi's repurchase right under the CVR Agreement.
(e) Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co
advised Genzyme that the consideration received by Genzyme
shareholders, including Plan participants, in exchange for their Shares
was ``fair,'' from a financial point of view.
(f) The Plan does not acquire or hold CVRs other than those
acquired in connection with the Transactions.
(g) Plan participants have the same rights with respect to CVRs
allocated to their accounts under the Plan (including with respect to
any repurchase of CVRs by Sanofi) as unrelated parties have with
respect to CVRs not held under the Plan, and they may direct the Plan's
trustee (the Trustee) to sell CVRs allocated to their respective
accounts at any time.
(h) For so long as CVRs remain a permissible Plan investment, the
retention or disposition by the Plan of CVRs allocated to a
participant's or beneficiary's account is administered in accordance
with the provisions of the Plan that are in effect for individually-
directed investment of participant accounts.
Effective Date: This exemption is effective as of April 4, 2011.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations
supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to
the notice of proposed exemption published on December 13, 2011, at 76
FR 77612.
Extension of Comment Period
The notice of proposed exemption (the Notice) invited all current
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan (Interested Persons) to
submit comments or requests for a hearing to the Department by January
27, 2012. The Applicant agreed to notify Interested Persons by first
class mail within 15 days of the date that the Notice appeared in the
Federal Register. The Applicant confirmed that Interested Persons were
notified via first class mail on December 28, 2011, less than 30 days
prior to the final day of the comment period. To ensure that Interested
Persons would have at least 30 days to provide comments to the
Department, the Applicant agreed to extend the comment period to
January 31, 2012. Accordingly, the Applicant sent a supplementary
letter announcing the extension of the comment period to Interested
Persons via first class mail on January 19, 2012.
Written Comments
During the comment period, the Department received three written
comments with respect to the Notice, and no requests for a public
hearing. The first two comments stated matters that were not germane to
the exemption request. The third comment and a supplemental response
(together, the Comment Letter) were submitted by Genzyme, and are
intended to (1) clarify that the exemption would apply to successor
plans to the current Plan; (2) request changes to Conditions (d) and
(g) of the Notice; and (3) correct or clarify minor errors and
inconsistencies in the Notice. Genzyme's Comment Letter and the
Department's responses are described below.
1. Successor Plans. On page 77618 of the Summary of Facts and
Representations (the Summary), Representation 17 states that if the
exemption is granted, ``it would also apply to successor plans to the
current Plan.''
While the proposed extension of relief to successor plans is
mentioned in the Summary, Genzyme notes that the text of the exemption
at the beginning of the Notice does not make reference to ``successor
plans.'' In order to avoid uncertainty in the future, Genzyme requests
that the final text of the exemption reflect that any plan into which
the Plan is merged or to which substantially all assets of the Plan are
transferred will be entitled to rely on the exemption, to the same
extent as the Plan would be entitled to rely on the exemption if no
such merger or transfer had occurred.
In response to this comment, the Department has revised the title
of the final exemption to include the ``Genzyme Corporation 401(k) Plan
and Its Successor Plans,'' in order to clarify that relief extends to
such successor plan(s).
2. Requested Changes to Conditions (d) and (g) of the Notice.
Genzyme suggests that the Department consider revising Condition (d) of
the Notice (on page 77613) to refer to ``fees or commissions in
connection with the holding of CVRs or a sale of CVRs to Sanofi,''
rather than to ``fees or commissions in connection with the holding or
sale of CVRs to Sanofi,'' as the condition currently reads. Genzyme
states that this suggestion is offered not for the purpose of making
any substantive change, but solely to enhance clarity.
In response to this comment, the Department has revised Condition
(d) of the final exemption slightly to clarify the meaning of this
condition and its applicability to Sanofi. The Department also notes a
corresponding modification to Representation 23(d) of the Summary, on
page 77618.
In addition, Condition (g) of the Notice requires that participants
have the ability to direct the Trustee ``to sell CVRs allocated to
their respective accounts at any time'' (emphasis added). Genzyme notes
that participants may, at certain times, be subject to limitations on
their ability to direct the Trustee with regard to the investment of
their accounts (e.g., during a ``blackout period'' within the meaning
of section 101(i) of the Act, or when applicable insider trading
policies would prevent a participant from selling securities). In order
to avoid any implication that the language in Condition (g) would fail
to be satisfied in such circumstances, Genzyme suggests that the
wording be revised to require that participants have the ability to
direct the Trustee ``to sell CVRs allocated to their respective
accounts at any time, subject to any limitations that may be imposed by
applicable law'' (emphasis added). Genzyme explains that this
suggestion was made with the thought that there might be periods during
which certain participants would be prohibited by federal securities
laws from transacting in securities as to which they might have
``insider'' knowledge. Genzyme also emphasizes that there is no
intention of imposing restrictions on the ability of participants to
give investment directions with respect to CVRs held in their accounts
under the Plan, except as otherwise required by applicable law.
In response to this comment, the Department has decided not to make
the suggested revision to the Notice since it is inherently understood
that the condition might be subject to limitations imposed by
applicable law (e.g., federal securities laws). However, the Department
notes Genzyme's clarification to Condition (g) of the Notice and to
Representation 23(g) of the Summary.
3. Minor Errors and Inconsistencies in the Notice. Genzyme requests
that the two references to the merger of Sanofi into Genzyme (located
in clause (1)(b) of
[[Page 19344]]
the operative language on page 77612 of the Notice and in
Representation 17 of the Summary on page 77618) be revised to refer,
instead, to the merger of the Purchaser into Genzyme.
In addition, Genzyme states that when the Purchaser was merged into
Genzyme, the Purchaser ceased to exist as a separate entity. Genzyme
notes that the statements regarding the Purchaser in Representation 4
of the Summary (on page 77613) were made in the present tense while the
Purchaser continued to exist as a separate entity. Given the passage of
time and the fact that the Purchaser has merged into Genzyme, Genzyme
states that it would be appropriate to change this paragraph to the
past tense, as follows:
The Purchaser, a Massachusetts corporation, was incorporated on
July 29, 2010, as a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Sanofi. The
Purchaser was organized by Sanofi to acquire Genzyme and did not
conduct any unrelated activities between the time of its
organization and the time of its merger into Genzyme. All of the
outstanding shares of the capital stock of the Purchaser were owned
by Sanofi.
Further, Genzyme states that on page 77614 of the Summary,
Representation 5 contains the following representation: ``All Shares
not tendered were converted into the right to receive the same Merger
Consideration.'' Consistent with the preceding sentence and other
information set forth in Representation 5, Genzyme states that the
representation should instead read: ``All Shares not tendered were
converted into the right to receive the same Merger Consideration,
except for Shares held by Sanofi, Genzyme and their subsidiaries, and
Shares held by shareholders who properly perfected appraisal rights
under Massachusetts law.''
Representation 5 of the Summary also states that the Merger
Consideration \6\ in connection with the Exchange Offer and the
Subsequent. Exchange Offer was paid on April 4, 2011. However, Genzyme
notes that, as is correctly stated in Representation 7 of the Summary
(on page 77614), the Merger Consideration paid in connection with the
Subsequent Exchange Offer was actually paid on April 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Merger Consideration consisted of (a) $74 in cash, less
any applicable withholding for taxes and without interest, per
Share, and (b) one CVR per Share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Genzyme states that on page 77615 of the Summary,
Representation 11 contains a typographical error. Genzyme explains that
the phrase ``subject to certain conditions and expectations'' should
read, instead, ``subject to certain conditions and exceptions.''
In response to the foregoing comments, the Department notes the
clarifications and updates to the Notice.
Accordingly, after giving full consideration to the entire record,
including the Comment Letter, the Department has determined to grant
the exemption as modified herein.
For further information regarding the comment and other matters
discussed herein, Interested Persons are encouraged to obtain copies of
the exemption application file (Exemption Application No. D-11669) the
Department is maintaining in this case. The complete application file,
as well as all supplemental submissions received by the Department, are
made available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of
the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1513, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Mpras Vaughan of the Department,
telephone (202) 693-8565. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Citigroup Inc. (Citigroup or the Applicant) Located in New York, New
York
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2012-08; Exemption Application No. D-
11680]
Exemption
Citigroup Inc. and its current and future affiliates (collectively,
Citigroup) shall not be precluded, as of December 1, 2010, from
functioning as a ``qualified professional asset manager'' (QPAM),
pursuant to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-14 (PTE 84-14) (49 FR
9494, March 13, 1984, as amended on August 23, 2005 at 70 FR 49305),
solely because of a failure to satisfy Section I(g) of PTE 84-14, as a
result of Citigroup's affiliation with Citibank Belgium SA (CBB), an
entity convicted of three (3) counts of criminal activity in Belgium,
provided that the following conditions are met \7\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For purposes of this exemption, references to section 406 of
ERISA should be read to refer to the corresponding provisions of
section 4975 of the Code as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) The affiliate convicted under Belgium law does not provide
fiduciary or QPAM services to employee benefit plans (plans) or
otherwise exercise discretionary control over plan assets;
(b) ERISA-covered assets are not involved in the conduct that is
the subject of the Belgian affiliate's conviction(s);
(c) Citigroup imposes its internal procedures, controls, and
protocols on the Belgian affiliate to reduce the likelihood of any
recurrence of the conduct that is the subject of the conviction(s), to
the extent permitted by local law;
(d) This exemption is not applicable if Citigroup, or any affiliate
(other than branches or affiliates found liable for similar crimes in
Belgium in connection with the sale of certain structured notes (the
Lehman Notes) is convicted of any of the crimes described in Section
I(g) of PTE 84-14;
(e) Citigroup maintains records that demonstrate that the
conditions of the exemption have been and continue to be met for at
least six years following the conviction of an affiliate under Belgium
law;
(f) Citigroup has adopted procedures to afford protection of the
interests of participants and beneficiaries of employee benefit plans;
and
(g) Citigroup complies with the other conditions of PTE 84-14, as
amended.
Effective Date: This exemption is effective as of December 1, 2010.
For a more complete statement of the facts and representations
supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, refer to
the notice of proposed exemption (the Proposal) published on January
20, 2012 at 77 FR 3061.
Written Comments
The Department received one written comment letter with respect to
the Proposal. The letter was submitted by the Applicant in order to
make some minor corrections and clarifications with respect to the
Proposal.
The Applicant provided updated information that CBB was only
convicted on three counts of criminal activity in Belgium.\8\ The
Department has made a change in the first paragraph of this exemption
in response to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CBB and three of its employees as of August 14, 2009 had
been criminally charged with six counts of criminal activity. The
three employees were each convicted on one count of criminal
activity in Belgium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicant requested that the Department make certain changes to
Conditions (b) and (c) of the Proposal. The Applicant requested that,
for sake of clarity, the word ``Belgian'' be inserted before
``affiliate'' in both Conditions (b) and (c). In addition, because the
convictions are under appeal, the Applicant requested that the word
``conduct'' be substituted for ``misconduct'' in Condition (b), and the
phrase ``the conduct that is the subject of the convictions'' be
substituted for the word ``misconduct'' in Condition (c). The
Department has made these requested changes. The Applicant also
[[Page 19345]]
requested that the Department make corresponding changes to the Summary
of Facts and Representations (the Summary) section of the Proposal. The
Department notes these revisions to Representation 8 of the Summary.
Condition (e) of the Proposal requires Citigroup to comply with
certain recordkeeping requirements. However, Citigroup stated in its
comment letter that only Condition (c) of the Proposal would lend
itself to the maintenance of records regarding compliance with the
exemption. Accordingly, Citigroup has requested that Condition (e) be
revised to limit the recordkeeping requirement to ``the conditions of
subsection (c) of the exemption.'' The Department does not agree with
the Applicant on this point because recordkeeping would apply to the
continuing validity of the exemption as a whole. Accordingly, the
Department has not changed the condition.
Condition (f) of the Proposal currently provides that ``Citigroup
has adopted procedures to afford ample protection of the interests of
the participants and beneficiaries of employee benefit plans.'' The
Applicant stated that it is unsure what the word ``ample'' is intended
to mean and requested in its comment letter that the Department delete
this word from Condition (f). The Department has done so. The Applicant
also requested that the deletion of the word ``ample'' be made from
Representation 8 of the Summary. The Department so notes.
In its comment letter, the Applicant had other requested changes to
the Summary. The Applicant noted that the last sentence of
Representation 2 indicates that CBB has no ERISA plan clients and is
not expected to have any such clients in the future. According to the
Applicant, although CBB does not act as a fiduciary to any ERISA plan,
Citigroup cannot guarantee that an ERISA plan will never be a
counterparty to any transaction entered into by CBB. As a result, the
Applicant requested that the Department revise the last sentence of
Representation 2 of the Proposal to state that ``* * *CBB is not
expected to have any ERISA plan clients for whom it will perform any
fiduciary or QPAM services or otherwise exercise discretionary control
over plan assets in the future.'' In response, the Department notes
this revision.
The Applicant represents that after a further review of the facts
and circumstances surrounding the criminal convictions of CBB, it has
determined that: (a) prior to his termination of employment, Jose de
Penaranda de Franchimont was the Chief Country Officer and Chief
Executive Officer of CBB, rather than its Chief Compliance Officer; and
(b) the convictions were related to the use of fact sheets, in addition
to marketing letters and leaflets, as well as a prospectus. The
Applicant has therefore requested in its comment letter that Footnote
57 to Representation 3 be revised to replace Mr. de Penaranda de
Franchimont's title as ``Chief Country Officer and Chief Executive
Officer.'' The Applicant also notes the correct spelling of Mr. de
Penaranda de Franchimont's name. In addition, Citigroup has requested
that the third sentence of Representation 3 be revised to refer to the
``use of certain marketing letters, leaflets and fact sheets, as well
as a prospectus.'' The Department notes these revisions.
Representation 5 addresses the reasons that the Proposal would be
protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of affected
plans. For purposes of clarity, the Applicant requested in its comment
letter that the Department revise subsection (d) of Representation 5 to
read: ``A consistent framework and requirements were developed through
the policy for mandatory sales force training on products, as well as
Citigroup policies.'' The Department notes this revision.
Representation 7 addresses Citigroup's compliance policies and
procedures and notes that Mr. Staroukine, CBB's Belgium Country
Counsel, has no involvement with ERISA plans and will not have any
future dealings with ERISA plans while employed by Citigroup, CBB, or
an affiliate. The Applicant stated in its comment letter that although
it is correct that Mr. Staroukine does not act as a fiduciary to any
ERISA plan, CBB cannot ensure that he will never have any involvement
in any transaction in which an ERISA plan may be a counterparty. The
Department so notes. In addition, Citigroup contended in its comment
letter that Mr. Staroukine should not be prohibited from ever acting as
a fiduciary to an ERISA plan in the event his conviction is overturned
on appeal. Therefore the Applicant requested that the last sentence of
Representation 7 of the Proposal be revised to read: ``The Applicant
further represents that Mr. Staroukine, although currently serving as
CBB's Belgium Country Counsel, does not act as a fiduciary to any ERISA
plan, and will not act as a fiduciary to any ERISA plan while he is
employed by the Applicant, CBB or an affiliate, unless the convictions
are overturned on appeal. The Department notes this revision.
The Department has considered the entire record, including the
comment letter filed by the Applicant, and has determined to grant the
exemption as proposed, subject to the revisions described herein.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary H. Lefkowitz of the Department,
telephone (202) 693-8546. (This is not a toll-free number.)
General Information
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption
under section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code
does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified
person from certain other provisions to which the exemption does not
apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section
404 of the Act, which among other things require a fiduciary to
discharge his duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the
participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in
accordance with section 404(a)(1)(B) of the Act; nor does it affect the
requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate
for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining
the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) This exemption is supplemental to and not in derogation of, any
other provisions of the Act and/or the Code, including statutory or
administrative exemptions and transactional rules. Furthermore, the
fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory
exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction; and
(3) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express
condition that the material facts and representations contained in the
application accurately describe all material terms of the transaction
which is the subject of the exemption.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of March 2012.
Lyssa E. Hall,
Acting Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2012-7705 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
|
|