SECOND REQUEST - are there any comparable provisions under ERISA AND T

[fidu]

SECOND REQUEST -

are there any comparable provisions under ERISA and the SEC that deal with PARTY IN INTEREST rules????

[k man]

If you give more detail or give the factual scenerio I might be able to answer.

[Guest IWIS]

What sort of SEC issues are you referring to?

In the IA Act of 1940, there are some "prohibited transactions" for investment advisers (i.e., principal trades), but I wouldn't say they were comparable to ERISA's. However, some ERISA PTs might violate SEC rules for other reasons, but not necessarily because they're "PTs" from the SEC's perspective.

[fidu]

my question is based on affiliate ownership issues regarding mutual funds.

any thoughts?

[Guest IWIS]

Can you be more specific, maybe give an example? Sorry, but I don't know what you mean. What kind of transactions are being contemplated that you think might be prohibited?

[fidu]

under ERISA is there a specific % that determines whether there has been a party in interest transaction. is it any amount ie, a 1% owner is a party in interest/affiliate.

under SEC, it may be rule 18d?? that deals with affiliate/party in interest issues.

can anyone shed some light on this topic for me?

thanks.

[fidu]

here's a bit more info that is relevant, but I would really appreciate someone giving me a quick lesson on how this compares with ERISA regs, and a comparison of the % lmiitations under SEC vs. ERISA.

US Registered mutual funds a prohibited from transacting with an affiliate on a principal basis under Section 17a of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "Act"

[Guest ebpcpa]

I'm not familiar with SEC rules, but section 3(14) of ERISA defines a party-in-interest as any fiduciaries or employees of the plan, any person who provides services to the plan, an employer whose employees are covered by the plan, an employee organization whose members are covered by the plan, a person who owns 50% or more of such an employer or employee association, or relatives of any of these. Certain transactions between a plan and a party in interst are prohibited under 406(a) of ERISA.

I think the 50% owner clause above may be what you are seeking. As far as I know, "prohibited transactions" relating to benefit plans are defined under ERISA only. GAAP addresses disclosure of related party transactions (related party definitions are more borad than than parties in interest, as defined, and the related party tranasactions are not necessarily prohibited.) Again, I'm not sure about the SEC's view, but I could find out. Feel free to email me if you would like more info.