SEC Adopts New Fund-of-Funds Rules

June 22, 2006 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has adopted amendments to several forms and three new rules under the Investment Company Act that pertain to fund-of-funds arrangements.

According to a SEC press release, the new rules will codify several exemptions from the Act that the regulator has issued over the years, and the form amendments will provide greater transparency of expenses investors in fund-of-funds arrangements pay.

The amended forms will now require a registered fund that invests any of its assets in another fund to include in its fee table fees and expenses charged by the fund and any fund in which it invests, according to the release. The SEC said the increased transparency of fund-of-funds expenses is intended to allow investors to understand and more easily compare the relative costs of different fund-of-funds arrangements.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

The three new rules eliminate the need for funds and their advisors to file exemptive applications in certain circumstances to the SEC for review. The rules, codified because they do not create risk for the fund or investors, are:

  • Rule 12d-1-1 permits “cash sweep arrangements,” under which a stock or bond fund may invest its available cash in a money market fund. 
  • Rule 12d-2 permits greater flexibility to a fund-of-funds arrangement that invests exclusively or primarily in funds in the same fund group. 
  • Rule 12d-3 permits greater flexibility for a fund that invests small amounts in many unaffiliated funds to structure the sales load it charges (but does not increase the overall amount charged).

The new rules become effective July 31.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Investment Company Institute (ICI) said in a statement, “The final rule will benefit funds, their shareholders and taxpayers. Funds will have additional flexibility to enter into fund-of-funds arrangements and will not have to bear the cost and time of obtaining exemptive orders. The final rule also will relieve the burden on the commission of processing these orders.”

Cash Balance Litigation Settles for $1.85M

June 21, 2006 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A federal judge has approved a $1.85 million settlement between a Pennsylvania health care firm and its former employees over allegations that workers were never informed that the company's retirement program was a cash balance arrangement.

US District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Eduardo Robreno said the pact between the former workers of Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation (AHERF) and the company was fair. Robreno ordered notice of the settlement be sent to about 5,000 participants who would share the proceeds.

Five former AHERF employees filed the lawsuit in 1998, alleging they were led to believe their pension plan was a fully funded defined contribution program   with pools of money set aside for them, according to the ruling.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Workers discovered the truth about the plan when AHERF sold medical facilities in 1998 and went into US Bankruptcy Court for protection from its creditors. That triggered a plan takeover by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which took control of the plan as statutory trustee.

According to the opinion, employees were then notified that, under the plan, employees who had less than five years of service with AHERF were not entitled to any benefits because their benefits were not vested. The settlement, which was reached last fall, calls for potential class action members to receive about $0.04241 per dollar in their individual account plans. Individuals would recover amounts ranging from $23 to $2,269.

The court also said it would grant conditional approval of the settlement because the $1.85 million in monetary compensation was “a welcomed recovery particularly in light of AHERF’s bankruptcy.”

The case is Grunewald v. Kasperbauer, E.D. Pa., No. 05-1273, 5/30/06. The latest court ruling is   here .

«