Exemption From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions Involving UBS AG (UBS), Located in Zurich, Switzerland, 3929-3947 [2025-00812]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
(o) All the material facts and
representations set forth in the Proposed
Exemption’s Summary of Facts and
Representations are true and accurate at
all times.
Exemption Date: This exemption is in
effect as of January 15, 2025.
Signed at Washington, DC.
George Christopher Cosby,
Director, Office of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2025–00810 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2025–
03; Exemption Application No. D–12098]
Exemption From Certain Prohibited
Transaction Restrictions Involving
UBS AG (UBS), Located in Zurich,
Switzerland
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of exemption.
AGENCY:
This exemption provides
conditional prospective relief that
allows current and future asset
managers under the UBS corporate
umbrella (UBS QPAMs) to continue to
rely on PTE 84–14 for the five-year
period from June 12, 2024, through June
11, 2029, notwithstanding four
judgments of conviction involving
entities within the UBS and CSAG
(Credit Suisse AG) corporate umbrellas.
The exemption also provides
conditional retroactive relief to UBS
QPAMs covering their reliance on PTE
84–14 during the one-year period from
June 12, 2023, through June 11, 2024.
DATES: The exemption is in effect from
June 12, 2023, through June 11, 2029.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicholas Schroth of the Department at
(202) 693–8571 (this is not a toll-free
number).
SUMMARY:
On June
11, 2024, the Department published a
notice of proposed exemption in the
Federal Register,1 (the Proposal) that
would permit UBS’ Affiliated QPAMs
and/or the Related QPAMs (referred to
herein individually or collectively as
the UBS QPAMs) 2 to continue to rely
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 88
FR 30785 (May 12, 2023).
purposes of this exemption, the term
‘‘Affiliated QPAM’’ and ‘‘Related QPAM’’ mean,
respectively: (1) UBS Americas, UBS Hedge Fund
Solutions LLC, Credit Suisse Asset Management,
LLC, and any future separate legal entity within the
2 For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
on the exemptive relief provided by PTE
84–14, notwithstanding several
judgments of conviction involving
entities within the UBS and CSAG
corporate umbrellas that are described
below.3 The Department is hereby
granting this exemption to ensure that
participants and beneficiaries of ERISAcovered plans and Individual
Retirement Accounts managed by UBS
QPAMs (collectively referred to as
Covered Plans) 4 do not suffer harm that
UBS represented would occur if the
UBS QPAMs can no longer rely on PTE
84–14. This exemption provides only
the relief expressly specified herein and
does not provide relief from violations
of any law other than the prohibited
transaction provisions of Title I of the
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), and
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the Code).
As discussed below, based on the
administration record, the Department
makes the requisite findings under
ERISA section 408(a) that this
exemption is: (1) administratively
feasible, (2) in the interest of Covered
Plans and their participants and
beneficiaries, and (3) protective of the
rights of the participants and
beneficiaries of Covered Plans. Effective
Asset Management or the Global Wealth
Management Americas U.S. divisions of UBS that
qualifies as a ‘‘qualified professional asset manager’’
(as defined in Section VI(a) of PTE 84–14) and that
relies on the relief provided by PTE 84–14, and
with respect to which UBS is an ‘‘affiliate’’ (as
defined in Part VI(d) of PTE 84–14) and (2) any
current or future ‘‘qualified professional asset
manager’’ (as defined in Section VI(a) of PTE 84–
14) that relies on the relief provided by PTE 84–14,
and with respect to which UBS owns a direct or
indirect five (5) percent or more interest. The terms
‘‘Affiliated QPAM’’ and ‘‘Related QPAM’’ exclude
any Misconduct Entity, and the term ‘‘Related
QPAM’’ excludes any entity with respect to which
a Misconduct Entity is an ‘‘affiliate’’ (as defined in
section VI(d)(1) of PTE 84–14).
3 89 FR 65, 23090 (April 3, 2024).
4 The term ‘‘Covered Plan’’ means a plan subject
to Part IV of Title I of ERISA (an ERISA-covered
plan) or a plan subject to Code section 4975 (an
IRA), in each case, with respect to which an
Affiliated QPAM relies on PTE 84–14 or with
respect to which an Affiliated QPAM (or any UBS
affiliate) has expressly represented that the manager
qualifies as a QPAM or relies on PTE 84–14. A
Covered Plan does not include an ERISA-covered
plan or IRA to the extent the Affiliated QPAM has
expressly disclaimed reliance on QPAM status or
PTE 84–14 in entering into a contract, arrangement,
or agreement with the ERISA-covered plan or IRA.
Notwithstanding the above, an Affiliated QPAM
may disclaim reliance on QPAM status or PTE 84–
14 in a written modification of a contract,
arrangement, or agreement with an ERISA-covered
plan or IRA, where: the modification is made in a
bilateral document signed by the client; the client’s
attention is specifically directed toward the
disclaimer; and the client is advised in writing that,
with respect to any transaction involving the
client’s assets, the Affiliated QPAM will not
represent that it is a QPAM, and will not rely on
the relief described in PTE 84–14.
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3929
December 31, 1978, section 102 of the
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
requested to the Secretary of Labor.
Accordingly, this final individual
exemption is being issued solely by the
Department. Affected parties should be
aware that the exemption’s conditions
are, individually and collectively,
necessary for the Department to grant
the requested relief. Absent these
conditions, the Department would not
have granted this exemption.
Benefits of the Exemption:
The Department’s objective in
granting this exemption is to protect
Covered Plans from the harms and costs
UBS represents would be imposed on
them if the UBS QPAMs no longer could
rely on the relief provided in PTE 84–
14. Among other important conditions,
this exemption ensures that Covered
Plans can terminate their relationships
with one of the UBS QPAMs in an
orderly and cost-effective fashion when
the fiduciary of a Covered Plan
determines that it is prudent to do so.
This exemption promotes adherence to
basic fiduciary standards and
responsibilities required by Title I of
ERISA and the Code by the UBS QPAMs
and reinforces their obligation to act
with a high degree of integrity on behalf
of their Covered Plan clients as required
by PTE 84–14.
Background
1. UBS is a Swiss-based global
financial services company organized
under the laws of Switzerland. On June
12, 2023, UBS acquired CSAG, another
Swiss-based global financial services
firm. This acquisition brought Credit
Suisse Asset Management, LLC, a
subsidiary of CSAG and a QPAM, under
the UBS corporate umbrella. UBS
represents that on May 1, 2024, Credit
Suisse Asset Management, LLC was
merged into UBS Asset Management
(Americas) LLC. (UBS Americas), and
UBS Americas is the surviving entity
after the merger. As of November 5,
2024, UBS represents that UBS
Americas is the only current Affiliated
QPAM.
PTE 84–14
2. PTE 84–14 reflects the
Department’s conclusion that it could
provide broad relief from the prohibited
transaction provisions of ERISA section
406(a) and Code section 4975(c)(1) only
if the commitments and the investments
of plan assets and the negotiations
leading thereto are the sole
responsibility of an independent
discretionary manager called a Qualified
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
3930
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
Plan Asset Manager or ‘‘QPAM’’ that
meets the exemption’s conditions.5
3. Section I(g) of PTE 84–14 provides
that a QPAM becomes ineligible to rely
on the relief provided by PTE 84–14 for
ten years following: (1) a Criminal
Conviction, as such term is defined in
Section VI(s) of PTE 84–14, of the
QPAM or an ‘‘affiliate’’ thereof,6 or any
direct or indirect owner of a five percent
or more interest in the QPAM; or (2) on
or after June 17, 2024, the date on which
the QPAM, an ‘‘affiliate’’ thereof, or any
direct or indirect owner of a five percent
or more interest in the QPAM is found
or determined in a final judgment or
court-approved settlement by a Federal
or State criminal or civil court to have
engaged in Prohibited Misconduct, as
such term is defined in Section VI(t) of
amended PTE 84–14.7
4. The Department included Section
I(g) in PTE 84–14 based on its
expectation that QPAMs will maintain a
high standard of integrity in order to
remain eligible to receive the broad
prohibited transaction relief provided in
PTE 84–14. This expectation extends
not only to the QPAM itself, but also to
those who may be in a position to
influence the QPAM’s policies.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Relevant Convictions
5. UBS-related entities are currently
the subject of four criminal convictions
that violate Section I(g) of PTE 84–14
(the Convictions). To protect Covered
Plans from the costs and harms that
UBS represents could arise if the UBS
QPAMs suddenly lost their ability to
engage in potentially beneficial
transactions on behalf of their Covered
Plan clients under PTE 84–14 due to
these Convictions, the Department
issued several temporary individual
prohibited transaction exemptions over
several years with protective conditions
that are discussed below.8
5 ‘‘Qualified Plan Asset Manager’’ or ‘‘QPAM’’ is
defined in Section VI(a) of PTE 84–14. (See 89 FR
65, 23090, 23141 (April 3, 2024)).
6 Section VI(d) of PTE 84–14 defines the term
‘‘affiliate’’ for purposes of Section I(g) as ‘‘(1) Any
person directly or indirectly through one or more
intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with the person, (2) Any director
of, relative of, or partner in, any such person, (3)
Any corporation, partnership, trust or
unincorporated enterprise of which such person is
an officer, director, or a five percent or more partner
or owner, and (4) Any employee or officer of the
person who—(A) is a highly compensated employee
(as defined in Section 4975(e)(2)(H) of the Code) or
officer (earning 10 percent or more of the yearly
wages of such person), or (B) has direct or indirect
authority, responsibility or control regarding the
custody, management or disposition of plan assets.’’
(See 89 FR 23090, 23141 (April 3, 2024)).
7 The prohibited misconduct provision was
effective on June 17, 2024 (89 FR 65, 23090 (April.
3, 2024)).
8 In connection with the Credit Suisse-related
convictions, the Department issued the following
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
6. The 2017 UBS Conviction. In 2013,
UBS Securities Japan Co. Ltd. (UBS
Securities Japan) pled guilty to a crime
arising out of its fraudulent submission
of Yen London Interbank Offer (Yen
LIBOR) rates between 2006 and 2009,
and its participation in a scheme to
defraud counterparties to interest rate
derivatives trades executed on its behalf
by secretly manipulating certain
benchmark interest rates to which the
profitability of those trades was tied (the
2013 UBS Conviction).9
7. In connection with misconduct
related to the 2013 UBS Conviction,
UBS and the United States Department
of Justice (DOJ) entered into a NonProsecution Agreement (the LIBOR
NPA) wherein the DOJ agreed not to
criminally prosecute UBS for any crimes
related to UBS’s misconduct involving
its submission of Yen LIBOR rates and
other benchmark rates between 2001
and 2010 (LIBOR Manipulation). A
provision of DOJ’s LIBOR NPA required
UBS to avoid engaging in additional
criminal activity for two years from the
date of the LIBOR NPA.
8. Separately from the LIBOR
Manipulation and after entering into the
LIBOR NPA, UBS also was determined
by DOJ to have participated in deceptive
currency trading and sales practices
with respect to certain foreign exchange
(FX) market transactions and collusive
conduct in certain FX markets (FX
Misconduct). DOJ determined that by
engaging in the FX Misconduct, UBS
had breached the terms of the LIBOR
NPA. As a result, UBS entered a guilty
plea and was convicted on January 10,
2017 of engaging in the LIBOR
Manipulation that was the subject of the
LIBOR NPA. Specifically, UBS pled
guilty to a scheme to defraud
counterparties to interest rate
derivatives transactions by secretly
manipulating benchmark interest rates
to which the profitability of those
transactions was tied. This conviction is
referred to as the ‘‘2017 UBS
exemptions: PTE 2022–01 (87 FR 1186 (Jan. 10,
2022)); PTE 2019–07 (84 FR 61928 (Nov. 14, 2019));
PTE 2015–14 (80 FR 59817 (Oct. 2, 2015)); PTE
2014–11 (79 FR 68716 (Nov. 18, 2014)). In
connection with the UBS-related convictions, the
Department issued: PTE 2020–01 (85 FR 8020 (Feb.
12, 2020)); PTE 2019–01 (84 FR 6163 (Feb. 26,
2019)); PTE 2017–07 (82 FR 61903 (Dec. 29, 2017));
PTE 2016–17 (81 FR 94049 (Dec. 22, 2016)); PTE
2013–09 (78 FR 56740 (Sep. 13, 2013)).
9 The UBS QPAMs received exemptive relief to
continue to rely on PTE 84–14 notwithstanding the
2013 Conviction. However, the Section I(g)
disqualification period for the 2013 Conviction
expired on or about February 19, 2023; therefore,
the UBS QPAMs no longer require exemptive relief
from the Department to continue their reliance on
PTE 84–14 with respect to the 2013 conviction.
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Conviction,’’ 10 which disqualifies UBSrelated QPAMs from relying on the
relief set forth in PTE 84–14 for a tenyear period from January 10, 2017,
through January 9, 2027.
9. The 2014 CSAG Conviction. On
May 19, 2014, the Tax Division of DOJ
and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
Eastern District of Virginia filed a onecount criminal information in the
District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia charging CSAG with a
conspiracy to violate Code section
7206(2) in contravention of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 371.
According to the Statement of Facts, for
decades before and through
approximately 2009, CSAG operated an
illegal cross-border banking business
that knowingly and willfully aided and
assisted thousands of U.S. clients in
opening and maintaining undeclared
accounts that concealed offshore assets
and income from the Internal Revenue
Service. On May 19, 2014, pursuant to
a plea agreement (the Plea Agreement),
CSAG pleaded guilty to a charge of
assisting U.S. citizens in federal income
tax evasion. The District Court entered
a judgment of conviction against CSAG
on November 21, 2014, which
disqualified CSAG-related (and, thus,
UBS-related QPAMs due to the merger)
from the relief set forth in PTE 84–14
from November 21, 2014, through
November 20, 2024.
10. The 2019 UBS France Conviction.
In 2013, France opened an investigation
into UBS, UBS France, and certain
former employees of UBS France S.A.
The investigation centered on the
maintenance of foreign (‘‘cross-border’’)
UBS bank accounts held for private
citizens. Following a trial in the French
First Instance Court, the French court
convicted UBS and UBS France on
February 20, 2019, of illegally soliciting
clients from 2004 to 2012 and
laundering the proceeds of tax fraud
from 2004 to 2012. Based on this
conviction, the UBS-related QPAMs
were disqualified from relying on the
relief provided in PTE 84–14 from
February 20, 2019, through February 19,
2029.
11. The 2022 Credit Suisse Securities
(Europe) Limited (CSSEL) Conviction.
On October 19, 2021, DOJ’s, Criminal
Division, Money Laundering and Asset
Recovery Section and Fraud Section and
the United States Attorney’s Office for
the Eastern District of New York, filed
a criminal information in the District
Court for the Eastern District of New
10 In PTE 2023–14, the Department erroneously
referred to this conviction as the 2018 Conviction.
The conviction actually occurred on January 10,
2017 (as described in PTE 2020–01, the prior UBS
exemption).
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
York charging CSSEL with one count of
conspiracy to commit wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349. CSSEL
agreed to resolve the action through a
plea agreement presented to the New
York District Court on October 19, 2021
(the CSSEL Plea Agreement). Under the
CSSEL Plea Agreement, CSSEL agreed
to enter a guilty plea to the charge set
out in the CSSEL information (the
CSSEL Plea).
The District Court entered a judgment
of conviction against CSSEL on July 22,
2022. Due to the judgement of
conviction, the CSAG-related QPAMs
(and, thus, UBS-related QPAMs due to
the merger) are ineligible from relying
on the relief set forth in PTE 84–14 from
July 22, 2022 through July 21, 2032.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Requests for Relief and Additional
Information
12. On April 17, 2023, UBS and CSAG
(and their affiliated QPAMs) submitted
an exemption application to the
Department that requested
modifications to their existing
exemptions due to their imminent
merger. On June 2, 2023, the
Department published PTE 2023–14,
which allowed UBS-related and Credit
Suisse-related QPAMs to continue to
rely on PTE 84–14, notwithstanding the
Convictions, for one year following the
date of the merger, which UBS
represents occurred on June 12, 2023
(the Merger). PTE 2023–14 had an audit
requirement tailored to the unique
circumstances of the one-year
exemption, which is referred to as the
Stub Period Audit.11
13. On February 22, 2024, UBS filed
an exemption application with the
Department that requested a five-year
extension of PTE 2023–14 from June 12,
2024, through June 11, 2029. During the
Department’s review process for UBS’
exemption application, the Department
requested additional information from
UBS regarding the auditor’s findings for
each audit that was performed before its
application was submitted. In response,
UBS’ counsel notified the Department
on May 3, 2024, that UBS failed to
complete the Stub Period Audit report,
11 Before the merger of UBS and CSAG, PTE
2020–01 required that the UBS QPAMs submit to
annual audits covering periods from March 20
through March 19 of the following year (the CS
QPAMs were on a different audit schedule). Upon
the merger of UBS and CSAG on June 12, 2023, a
one-year temporary exemption provided in PTE
2023–14 became effective. PTE 2023–14 provided
that the combined UBS–CSAG entity would resume
audits on a unified schedule from June 12, 2023,
through June 11, 2024. Thus, the last audit to occur
under PTE 2020–01, originally scheduled from
March 20, 2023 through March 19, 2024, was
modified to run from March 20, 2023, through June
11, 2023 and became known as the Stub Period
Audit.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
and UBS did not submit the certified
audit report to the Department until
May 10, 2024.12 In fact, the record
currently before the Department
indicates that UBS did not engage the
independent auditor, Fiduciary
Counselors Inc, to complete the Stub
Period Audit until March 18, 2024,
notwithstanding the fact that PTE 2023–
14 required the audit to be completed by
December 9, 2023, and for the audit
report to be certified and submitted to
the Department by January 23, 2024.
The Department stated in the proposed
exemption that UBS should have
engaged an independent auditor well in
advance of the dates set forth in Section
III(j) of the exemption for the audit to be
timely completed and for the audit
report to be timely certified and
submitted to the Department.
14. On June 11, 2024, the Department
published a proposed exemption in the
Federal Register with an effective
period from June 12, 2024, through June
11, 2029. The Proposal alerted UBS that
its failure to timely comply with the
Stub Period Audit requirement violated
an important condition of the relief the
Department provided in PTE 2023–14.
UBS itself pointed out the importance of
the audit requirement in its exemption
application where it stated that, ‘‘[t]he
purpose of the independent audit is to
give [Covered Plan] clients and the
Department the confidence that the
asset manager is complying with ERISA,
and that continued exemptive relief is
warranted.’’ In the Proposal, the
Department reiterated this point by
stating that it included the independent
audit requirements in the exemption to
ensure that the UBS QPAMs remain
insulated from the convicted UBS and
Credit Suisse entities and could be
trusted to safeguard plan assets,
notwithstanding the convictions.
15. Because the UBS QPAMs failed to
comply with the audit conditions of the
exemption, the Department determined
that they were ineligible to rely on the
relief provided by PTE 2023–14, and the
Department indicated in the proposed
exemption that it is considering whether
it should grant retroactive relief
extending back to June 12, 2023 as part
of this exemption, which would
otherwise provide relief only from June
12, 2024 through June 11, 2029. The
Department requested comments from
12 In a supplemental letter to the Department
dated May 29, 2024, UBS’ counsel informed the
Department that the auditor notified UBS about the
failure to complete the stub audit in January 2024,
and the auditor sent a draft of the engagement letter
to perform the audit to UBS on February 12, 2024.
These events occurred before the Department
received UBS’ exemption application on February
23, 2024, and UBS should have disclosed them in
its exemption application.
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3931
UBS, the public, and interested parties
on whether retroactive relief is
appropriately including in this
exemption, which would extend
exemptive coverage to include the
period from June 12, 2023, through June
11, 2024, as well as June 12, 2024,
through June 11, 2029. The Department
also requested UBS provide a detailed
statement regarding how a grant of
retroactive relief would be consistent
with the requirements for such relief set
forth in the Department’s exemption
procedure regulation.13
16. In connection with the
Department’s request for comment on
retroactive relief, in the Proposal, the
Department also requested UBS to
describe how Covered Plans were
safeguarded in light of this failure to
satisfy the Stub Audit condition and
whether UBS acted in good faith despite
its failure. UBS’s comments and the
Department’s responses to those
comments are discussed below.
Retroactive Relief Periods
17. The exemption provides
retroactive relief to UBS for two periods.
The first period covers June 12, 2023,
through June 11, 2024, and allows UBS
QPAMs to rely on PTE 84–14 despite
UBS’ failure to comply with the Stub
Period Audit requirement in Section
III(j)(1) of PTE 2023–14. The second
period of retroactive relief applies from
June 12, 2024, through January 15, 2025,
and is needed because UBS failed to
submit a complete exemption
application with sufficient information
(including a description of its failure to
meet the Stub Period Audit
Requirement) and enough lead time for
the Department to develop a complete
administrative record, publish a
proposed exemption with an adequate
public notice and comment period,
consider the public comments received,
and publish this grant notice exemption
before the relief provided under PTE
2023–14 expired.
Department’s Note:
18. The Department notes that this
individual exemption would solely
provide relief from the ineligibility
under PTE 84–14 Section I(g) that
occurred with respect to the four
criminal convictions of entities within
the UBS corporate family that are
described above. The conditions of this
exemption require the UBS QPAMs to
adhere to every other specific condition
for relief that is required under PTE 84–
14, as amended, including the
ineligibility provision in the amended
version of PTE 84–14, which became
effective on June 17, 2024. If any UBS13 29
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
CFR 2570.35(d).
15JAN1
3932
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
Affiliated QPAMs violate any
conditions of amended PTE 84–14 in
the future, they would fail to comply
with the requirements of the exemption,
and the relief provided under this
exemption would become unavailable.
Written Comments
19. In the Proposal, the Department
invited all interested persons to submit
written comments and/or requests for a
public hearing with respect to the notice
of the Proposal by July 29, 2024.14 The
Department received written comments
from the following commenter: (1) UBS;
(2) an anonymous commenter; (3) the
ERISA Industry Committee; (4) SIFMA;
and (5) a group of individuals referring
to themselves as the ‘‘QPAM
Coalition.’’ 15
20. In granting this exemption, the
Department has considered the public
comments noted above, as well as
representations by UBS. If any material
statement or representation by UBS to
the Department that is included in its
application or its comment is not or has
not remained completely and factually
accurate, UBS must immediately alert
the Department.16
Comments From UBS
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Comment 1: Department’s Request for
Justification of Retroactive Relief for
Failure To Perform Audit
21. As stated above, in the Proposal,
the Department requested that UBS
demonstrate whether retroactive relief is
appropriate, and that the UBS QPAMs at
a minimum: (a) ensured that appropriate
safeguards were established during the
period of exemptive relief provided
under PTE 2023–14 from June 12, 2023
to June 11, 2024, to protect the interests
of Covered Plan clients (the First
Retroactive Period); (b) Covered Plan
clients were not harmed by non-exempt
transactions during the First Retroactive
Period; (c) a responsible plan fiduciary
acted in good faith and took appropriate
14 PTE 2024–03’s original deadline for the
comment period was July 15, 2024. The Department
extended the comment period to July 29, 2024,
based on two requests from commentors. (See 89 FR
137, 58189).
15 The Department also received comments three
months after the end of the comment period, as
extended, which the Department did not consider.
16 The representations stated herein that are
attributable to UBS or any commenter do not reflect
factual findings or opinions of the Department. The
Department notes that the availability of this
exemption is subject to the express condition that
the material facts and representations contained in
the are true and complete at all times, and
accurately describe all material terms of the
transactions covered by the exemption. If there is
any material change in a transaction covered by the
exemption, or in a material fact or representation
described in the application, the exemption will
cease to apply as of the date of the change.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
steps that were necessary to protect the
Covered Plans from abuse, loss, and risk
during the First Retroactive Period; and
(d) the UBS QPAMs have adjusted their
policies and procedures in light of past
failures to comply with PTE 2023–14 to
ensure that such failures will not
reoccur.
22. Comment #1(a): UBS Ensured and
will ensure that appropriate safeguards
were established during the First
Retroactive Period to protect the
interests of Covered Plan. UBS stated
that appropriate safeguards were
established during the First Retroactive
Period despite its failure to properly
perform the required audit. Specifically,
UBS represents that the UBS official
responsible for overseeing the audits
failed to meet the deadline, in part,
because they mistakenly believed that
the Stub Period Audit’s findings would
be rolled into the following year’s audit
report. UBS represents that, upon
realizing the mistake, it engaged an
independent auditor who completed the
Stub Period Audit. The Auditor
concluded that it found no deficiencies
on behalf of UBS or the UBS QPAMs
during the Stub Audit period, and the
Auditor provided no recommendations
for improvement. In its comment letter,
UBS asserted that the successful
completion of the Stub Period Audit,
albeit late, evidences that UBS
established adequate safeguards to
protect Covered Plans during the First
Retroactive Period.
23. Comment #1(b): Covered Plan
clients were not harmed by non-exempt
transactions during the First Retroactive
Period. UBS represented that Covered
Plans were not harmed by non-exempt
transactions. To make that
determination, UBS reviewed all Client
Plan transactions that UBS conducted
from June 2023 to June 2024, which
encompassed more than 16,000
transactions. UBS’ review determined
that there were, in fact, no non-exempt
prohibited transactions. In this regard,
UBS determined that potentially
implicated Client Plan transactions for
which UBS QPAMs would otherwise
rely on PTE 84–14 were either (1)
covered, in the alternative, by other
prohibited transaction exemptions or (2)
were not, in fact, prohibited
transactions.
24. The transactions that UBS
determined were not prohibited
transactions in need of exemptive relief
consisted of approximately three to four
hundred loans held during the relevant
period in which one component of the
investment—a service fee paid to an
administrative agent by the borrower,
rather than the plan—was not covered
by an alternative exemption and very
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
likely involved a party in interest for
many of the transactions. UBS
confirmed to the Department, however,
that the fee was not paid from plan
assets. UBS provided that the fee was
paid by the counterparty to the loans,
not the plan or UBS, and the fee was not
incorporated in the plan’s payment for
the loans’ overarching investment
because, as the lender, the plan’s
investment was in the form of lending
money to the counterparty. UBS further
stated that the borrower of these loans
also selects the administrative agent on
its own accord without direction from
plans or UBS. Furthermore, the fees are
usually negotiated between the
administrative service agent and the
borrower before the identity of the plan
lender is even known.17
25. Comment 1(c): A responsible plan
fiduciary acted (and is acting) in good
faith and took (and will take)
appropriate steps that are necessary to
protect the Covered Plans from abuse,
loss, and risk during the Relief Period.
UBS maintains that the UBS QPAMs
acted in good faith to protect Covered
Plans because they maintained
extensive protocols to ensure it upheld
its fiduciary responsibilities and no
Covered Plans were harmed during the
Relief Period. For example, UBS
represents that its protocols required the
UBS QPAMs to seek the best possible
trade execution for each and every
transaction regardless of the identity of
the counterparty, and in accordance
with each of the written investment
guidelines approved by each Covered
Plan. Further, UBS addressed the failure
to perform the Stub Audit and proposed
changes to its protocols, as discussed
immediately below, to ensure that such
a failure does not reoccur.
26. Comment 1(d): The UBS QPAMs
have adjusted their policies and
procedures in light of past failures to
comply with PTE 2023–14 to ensure that
such failures will not reoccur. To
prevent the reoccurrence of a missed
Stub Period Audit, UBS proposed to
take the following steps: (1) designate a
second Compliance Officer both to
facilitate the timely completion of
exemption reviews and audits and
check to ensure that exemption
deadlines are correctly identified and
completed; (2) inform the Auditor in
writing within 45 days after receiving
the Auditor’s engagement agreement of
the target dates for the Auditor to send
UBS the initial document requests and
for UBS to respond to those requests; (3)
17 The Department is not opining on UBS’
determination as to whether the transactions it has
described are prohibited transactions as that is
outside the scope of this prohibited transaction
exemption.
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
require the Compliance Officers to
provide the Auditor with the Exemption
Report created pursuant to Section
III(m)(4)(ii) of the exemption within
seven days after the Exemption Report’s
completion; (4) allow the Department to
receive audit updates from UBS and the
Auditor upon request; and (5) provide
the Department with a copy of the
Auditor’s engagement agreement within
15 days after its execution.
27. The Department is persuaded that
adding these conditions to the
exemption’s existing protective
conditions will be beneficial to Covered
Plans and has included them in this
final exemption.
Comment 2: UBS’ Materiality Argument
28. UBS contends that failing to
adhere to a condition of PTE 2023–14
relating to the due date of the Stub
Period Audit should not cause it to
forfeit the exemptive relief provided in
PTE 2023–14 because its failure to
comply with the condition was not a
‘‘material failure.’’
29. The Department strongly disagrees
with UBS’s materiality argument. First,
each condition in an exemption is
material to the Department’s findings
and must be adhered to in order for an
ERISA-covered plan, IRA, a party in
interest, or disqualified person to rely
on the exemption. Second, the
independent audits required by PTE
2023–14 and similar exemptions are
particularly vital to the Department’s
findings, because they help ensure that,
among other things: the QPAMs adhere
to their basic fiduciary obligations
under ERISA; transactions prohibited
under ERISA section 406 are
implemented in accordance with the
requirements of PTE 84–14 and
monitored in a way that protects
participants; the Policies and Training
requirements of the exemption are
maintained; and violations of the
Policies and Training requirements are
promptly reported and remedied. The
purpose of the audit requirement is not
merely to ascertain possible past
violations, but rather to promote and
encourage an ongoing culture of
compliance for personnel subject to the
audit. The latter goal is ill-served when
the QPAMs disregard their obligation to
perform timely audits, irrespective of
whether any particular audit would
have found serious past violations of the
exemption’s conditions. Lastly, in
contradiction of UBS’ contention that
the failure to comply with the condition
was not a ‘‘material failure,’’ UBS
acknowledged the importance of the
independent audit requirement in its
exemption application, which stated
that, ‘‘[t]he purpose of the independent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
audit is to give [Covered Plans] clients
and the Department the confidence that
the asset manager is complying with
ERISA, and that continued exemptive
relief is warranted.’’
Comment 3: Covered Plans Would Be
Harmed Without an Exemption
30. UBS asserts that Covered Plans
would incur harm if relief is not
granted, because Covered Plans would
likely terminate their relationships with
the UBS QPAMs and hire new asset
managers. UBS contends that Covered
Plans would switch because the
Covered Plan’s fiduciaries would be
uncertain as to which transactions
would have prohibited transaction
relief, and as to the specific conditions
and limitations that would be imposed
upon those transactions. UBS argues
that Covered Plans that switch asset
managers would be harmed because
they would lose access to UBS’s unique
services and strategies. Further, the
Covered Plans would spend additional
fees and incur lost opportunities costs
as a result of an asset manager switch,
and the additional fees would include
costs incurred to solicit and hire a new
asset manager. UBS estimates Covered
Plans would incur $90 million in
liquidation and reinvestment costs as a
result of liquidating all of the Covered
Plan positions.18 In support of this
estimate, UBS provided a report from an
institutional investment consultant
concluding that UBS’ assumptions and
methodology in calculating these
liquidation costs were reasonable and
the estimation of $90 million in
liquidation costs was also reasonable.19
31. Department’s Note: While the
Department recognizes that Covered
Plans may incur certain liquidation and
reinvestment costs as a result of
liquidating their positions, UBS QPAMs
are cautioned that if UBS engages in
18 UBS submitted a report by an independent
consultant in support of the estimated liquidation
cost.
19 The report was provided by John Minihan,
Ph.D., a former Senior Lecturer of finance at MIT
Sloan School of Management, a former associate
editor of the Journal of Investing, and currently an
investment management industry consultant with
30 years of experience in institutional investment
consulting. Dr. Minahan provided, in summary, that
UBS’s estimates and assumptions were reasonable
as expected values but with two minor caveats.
First, asset managers can take several years to
transition assets and if market conditions
deteriorate during that time transitions could cause
additional risk to ERISA clients. Second, new asset
managers may decide that not all assets need to be
liquidated and, if so, an assumption that all assets
need to be liquidated would overstate transition
costs. Dr. Minahan believes that these two caveats
do not undermine the reasonableness of the
estimated expected values ‘‘as long as they do not
overwhelm each other.’’ He also provides that these
caveats are difficult to quantify and work in
opposite directions.
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3933
future conduct prohibited by PTE 84–
14, the Department may not be able to
make its required findings in order to
grant future exemptive relief. UBS
QPAMs must take all prudent steps
pursuant to its obligations under ERISA
section 404 to mitigate risks of losses to,
and to defray the reasonable expenses
related to the investment of, Covered
Plan assets if UBS engages in future
conduct prohibited by PTE 84–14. The
Department believes that the failure to
take such basic steps, in the event that
the UBS QPAMs become ineligible for
their exemptive relief under PTE 84–14,
would likely constitute a violation of
the QPAMs’ fiduciary duties to act in
the best interest of their Covered Plan
clients.
Comment 4: Nonquantifiable Harms
Should Be Considered
32. UBS argues that the Department
should include nonquantifiable harms
in the Department’s findings. UBS
suggests that the Department has
foreclosed including information about
potential harms in its findings unless
the harm is estimated in dollar
amounts.20 The Department has no
objection to considering any
nonquantifiable harms identified by
UBS. However, information concerning
the dollar value of harms, including the
methodology and assumptions made in
reaching such dollar values, are
important to the Department’s analysis.
The Department will consider
representations about nonquantifiable
harm to Covered Plans to the extent the
Department is able to determine that the
information presented is relevant,
reliable, and necessary to the
Department’s findings. The Department
notes, however, that depending on
context and the type of harm that the
applicant represents may occur, the
Department will request to see
additional, quantifiable data in order
appropriately consider such
representations.
Comment 5: Denying Exemptive Relief
Would Negatively Impact the QPAM
Program as a Whole
33. UBS argues that denying
prospective or retroactive relief would
result in wide-ranging consequences for
all retirement accounts within the
20 In footnote 24 of the Proposal, ‘‘[t]he
Department notes that UBS provided information
not mentioned in this proposal regarding the
potential losses to ERISA clients, but without
clearly identifying the dollar amount of losses to
plans in concrete terms. In such cases, the
Department does not have enough information to
include such representations in its findings.
However, the information that UBS provided that
the Department can rely on is described below.’’ 89
FR 49219 n.24
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
3934
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
financial industry. UBS contends, for
example, that denying relief would
make it more difficult for counterparties
to transact with any industry QPAMs
because counterparties would be unsure
if new convictions or later-discovered
issues would result in crippling
financial penalties for those
counterparties. UBS argues that this
increased risk would be priced into the
market for all retirement plans, whether
or not a QPAM is compliant with PTE
84–14 or an individual exemption with
respect to a failure to comply with PTE
84–14 I(g).
34. The Department agrees that a
denial of UBS’ exemption request could
have consequences for Covered Plans.
However, these consequences would be
due to the widespread UBS-related
criminal behavior that occurred over
long periods of time, involved massive
amounts of client assets, and UBS’
inability to comply with the terms of
PTE 2023–14 that are described above.
The Department does not believe that
UBS’ history of criminal sanctions is
representative of the industry as a
whole, or is likely to result in the sorts
of consequences suggested by UBS with
respect to entities that have far different
compliance histories.
35. Additionally, the Department
notes that it is aware that UBS and/or
its affiliates are the subject of additional
investigations that could result in future
violations of Section I(g) of PTE 84–
14.21 While the Department cannot
opine on the likelihood that UBS asset
managers will receive additional
exemptive relief if it engages in
additional violations of Section I(g) of
PTE 84–14, the Department may take a
proactive approach to protecting
Covered Plans in light of the uncertainty
created by these additional
investigations. Especially given the
history and extent of criminal conduct
at issue, the Department is considering
proposing an individual exemption that
would, in certain circumstances, permit
UBS asset managers to continue to
engage in the same covered transactions
described in Section I of PTE 84–14, if
the UBS QPAMs become ineligible
again to rely on PTE 84–14 due to
21 See, for example, the following publicly
available news articles describing inquiries into
possible UBS/Credit Suisse-related misconduct:
UBS’s French unit placed under formal
investigation at https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/
ubs-french-division-placed-under-formalinvestigation-20160304; Credit Suisse has violated
US tax evasion deal, Senate Committee finds | The
Business Standard, at https://www.tbsnews.net/
world/global-economy/credit-suisse-has-violatedus-tax-evasion-deal-senate-committee-finds-607578.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
another violation of Section I(g) of PTE
84–14.22
36. As currently contemplated, the
relief that would be provided in the
individual exemption would not be
linked to PTE 84–14, and the asset
managers that rely on the individual
exemption would not be referred to as
QPAMs.23 If the Department takes this
approach, the proposed individual
exemption would be subject to a full
notice and comment period, and UBS,
plan fiduciaries and plan counterparties
would have ample opportunity to
comment.
37. The Department previously raised
the possibility of this type of individual
exemption in the preamble to the PTE
2023–14 proposal and requested
comment from UBS. UBS responded
that current QPAMs have existing
contracts that expressly rely on the
QPAM exemption or include
representations that the asset manager is
a QPAM, and those contracts do not
account for an alternative individual
exemption such as the one the
Department described in the preamble
to the proposal for PTE 2023–14.
Moreover, UBS asserted that the QPAM
exemption is widely accepted and
understood by sophisticated clients;
therefore, the Department’s withdrawal
of the availability of the relief provided
in PTE 84–14 for a particular asset
manager and substituting an alternative
individual exemption would put that
asset manager at a competitive
disadvantage. UBS claimed that this
result is directly contrary to the
financial strength and stability that
regulators intended to be achieved by
the Merger, and that if the Department
is interested in creating an alternative
individual exemption to the QPAM
exemption, it should make the
alternative available to all asset
managers concurrently with the QPAM
exemption, so that the alternative can
gain broad market adoption.
38. The Department is not persuaded
by UBS’ response. The fact that UBS
QPAMs may have existing contracts
with the provisions and limitations
described above, is not dispositive to
22 It is expected that a number of conditions
would apply, including that no QPAM or its
personnel were involved in the Prohibited
Misconduct.
23 The Department notes that, should UBS
QPAMs become disqualified from the relief in this
exemption due to additional UBS-related prohibited
misconduct described in Section I(g) of PTE 84–14,
Section I(i) of PTE 84–14 may permit UBS QPAMs
to continue to rely on the class exemption for one
year, if the terms and conditions of the class
exemption are met. In that instance, the effective
date of the above-described individual exemption,
if granted, would begin following the period
covered by Section I(i) of PTE 84–14.
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Department’s determination whether
UBS QPAMs should be permitted to
continue to rely on PTE 84–14,
especially considering UBS’ multiple
violations of Section I(g) of the class
exemption that call its integrity and
compliance culture into question. The
Department is also skeptical of
assertions that it should rely on the
parties’ contract provisions as a basis for
disregarding exemption conditions or
limiting the consequences of violating
those provisions. A QPAM cannot
simply contract with a client in a
manner that ensures the QPAM will
always be able to remain a QPAM,
regardless of the QPAM’s or its
affiliates’ behavior.
39. Further, the fact that the QPAM
exemption is widely accepted and
understood by sophisticated clients
suggests to the Department that these
counterparties would not be confused
by an individual exemption that clearly
states it has the same scope of relief as
Section I of PTE 84–14. UBS’
‘‘competitive disadvantage’’ arguments
also do not support a finding under
ERISA Section 408(a) that UBS QPAMs
should be permitted to rely on PTE 84–
14; particularly where to the
Department’s knowledge, none of UBS’
‘‘competitors’’ have as many
disqualifying convictions as UBS.
40. Regarding UBS’s suggestion that
the Department should make the
individual exemption approach
‘‘available to all asset managers
concurrently with the QPAM
exemption, so that the alternative can
gain broad market adoption,’’ the
Department notes that the scope,
seriousness, and recurrent nature of
UBS’ prohibited misconduct are unique.
Therefore, the Department is not
persuaded that making such an
individual exemption available for
broad market adoption is presently
warranted.
Comment 6: Indemnification
41. Section III(k) of PTE 2023–14
requires UBS to ‘‘indemnify and hold
harmless the Covered Plans for any
actual losses resulting directly from
UBS QPAM’s violation of fiduciary
duties, prohibited transactions, breach
of contract, or any claim arising out of
the failure of such QPAM to qualify for
the exemptive relief provided by PTE
84–14 as a result of violation of Section
I(g) of PTE 84–14.’’ 24 Given this
24 PTE 2023–14, Section III(k)(2) requires UBS
QPAMs ‘‘[t]o indemnify and hold harmless the
Covered Plan for any actual losses resulting directly
from the QPAM’s violation of ERISA’s fiduciary
duties, as applicable, and of the prohibited
transaction provisions of ERISA and the Code, as
applicable; a breach of contract by the QP AM; or
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
requirement, the Department requested
in the Proposal that UBS comment on
why Covered Plans would incur the
liquidation and other costs identified by
UBS if the Department does not grant
relief.
42. In its response, UBS argues that
liquidation and additional costs do not
result ‘‘directly’’ from UBS’s criminal
convictions and failures to comply with
exemptive conditions. UBS argues
instead that a Covered Plan fiduciary
and new asset manager’s decision to
liquidate and reinvest plan assets is an
intervening decision by a separate agent,
which is inconsistent with one of many
definitions of ‘‘directly’’ contained in
the Oxford Dictionary.
43. The Department disagrees with
UBS’s analysis. The condition requires
indemnification for costs that result
‘‘directly’’ from, among other things,
‘‘the failure of such QPAM to qualify for
the exemptive relief provided by PTE
84–14 as a result of violation of Section
I(g) of PTE 84–14.’’ As UBS itself noted
in a letter to the Department, dated July
29, 2024, ‘‘[i]n fact, Dr. Minahan, an
expert in the field of ERISA plan
transitions, projects that if the
Department does not grant UBS a new
exemption, ‘‘then most, and likely all,
UBS ERISA Clients would feel forced to
replace UBS as their asset manager.’’
Certainly, to the extent Covered Plans
‘‘feel forced’’ to transition to new asset
managers because the UBS QPAMs
could no longer rely on PTE 84–14, the
liquidation and additional costs arising
from the transition constitute actual
losses resulting directly from the failure
of such QPAM to qualify for the
exemptive relief provided by PTE 84–14
as a result of violation of Section I(g) of
PTE 84–14. If a plan’s fiduciary is
compelled to replace a UBS asset
manager as a result of a violation of
Section I(g) and the asset manager’s loss
of QPAM status, the affected plan is
entitled to indemnification of its
associated losses, including the
transitional expenses necessary to
effectuate the switch to a qualified
QPAM.
Comment 7. Violation Notice
44. Section III(t) of the Proposal
includes a condition that would require
UBS to send a Violation Notice, as
defined therein, to Covered Plans if UBS
fails to comply with an exemption
condition. UBS commented that this
proposed condition would be too
any claim arising out of the failure of such QPAM
to qualify for the exemptive relief provided by PTE
84–14 as a result of a violation of Section I(g) of PTE
84–14, other than a Conviction covered under this
exemption. This condition applies only to actual
losses caused by the QPAM’s violations.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
difficult to administer and would not
materially increase protection for
Covered Plans.
45. The Department disagrees.
Providing timely information to Covered
Plans will allow their fiduciaries to take
prudent and timely steps, as necessary
to protect themselves from loss of the
exemption’s protections. This Violation
Notice is particularly relevant to UBS
due to its history of recidivism.
46. However, the Department
understands UBS’ position that certain
aspects of the Violation Notice
requirement may be difficult to
administer. In particular, UBS raised
concerns regarding the difficulty it
would confront to determine whether a
Violation Notice must be issued. In
response to this concern, and as a
recognition that UBS may need more
time to make its required determination
that sending a violations notice is
required, the Department has revised
the deadline in Section III to extend the
time a Violation Notice must be
provided to Covered Plans as a result of
a breach of an exemption condition,
from 14 to 30 days after the violation is
discovered. In situations where the
auditor discovers a violation that the
UBS QPAM had not previously
detected, the UBS QPAM may comply
with the Violation Notice condition by
sending the Violation Notice to all
affected Covered Plans and the
Department within 30-days after the
completion of the audit, if the notice
includes an addendum describing the
reason for the UBS QPAM’s failure to
send the Violation Notice. This last
provision is not a substitute for UBS’
own responsibility to take reasonable
steps to determine whether a violation
has occurred.
Comment 8: Written Processes Related
to Indemnification
47. Section III(v) of the Proposal
would require all UBS QPAMs to
develop written processes that clearly
describe: (a) how the QPAM identifies
and quantifies ‘‘actual losses’’ for
purposes of Section III(j)(2) of the
exemption; and (b) how Covered Plans
may recover or avoid incurring the
losses that the UBS QPAM must
indemnify or hold Covered Plans
harmless from incurring pursuant to
Section III(j)(2) of the exemption. UBS
commented that losses are too specific
to each Covered Plan for it to develop
an effective written indemnification
process. Additionally, UBS asserted that
it would be unable to develop written
processes for indemnification because
the party seeking indemnification
would have to identify the specific
covered losses or expenses.
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3935
48. The Department disagrees with
UBS’ interpretation of this condition.
The condition simply requires UBS to
establish a process that would apply
when Covered Plans submit
indemnification claims, not to identify
all the specific losses or expenses that
could conceivably be covered in
advance of violation. The process
should, at a minimum, inform Covered
Plans of how to initiate a claim for
indemnification with a UBS QPAM
(including a description of the
information required to be submitted)
and provide reasonable time frames for
the resolution of claims. The process
should also ensure that substantially
similar claims are treated alike, and
Covered Plans are equitably treated
based on the merits of the claim rather
than type or size of client. The process
also should require the UBS QPAM to
fully and fairly notify Covered Plans of
the indemnification requirement and
inform them that they can submit
questions relating to the final
indemnification provision to the
Department’s email inbox (e-oed@
dol.gov). The Department believes that
these clarifications address the concerns
raised by UBS.
49. Further, the Department has
revised the provision in the final
exemption to require each UBS QPAM
to complete the development of the
indemnification claims process and
deliver a copy of the process to each
Covered Plan within 90 days after
January 15, 2025, rather than within 30
days as originally proposed. The
extended timelines give the UBS
QPAMs enough time to specify
appropriate processes and make any
required internal changes to
operationalize such processes. The
exemption requires the UBS QPAMs to
notify Covered Plans of any subsequent
material changes to the processes within
30 days after the effective date of such
changes.
Comment 9: Seconded Employee
Definition
50. UBS commented that it has no
fundamental objection to the
Department’s proposed definition of
‘‘UBS Seconded Employee’’ in Section
I(l) of the Proposal.25 However, UBS
25 The Proposal added a new definition of the
term ‘‘UBS Seconded Employee’’ that means, an
individual nominally employed by a Misconduct
Entity who performs work on behalf of a qualified
UBS QPAM, provided that such UBS QPAM is
solely responsible for the management and control
of the employee’s job activities performed on behalf
of such QPAM. The UBS QPAM must be solely
responsible for the establishment of the employee’s
job duties and terms of employment (including
compensation, promotions, and benefits), and must
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
Continued
15JAN1
3936
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
believes that the definition should
reflect the language in the recent
Deutsche Bank exemption (PTE 2024–
02), which does not contain this new
definition of Seconded Employee, to
promote greater consistency across
individual QPAM exemptions.26
51. The Department has decided to
retain the proposed language in the final
exemption. Conditions in the
Department’s individual exemptions
may evolve over time as it becomes
clear that additional clarity or
substantive improvements are
appropriate. The Department notes that
prior QPAM Section I(g) exemptions
relied on the term ‘‘seconded employee’’
to permit certain employees to perform
services for QPAMs notwithstanding the
fact that such employees were
nominally employed by a corporate
entity that had been involved in
misconduct.27 In the recent Deutsche
Bank exemption, PTE 2024–02, that the
Applicant points out, the Department
declined to use the term ‘‘seconded
employee’’ and instead included a
description of the type of employees
permitted to perform services under
these circumstances.28 In the Proposal,
the Department created a defined term
‘‘UBS Seconded Employee’’ in order to
further streamline the operative
language of the exemption. The defined
term also slightly modified the language
from that which was in the Deutsche
Bank exemption to more clearly set
forth the requirement that the QPAMs
have control over the seconded
have supervisory responsibility with respect to,
among other things, the employee’s performance,
training, and disciplinary actions. The definition of
UBS Seconded Employee is used in Sections III(d)
to clarify that an employee of a Misconduct Entity
may provide services to a UBS QPAM, as long as
the individual is a ‘‘Seconded Employee.’’ Sections
III(a) and (b) require that Seconded Employees did
not participate in the conduct underlying the
Criminal Activity or receive compensation in
connection therewith.
26 See 89 FR 76, 27789 (April 18, 2024).
27 These employees were required not to have
participated in, been aware of, and received
compensation in respect of, any of the misconduct.
28 Section III(g) of PTE 2024–02 provides that,
‘‘Other than with respect to employee benefit plans
maintained or sponsored for its own employees or
the employees of an affiliate, DB Group Services
will not act as a fiduciary within the meaning of
ERISA Sections 3(21)(A)(i) or (iii) or Code Sections
4975(e)(3)(A) and (C) with respect to ERISA-covered
plan and IRA assets; provided, however, that DB
Group Services will not be treated as violating the
conditions of this exemption solely because . . . .
(2) DB Group Services’ employees perform work on
behalf of a DB QPAM that is solely responsible for
the management and oversight of the DB Group
Services’ employee’s day to day activities
performed on behalf of such QPAM, including the
employee’s performance, training, and terms of
employment (including compensation, promotions,
and benefits), including any such employees acting
in a discretionary fiduciary capacity with respect to
the DB QPAM.’’ See also 89 FR 76, 27795–96.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
employee. For example, the term
‘‘oversight’’ was changed to ‘‘control’’
and the term ‘‘day to day activities’’ was
changed to ‘‘job activities.’’
Comment 10: Other Edits
52. UBS requested that the
Department make the following edits to
the Proposal’s operative text, which it
characterizes as clarification of facts or
technical corrections:
(a) The definition of ‘‘CSAG’’ in
Section I(a)(1) should be revised to
clarify that CSAG merged into UBS AG
on May 31, 2024, with UBS AG as the
surviving entity.
Department Response: The
Department concurs and has made the
change.
(b) The definition of ‘‘UBS Americas’’
in Section I(a)(5) should be revised to
reflect that UBS AM Americas no longer
is wholly owned by UBS Americas, Inc.
Department Response: The
Department concurs and has revised
Section I(a)(5) to reflect that UBS AM is
majority-owned by UBS Americas, Inc.
(c) The definition of ‘‘UBS Hedge
Fund Solutions LLC’’ in Section I(a)(7)
should be deleted because UBS Hedge
Fund Solutions LLC merged with UBS
Asset Management (Americas) LLC, on
April 1, 2024.
Department’s Response: The
Department has not made the requested
change, because the definition in the
Proposal provides clarity that the
retroactive relief covers the subject
entity as well.
(d) The definition of ‘‘Affiliated
QPAM’’ should be modified to reflect
that UBS AM Americas is the only
current UBS QPAM, and a future
additional QPAM may sit within a
successor of the Asset Management or
Global Wealth Management Americas
U.S. divisions of UBS.
Department’s Response: The
Department has not made UBS’
requested changes, because the
retrospective nature of this exemption
warrants defining the term ‘‘Affiliated
QPAM’’ consistent with PTE 2023–14,
and UBS’ requested change would allow
an entity to qualify as an Affiliated
QPAM notwithstanding that it also fits
within the definition of Misconduct
Entity.
(e) The footnote in Section I(b) should
be deleted.29 This footnote is
unnecessary. Moreover, UBS O’Connor
LLC no longer exists; it merged with
29 This footnote states that ‘‘UBS represents that
UBS O’Connor LLC and UBS Realty Investors LLC
are entities under the UBS corporate umbrella that
currently offer investment products which are
accessible by ERISA-covered plans, but do not
currently rely on Class PTE 84–14 when managing
those products.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
UBS AM Americas on April 1, 2024,
with UBS AM Americas as the surviving
entity.
Department’s Response: The
Department concurs and has made the
change.
(f) The definition of ‘‘Misconduct
Entity’’ in Section I(i) should be revised
to remove ‘‘CSAG,’’ as CSAG no longer
exists.
Department’s Response: The
Department has not made the requested
change, because the proposed definition
provides clarity that retroactive relief
covers periods of time that CSAG
existed.
(g) The reference to ‘‘CS Affiliated
QPAM[s]’’ in the footnote in Section
III(h)(1) should be deleted.30
Department’s Response: The
Department concurs and has made the
change.
(h) Section III(i) should be revised to
require provision of a copy of the audit
report to the Risk Committee of UBS
Group AG’s Board of Directors and to a
senior executive officer of UBS Group
AG’s Compliance and Operational Risk
Control function.
Department’s Response: The
Department concurs and has made the
requested change.
(i) The phrase ‘‘one-year exemption’’
should be revised to ‘‘five-year
exemption’’ in Sections III(i)(3) and
III(k).
Department’s Response: The
Department concurs that the operative
language in Sections III(i)(3) and III(k)
should not read ‘‘one-year exemption’’
and has modified the provisions to read
‘‘exemption.’’
(j) Section III(m)(1)(ii) should be
revised to require that the compliance
officer (or officers) have a direct
reporting line to either the highestranking corporate officer in charge of
compliance for the applicable Affiliated
QPAM or the highest-ranking corporate
officer in charge of the applicable
Affiliated QPAM. This would allow the
QPAM to designate the highest-ranking
corporate compliance officer as a
‘‘compliance officer’’ under the
exemption.
Department’s Response: The
Department concurs and has made the
requested change.
(k) Section III(l) should be included in
the list in the first clause of Section
III(s), and the reference in the second
clause of Section III(s) should be to
Section III(i)(10), not Section III(i)(11).
30 The referenced footnote states that ‘‘[t]he
exemption does not preclude the UBSQPAMs and
CS Affiliated QPAM from maintaining separate
Policies provided that the Policies comply with this
exemption.’’
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
Department’s Response: The
Department concurs and has made UBS’
requested changes, although due to
changes to Section III(i) described
above, the latter change was made to
Section III(i)(12) not Section III(i)(11).
(l) The phrase ‘‘at all times’’ should be
deleted from Section III(u),31 because
that phrase is inconsistent with the
Proposed Exemption’s statement that
only ‘‘material change[s]’’ in ‘‘material
fact[s] or representation[s]’’ would affect
the status of the exemption.
Department’s Response: The
Department disagrees with this revision.
If, at any time, a material representation
UBS made to the Department is no
longer accurate, UBS must immediately
inform the Department. If UBS has
questions regarding the materiality of a
representation, it should contact the
Office of Exemption Determinations
immediately.
Industry Comments
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SIFMA (Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association) and the
ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC)
53. SIFMA and ERIC’s comment
letters argue that if the Department does
not grant UBS retroactive relief, it will
cause wide ranging disruption to the
securities markets.
54. The Department notes that it has
addressed these broad concerns in its
response to Comment 5, above. The
Department reiterates that it must make
the findings required by ERISA section
408(a) in order to grant an exemption
with respect to the particular applicant
seeking relief and for the transactions
described in the application. If a QPAM
or related party’s behavior precludes
such a finding, any wide-ranging
disruption to the securities markets that
results would be solely attributable to
behavior of such QPAM or related party.
As such, many of the concerns raised in
SIFMA and ERIC’s comments are
outside the scope of this exemption.
Anonymous
55. An anonymous commenter stated
without specificity that the Department
should not grant the proposed
exemption in order to better protect the
financial industry from corruption.
Since the comment offered no further
reasoning or substance, the Department
cannot respond with specificity to this
comment. This exemption, however, has
taken the commenter’s position into
account by ensuring that Covered Plans
are insulated from UBS’ malfeasance.
31 Section
III(u) provides that, ‘‘All the material
facts and representations set forth in the Summary
of Facts and Representations are true and accurate
at all times.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
The QPAM Coalition Comment 1:
Hearing Request
56. A commenter entitled the ‘‘QPAM
Coalition,’’ is comprised of, at various
times, Mr. James S. Henry; Mr. John
Christensen; Dr. Paul J. Morganoff; Mr.
Ralph Nader; Mr. Khadija Sharife; Mr.
Ke Francis Karugu; and Mr. and Mrs.
Andreas and Dagmar Frank. The
coalition made two separate
submissions during the comment
period, which are considered together
for purposes of this granted notice. As
a preliminary matter, the QPAM
Coalition requested a public hearing to
provide a ‘‘more thorough examination
and interrogation.’’ In the view of the
QPAM Coalition, the Application
omitted critical data required by the
Department’s exemption procedure
regulation, and a public hearing is
needed to fully air the universe of
relevant lawsuits and criminal
investigations concerning UBS’ and
Credit Suisse’s conduct as a fiduciary
. . . .32 The QPAM Coalition states that
‘‘extraordinary new details about UBS/
CS misconduct [discussed below] really
do deserve to be aired in public.’’ The
QPAM Coalition states that its members
‘‘would be available to present even
more [i]mportant evidence directly
related to the question of whether UBS/
CS deserve to have their (collectively)
14th QPAM Exemption since 1994,
despite serial criminal convictions.’’
57. The Department notes that most of
the exemptions identified by the QPAM
Coalition were either extensions of
existing exemptions or necessitated by
the merger of UBS and Credit Suisse.
Such extensions do not involve new
instances of misconduct, and it is
inappropriate to treat them as if they
were the result of new, distinct, and
separate violations of exemption
conditions. To the contrary, the grants
of extensions generally reflected the
Department’s view that the QPAMs had
complied with the conditions of the
initial exemptions. Similarly, it is
inappropriate to penalize the UBS
QPAMs solely because they received
exemptions (including this one) that
arose from the merger of Credit Suisse
and UBS; particularly when considering
that these exemptions did not arise from
any additional criminal misconduct or
failure to supervise by UBS or its
affiliates.
58. As the Department notes in its
exemption procedure regulation (the
Procedures),33 ‘‘[t]he Department will
32 29 CFR 2570.35(a)(5). The QPAM Coalition also
takes issue with UBS’ representation that the
‘‘number of plans and IRAs to which the exemption
will apply are too numerous to identify.’’
33 29 CFR part 2570 (76 FR 66637 (Oct. 27, 2011)).
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3937
grant a request for a hearing . . . where
a hearing is necessary to fully explore
material factual issues identified by the
person requesting the hearing.’’ 34 The
QPAM Coalition provided an expansive
and detailed description of the
‘‘extraordinary new details’’ that needed
to be discussed at a public hearing in
their comment letter. Although the
QPAM Coalition suggests that it could
provide more evidence at a hearing, the
Department’s regulations provide that it
may decline to hold a hearing if, among
other things, ‘‘the factual issues
identified can be fully explored through
the submission of evidence in written
(including electronic) form.’’ 35
59. In the Department’s view, the
‘‘factual issues’’ identified by the QPAM
Coalition could be and have been fully
explored through the submission of its
written and electronically provided
evidence. The Department also notes
that its Procedures provide that hearing
requestors must state, among other
things, ‘‘the nature of the person’s
interest in the exemption and the
manner in which the person would be
adversely affected by the exemption.’’ 36
The QPAM Coalition did not state in
their comment letters how they would
be ‘‘materially affected by the
exemption.’’
60. The Department notes that in
processing UBS’ exemption request, it
thoroughly reviewed UBS’ application.
The Department relied on public
comments and a robust exchange of
information with UBS and external
stakeholders to fill in factual gaps in the
public record. The QPAM Coalition’s
own comment provided information
concerning a number of past and current
investigations and prosecutions that
form part of the public record that the
Department has reviewed in making its
requisite findings under ERISA section
408(a) Among other materials provided
in their comments, the QPAM Coalition
provided the text of a decision of the
French Court of Cassation, Criminal
Division, dated November 15, 2023
dealing with UBS’ participation in a
cross-border tax evasion via French and
Swiss branches of UBS; a copy of the
criminal complaint filed by the U.S.
Department of Justice against UBS
Securities LLC, et al. on November 08,
2018 in Case No. 1:18–cv–06369–RPK–
PK; a comment letter describing
additional lawsuits and criminal trials
that they believe should be taken into
34 See
Section 2570.46(b).
Section 2570.46(b)(3).
36 See Section 2570.46(a)(2).
35 See
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
3938
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
consideration by the Department; 37
copies of letters written by members of
the QPAM Coalition to the UBS General
Counsel 38 describing shortcomings in
the compliance and controls of Credit
Suisse’ banking systems and generally
detailing efforts to inform UBS and
Credit Suisse of ‘‘entrenched criminal
structures’’ within Credit Suisse; a
transcript of comments at the
Department’s November 2022 hearing
regarding amendments to the QPAM
Exemption; and a copy of a letter to the
Department 39 advocating for the denial
of Credit Suisse’s exemption application
No. D–11819.40
61. The QPAM Coalition’s comment
further supplemented the record with
articles written by its members that
describe, among other things: the role of
Swiss banks in money laundering and
corrupt banking practices in Kenya;
how, in the QPAM Coalition’s view,
Swiss bank secrecy laws facilitate
participation by UBS and Credit Suisse
in various criminal and political
activities, including Swiss banks’ past
involvement in South Africa’s
‘‘apartheid machinery’’; political
activities in Yemen, the Democratic
Republic of Congo, and Mozambique;
circumvention of European Union
sanctions on various governments; the
facilitation of corrupt finance and
banking activities in various developing
countries; and UBS’ leveraging of the
British Channel Island’s legal
jurisdiction to avoid criminal
prosecution for various acts.
62. Finally, the QPAM Coalition
submitted a brief article advocating for
an ‘‘institutional grey list’’ similar to
ones established by various intergovernmental organizations, such as the
Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development, that would assist the
Department in evaluating financial
institutions that repeatedly find
themselves in violation of applicable
law. Even though the information
37 The comment letter provides information
about: United States v. UBS Securities, LLC, et al.
(generally, UBS’ conduct in the mortgage crisis);
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC 601 U.S. 23 (2024)
(regarding an employee’s claim that UBS forced him
to fraudulently certify his analyst reports); U.S. v.
Birkenfeld, Case No. 08–60099–CR–ZLOCH
(concerning offshore bank accounts and
suppression of whistleblower activity); and links to
various French and German tax fraud matters
involving UBS.
38 Letter from Dr. Paul Morjanoff, Financial
Recovery and Consulting Services Pty Ltd to Ms.
Barbara Levi, UBS Group General Counsel, dated
July 11, 2023.
39 Letter from Dr. Paul Morjanoff, Financial
Recovery and Consulting Services Pty Ltd to
Thomas Perez, U.S. Secretary of Labor, dated June
23, 2014.
40 Credit Suisse was granted PTE 2014–11 on
November 18, 2014 (79 FR 68716).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
provided by the QPAM Coalition does
not lead the Department to conclude
that a hearing is necessary to further
explore any of the issues presented in
its comment, the information provided
by the QPAM Coalition validates the
importance of one of the exemption’s
critical conditions: an in-depth annual
audit of each UBS QPAM by a qualified,
independent auditor. In this regard, the
scope of ongoing investigations and
potential misconduct identified by the
QPAM Coalition in its comments
illustrates the need for an independent
audit to verify on an annual basis that
the UBS QPAMs continue to adhere to
applicable fiduciary provisions and the
terms of this exemption and maintain a
strong culture of compliance.
63. Based on the record developed by
the Department, it does not appear to
the Department that UBS QPAM
personnel participated in the conduct
described by the QPAM Coalition. In
fact, the Department is able to make its
findings that the UBS QPAMs may
continue to rely on PTE 84–14 in part
because the QPAMs and their personnel
are insulated from the corporate
management and business activities of
UBS entities that were involved in
criminal activity described above. In
this regard, the independent auditor
must continue to validate, among other
things, that the asset management
decisions of the QPAM are conducted
independently of the corporate and
management and business activities of
each Misconduct Entity, and any
failures of the QPAMs to maintain or
follow the Policies must be corrected
and reported to the QPAM’s head of
compliance and general counsel.
The QPAM Coalition Comment 2:
Rebutting UBS
64. The QPAM Coalition’s comment
focuses on rebutting UBS’ five
‘‘principal reasons’’ justifying the
Department’s grant of a five-year
exemption. As described by the QPAM
Coalition, UBS argues that (1) the
convictions and the pending French
charge do not relate to the UBS QPAMs,
which are operated as separate
businesses from the entities involved in
the underlying conduct; (2) the
disqualifying conduct described in the
convictions and the pending French
charge is historical in nature; (3) the
UBS QPAMs have documented proof
that ERISA plan assets have been
safeguarded, as evidenced by their
ERISA audit results for many years; (4)
it is in the best interest of plans and
their participants and beneficiaries for
plan fiduciaries, well versed in their
obligations to protect plan assets, to be
able to select the asset managers they
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
judge best, particularly when DOLsupervised audits confirm the managers’
capability; and (5) UBS and the UBS
QPAMs should not be punished, in
effect, for the acquisition of Credit
Suisse AG by UBS Group AG at the
strong encouragement of the Swiss
government.41
65. In response to these arguments,
the QPAM Coalition states that (1) is
irrelevant because the QPAM
Exemption’s required standard of
integrity relates to the ‘‘corporate
family’s culture of compliance,’’ and the
exemption is a privilege to execute
transactions which would otherwise be
illegal; (2) is irrelevant because ‘‘UBS
and Credit Suisse repeatedly engaged in
stonewalling and obstruction of
investigations, as well as legal tactics of
interminable delays, even when they
knew of their own guilt;’’ (3) the UBS
and Credit Suisse audit reports are not
‘‘proof’’ because they did not assess all
relevant factors, ‘‘including if financial
instruments were being illegitimately
laundered through pension funds;’’ (4)
UBS and Credit Suisse should have
taken its responsibility more seriously
before engaging in criminal activity;
moreover, according to the QPAM
Coalition, the UBS entities are still
engaging in some of these behaviors;
and (5) UBS benefitted greatly from
taking over Credit Suisse AG. The
QPAM Coalition also points out in their
comment that the UBS QPAMs violated
various conditions of the exemption,
including the requirement for the stub
audit.
66. The Department has considered
and rejected the QPAM Coalition’s
request to deny the UBS QPAMs’
exemption application. The QPAM
Coalition’s points are addressed in turn:
(1) The Department agrees with the
principle that the required standard of
integrity in PTE 84–14 relates not just to
the QPAM’s compliance culture, but
also to its ‘‘corporate family’s culture of
compliance.’’ Therefore, an important
aspect of the Proposal is that the UBS
QPAMs are operated separately from the
parts of the UBS organization that
engaged in criminal misconduct
underlying the Convictions (Criminal
Misconduct). The record in this case
demonstrates that the UBS QPAMs have
been insulated from UBS’ corporate and
business decisions, and from the parts
of UBS that were involved in the
Criminal Misconduct. Furthermore, the
Department designed the Proposal’s first
six conditions for relief to ensure that
the UBS QPAMs: (1) had no
involvement with the Criminal
41 See UBS Exemption Application, dated
February 22, 2024, pp. 1–2.
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Misconduct; and (2) continue to have no
relationship with any entity or
individual that was involved in the
Criminal Misconduct. In order to further
support the UBS QPAMs’ insulation
from the rest of UBS and to strengthen
their own culture of compliance, the
Department included other conditions
in the Proposal that would require the
UBS QPAMs to maintain their own
policies, procedures, and training
program, perform internal compliance
reporting, and submit to a publicly
available independent audit;
(2) The Department agrees that it is
important that the Department consider
the Criminal Misconduct irrespective of
the applicant’s suggestion that it is
‘‘historical in nature,’’ and the
Department has, accordingly,
considered all the Criminal Misconduct
in connection with this exemption. The
Department considered the numerous
convictions, and the extent of UBS’
cooperation (or non-cooperation) with
investigators, as well as the information
provided by UBS, commenters
(including the QPAM Coalition), and
other internal and external stakeholders,
in formulating the conditions for relief
described in this exemption and making
its findings under ERISA section 408(a);
(3) The Department notes that the
independent audits are meant to verify
that the assets of Covered Plans are
managed in accordance with the
requirements of Title I of ERISA and the
Code, as applicable, and that the
requirements of the individual
exemptions from Section I(g) of PTE 84–
14 are met. The Department determined
in this exemption and in others that an
independent audit with the
requirements described herein, provides
a sufficient mechanism for the
Department to make its findings that the
Proposal is protective of the rights of
participants and beneficiaries of
Covered Plans; 42
(4) The QPAM Coalition is not clear
which responsibilities it is referring to
in its statement that UBS should have
taken its responsibilities more seriously
before engaging in criminal activity. In
this regard, the Department notes that
the Proposal is focused on the actions of
the UBS QPAMS and is not aware that
the UBS QPAMs failed to take their
42 The Department notes that the record does not
contain any information that the UBS QPAMs
illegally laundered financial instruments through
pension plans, and this has not been a specific
target of the independent audits required by the
Department in numerous individual exemptions. If
the QPAM Coalition or any other commenter has
evidence demonstrating that the UBS QPAMs had
used or permitted money laundering through
pension funds, this would be of great import to the
Department, and likely also to a number of other
Federal and international regulators.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
responsibilities under ERISA seriously
prior to the criminal activity engaged in
by other UBS entities. However, the
conditions for relief in this grant notice
require the UBS QPAMs to adhere to
Policies and Training designed to
promote adherence to basic fiduciary
standards under Title I of ERISA and the
Code and reinforce their obligation to
act with a high degree of integrity on
behalf of their Covered Plan clients as
required by PTE 84–14. The Department
acknowledges the QPAM Coalition’s
statement that certain UBS entities
continue to be investigated for their
participation in various forms of
misconduct, but it has not seen
evidence of wrongdoing sufficient to
warrant a different approach to the
exemption than that taken by the
Department. Also, when considering
past and continuing Criminal
Misconduct by other corporate entities,
the Department must consider the
potential harms to Covered Plans that
may result from a denial of the
exemption. The final exemption reflects
the Department’s primary focus on
protecting Covered Plans and their
participants and beneficiaries from the
costs that they may incur if the UBS
QPAMs become ineligible to rely on
PTE 84–14, subject to the QPAMs’
adherence to protective conditions that
insulate UBS QPAMs, and by extension
Covered Plans, from potential concerns
based on the compliance culture in
other parts of the organization; and
(5) Lastly, the QPAM Coalition states
that UBS benefitted greatly from taking
over Credit Suisse, thus undercutting
the Applicant’s argument that UBS
should not be punished, in effect for
acquiring Credit Suisse AG at the behest
of the Swiss government. The
Department notes that its primary
concern is to ensure that an exemption
is in the interest and protective of the
rights of Covered Plans and their
participants and beneficiaries—not
whether UBS benefitted from the
acquisition of Credit Suisse AG.
67. In sum, in response to the QPAM
Coalition’s rebuttal of UBS, the
Department acknowledges the severity
of the misconduct at issue, but also
notes that none of the specific entities
responsible for the wrongdoing are
granted relief under the terms of this
exemption. In addition to considering
past misconduct, the Department must
consider the potential harms to Covered
Plans that may result from a denial of
the exemption. Based on the written
administrative record for this
exemption, the Department has
concluded that the exemption’s
conditions will appropriately ensure
that Covered Plans are protected from
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3939
future violations, and insulated from the
injury they could experience from
denial of the requested exemption. The
Department also has determined that a
hearing is not necessary to further
explore the issues raised in the
commenter’s written submission.
The QPAM Coalition Comment 3:
Request for Changes to the Exemption
68. The QPAM Coalition made a
series of requests if the Department
determines to grant exemptive relief for
the UBS QPAMs. Generally, the QPAM
Coalition requested that the Department:
(1) require UBS to provide additional
information regarding the plans for
which it provides services; prohibit UBS
from managing plan assets due to a selfperception that it is ‘‘above the law’’; (2)
limit the exemption’s effective period to
two-years; (3) require UBS to pay
monetary penalties (presumably in
order to rely on the QPAM Exemption);
implement a regime for monitoring UBS
compliance with the exemption’s
conditions that includes a panel of
independent auditors; (4) establish a
public registry for all financial actors
involved in working with QPAMs; and
(5)collaborate with financial regulators
from around the world in making its
determinations regarding UBS’
exemption request, and other financial
entities that on the relief provided in
PTE 84–14.
69. The Department carefully
considered the QPAM Coalition’s
comments and determined not to make
their requested changes for the
following reasons. First, the Department
does not have the authority to make
some of the requested changes. For
example, in connection with the
exemption process, the Department does
not have the authority to prohibit the
UBS QPAMs from managing plan assets
if the UBS QPAMs rely on other
available prohibited transaction
exemptions or to require the UBS
QPAMs to pay additional monetary
penalties based on the Covered
Convictions.
70. Second, in the Department’s view,
several of the QPAM Coalition’s
recommendations would not provide
meaningful protections to Covered
Plans. For example, limiting relief in the
exemption to two years as suggested by
coalition would not provide much
additional protection to Covered Plans
especially considering the exemption
condition requiring the UBS QPAMs to
undergo an in-depth annual audit by an
independent auditor. The audit reports
are publicly available and could form
the basis for the Department to revise or
revoke this exemption, if warranted or
lead to a referral of the UBS QPAMs to
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
3940
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
EBSA’s Office of Enforcement in the
event that violations of ERISA were
revealed through the audit. UBS QPAMs
are well aware of these potential
consequences, which makes the audit
an effective means to ensure compliance
with the provisions of Title I of ERISA
and the terms of this exemption. The
Department also is not persuaded that a
panel of auditors would provide
significant additional protection to
Covered Plans as compared to a single
independent auditor experienced and
knowledgeable about ERISA and the
terms of this exemption.43 The
Department reviews each audit and is
empowered to seek additional
information from the auditor if the audit
appears lacking in any respect. The
Department notes that Covered Plans
already receive a copy of the proposed
exemption, the final exemption, the
Summary and the Statement. Further,
the annual independent audit is
available to all Covered Plan fiduciaries
through EBSA’s Public Disclosure Room
(see above). This final exemption also
adds two additional disclosure
requirements (the Violation Notice, and
disclosure of the QPAMs’
indemnification procedures). The
Department is skeptical that, under the
circumstances, more disclosure of the
kind suggested by the QPAM
Coalition 44 will benefit Covered Plans,
and the QPAM Commenters Coalition
has not made a showing to the contrary.
71. Regarding the comment that the
Department should coordinate with
regulators around the world, the
Department notes that it has
communicated with other regulators in
the past during its consideration of
exemption requests and will continue to
do so in the future when appropriate to
protect affected plans.
The conditions of this exemption are
not intended to punish UBS or burden
the UBS QPAMs in a manner that will
not provide meaningful protections to
Covered Plans. Instead, the
Department’s objective in granting this
exemption is to (i) insulate UBS QPAMs
from the business and corporate
decision making of UBS and its affiliates
and any Criminal Misconduct or
43 The ERISA Coalition also failed to provide any
detail regarding how the ‘‘panel of auditors’’ could
be operationalized as a condition for relief.
Important unanswered questions include how a
panel of auditors would be chosen, how they would
coordinate their audit findings, and how any
conflicts in their findings would be resolved.
44 The QPAM Coalition, suggests, among other
things, that ‘‘foreign banks should provide
information on why they wish to open branches in
the E.U. financial market, including submission of
all possible convictions, deferred prosecution
agreements, and equivalent measures, transparently
and publicly.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
potential future misconduct of UBS and
its affiliates; (ii) allow Covered Plans to
terminate their relationship with the
UBS QPAMs with minimal disruption
to the Covered Plans; (iii) create an
annual reliable and independent public
record that documents the UBS QPAMs’
level of compliance with the terms of
this exemption and adherence to their
basic fiduciary duties; and (iv) provide
the Department with the flexibility to
revise or revoke the relief in this
exemption in a manner most protective
of Covered Plans if UBS engages in
future criminal activity.
Modifications to the Proposal the
Department Is Making on Its Own
Motion
72. The Department has decided to
make several minor changes to the
Proposal in the final exemption to
correct scrivener’s errors in the
operative text, renumber sections of the
operative text, and make certain updates
to the factual record.
73. The Department also revised
Section III(l) of the Proposal by
replacing text referencing the
exemption’s termination if a UBS entity
is convicted of a crime described in
Section I(g) of PTE 84–14 and replacing
this text with the exemption’s
termination if a UBS entity engages in
conduct prohibited by Section I(g) of
PTE 84–14 (see Section III (l) in this
exemption). The Department made this
modification to ensure consistency with
the ineligibility requirements of the
recently amended PTE 84–14.
74. Section III(o) of the Proposal
reads: ‘‘Relief in this exemption will
terminate on the date that is six months
following the date that a U.S. regulatory
authority makes a final decision that
UBS or an affiliate of either failed to
comply in all material respects with any
requirement imposed by such regulatory
authority in connection with the
Covered Convictions.’’ The Department
inadvertently omitted the words ‘‘or
CSAG’’ following ‘‘UBS.’’ Further, the
Department has determined to extend
the relief period to one year to make the
provision consistent with the one-year
transition period requirement in Section
I(i) of amended PTE 84–14. After these
edits, Condition (o) of this final
exemption reads: ‘‘this exemption will
terminate on the date that is one year
following the date that a U.S. regulatory
authority makes a final decision that
UBS or CSAG or an affiliate of either
failed to comply in all material respects
with any requirement imposed by such
regulatory authority in connection with
the Covered Convictions [emphasis
added].’’
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75. Finally, the Department modified
Section III(s) of the Proposal by adding
language that an Affiliated QPAM will
not fail to meet the terms of this
exemption if a different Affiliated
QPAM failed to provide Covered Plans
with a Violation Notice required by
Section III(t) of this exemption. The
Department is making this revision
because it did not intend for a QPAM to
lose exemptive relief under the
exemption solely when a different
QPAM fails to provide a Violation
Notice.
Publicly Available Information:
76. The complete application file (D–
12098) is available for public inspection
in the Public Disclosure Room of the
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Room N–1515, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210,
reachable by phone at (202) 693–8673.
For a more complete statement of the
facts and representations supporting the
Department’s decision to grant this
exemption, please refer to the notice of
proposed exemption published on June
11, 2024 (89 FR 49213).
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 ERISA
section 408(a) and/or Code section
4975(c)(2) does not relieve a fiduciary or
other party in interest from certain
requirements of other provisions of
ERISA or the Code, including but not
limited to any prohibited transaction
provisions to which the exemption does
not apply and the general fiduciary
responsibility provisions of ERISA
section 404, which, among other things,
require a fiduciary to discharge their
duties respecting the plan solely in the
interest of the plan’s participants and
beneficiaries and in a prudent fashion in
accordance with ERISA section
404(a)(1)(B); nor does it affect the
requirement of Code section 401(a) that
the plan must operate for the exclusive
benefit of the employees of the
employer maintaining the plan and their
beneficiaries.
(2) As required by ERISA section
408(a) and/or Code section 4975(c)(2),
the Department finds that the exemption
is: (a) administratively feasible for the
Department; (b) in the interests of
Covered Plans and their participants
and beneficiaries; and (c) protective of
the rights of the Covered Plan’s
participants and beneficiaries.
(3) This exemption is supplemental to
and not in derogation of any other
provisions of ERISA and/or the Code,
including statutory or administrative
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
exemptions and transitional rules.
Furthermore, the fact that a transaction
is subject to an administrative or
statutory exemption is not dispositive
for determining whether the transaction
is in fact a prohibited transaction.
(4) The availability of this exemption
is subject to the express condition that
the facts and representations contained
in the application accurately describe
all material terms of the transactions
that are the subject of the exemption
and are true at all times.
Accordingly, after considering the
entire record developed in connection
with UBS’s exemption application, the
Department has determined to grant the
following exemption under the
authority of ERISA section 408(a) and
Code section 4975(c)(2) and in
accordance with the Department’s
exemption procedures set forth in 29
CFR part 2570, subpart B.45
Exemption
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Section I. Definitions
(a) Names of Certain Corporate
Entities:
(1) The term ‘‘CSAG’’ means Credit
Suisse AG, which was 100% owned by
Credit Suisse Group AG, before UBS
acquired Credit Suisse Group AG on
June 12, 2024, and became the sole
surviving entity.
(2) The term ‘‘CSAM LLC’’ means
Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC.
On May 1, 2024, CSAM LLC was
merged into UBS Americas, with UBS
Americas as the surviving entity.
(3) The term ‘‘CSSEL’’ means Credit
Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited an
indirectly a wholly owned subsidiary of
UBS Group AG.
(4) The term ‘‘UBS’’ means UBS AG
which is a wholly owned subsidiary of
UBS Group AG.
(5) The term ‘‘UBS Americas’’ means
UBS Asset Management (Americas)
LLC, which is majority owned by UBS
Americas, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of UBS AG.
(6) The term ‘‘UBS Europe’’ means
UBS Europe SE. UBS Europe is the
successor to UBS (France) S.A. UBS
(France) S.A. was a wholly owned
subsidiary of UBS under the laws of
France until 2023. In July of 2023, UBS
France S.A. merged into UBS Europe
and set up a branch in France called
UBS Europe SE France Branch.
(7) The term ‘‘UBS Hedge Fund
Solutions LLC’’ was formerly known as
UBS Alternative and Quantitative
Investments, LLC and is wholly owned
by UBS Americas Holding LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of UBS. UBS
45 76
FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
Hedge Fund Solutions merged into UBS
Americas on April 1, 2024.
(8) The term ‘‘UBS Securities Japan’’
means UBS Securities Japan Co. Ltd, a
wholly owned subsidiary of UBS
incorporated under the laws of Japan.
(b) The term ‘‘Affiliated QPAM’’
means: UBS Americas, UBS Hedge Fund
Solutions LLC, Credit Suisse Asset
Management, LLC, and any future
separate legal entity within the Asset
Management or the Global Wealth
Management Americas U.S. divisions of
UBS that qualifies as a ‘‘qualified
professional asset manager’’ (as defined
in Section VI(a) of PTE 84–14) and that
relies on the relief provided by PTE 84–
14, and with respect to which UBS is an
‘‘affiliate’’ (as defined in Part VI(d) of
PTE 84–14). The term Affiliated QPAM
excludes a Misconduct Entity.
(c) The term ‘‘Criminal Activity’’
means the Covered Convictions, the
2013 UBS Conviction, and the FX
Misconduct.
(d) The term ‘‘Covered Convictions’’
means (1) the judgment of conviction
against CSAG for one count of
conspiracy to violate section 7206(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code in violation
of Title 18, United States Code, Section
371, that was entered in the District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
in Case Number 1:14–cr–188–RBS, on
November 21, 2014 (the ‘‘2014 CSAG
Conviction’’); (2) the judgment of
conviction against CSSEL in Case
Number 1:21–cr–00520–WFK (the
‘‘2022 CSSEL Conviction’’); (3) the
judgment of conviction against UBS in
case number 3:15–cr–00076–RNC in the
U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut for one count of wire fraud
in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 1343 and 2 in
connection with UBS’s submission of
Yen London Interbank Offered Rates
and other benchmark interest rates
between 2001 and 2010; and (4) the
judgment of conviction on February 20,
2019, against UBS and UBS France in
case Number 1105592033 in the French
First Instance Court (the ‘‘2019 UBS
France Conviction’’).
(e) The term ‘‘2013 UBS Conviction’’
means the judgment of conviction
against UBS Securities Japan Co. Ltd. in
case number 3:12 cr 00268 RNC in the
U.S. District Court of the District of
Connecticut for one count of wire fraud
in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, sections 1343 and 2 in connection
with submission of YEN London
Interbank Offered Rates and other
benchmark interest rates.
(f) The term ‘‘FX Misconduct’’ means
the conduct engaged in by UBS
personnel described in Exhibit 1 of the
Plea Agreement (Factual Basis for
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3941
Breach) entered into between UBS and
the Department of Justice Criminal
Division, on May 20, 2015, in
connection with Case Number 3:15–cr–
00076–RNC filed in the US District
Court for the District of Connecticut.
(g) The term ‘‘Covered Plan’’ means a
plan subject to Part IV of Title I of
ERISA (an ‘‘ERISA-covered plan’’) or a
plan subject to Code section 4975 (an
‘‘IRA’’), in each case, with respect to
which an Affiliated QPAM relies on
PTE 84–14, or with respect to which an
Affiliated QPAM (or any UBS affiliate)
has expressly represented that the
manager qualifies as a QPAM or relies
on PTE 84–14. A Covered Plan does not
include an ERISA-covered plan or IRA
to the extent the Affiliated QPAM has
expressly disclaimed reliance on QPAM
status or PTE 84–14 in entering into a
contract, arrangement, or agreement
with the ERISA-covered plan or IRA.
Notwithstanding the above, an
Affiliated QPAM may disclaim reliance
on QPAM status or PTE 84–14 in a
written modification of a contract,
arrangement, or agreement with an
ERISA-covered plan or IRA, where: the
modification is made in a bilateral
document signed by the client; the
client’s attention is specifically directed
toward the disclaimer; and the client is
advised in writing that, with respect to
any transaction involving the client’s
assets, the Affiliated QPAM will not
represent that it is a QPAM, and will not
rely on the relief described in PTE 84–
14.
(h) The term ‘‘Exemption Period’’
means the period beginning on June 12,
2024, and ending on June 11, 2029.
(i) The term ‘‘Misconduct Entity’’
means any one of the following: an
entity subject to one of the Covered
Convictions, i.e., UBS, UBS France
(recently merged into UBS Europe),
CSAG and CSSEL; the entity subject to
the 2013 UBS Conviction, i.e., UBS
Securities Japan; or an entity that was
the subject of the FX Misconduct, i.e.,
UBS.
(j) The term ‘‘Related QPAM’’ means
any current or future ‘‘qualified
professional asset manager’’ (as defined
in Section VI(a) of PTE 84–14) that
relies on the relief provided by PTE 84–
14, and with respect to which UBS
owns a direct or indirect five (5) percent
or more interest, but with respect to
which a Misconduct Entity is not an
‘‘affiliate’’ (as defined in section VI(d)(1)
of PTE 84–14). The term ‘‘Related
QPAM’’ excludes a Misconduct Entity.
(k) The term ‘‘best knowledge,’’ ‘‘to
the best of one’s knowledge,’’ ‘‘best
knowledge at that time,’’ and other
similar ‘‘best knowledge’’ terms shall
include matters that are known to the
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
3942
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
applicable individual or should be
known to such individual upon the
exercise of such individual’s due
diligence required under the
circumstances, and, with respect to an
entity other than a natural person, such
term includes matters that are known to
the directors and officers of the entity or
should be known to such individuals
upon the exercise of such individuals’
due diligence required under the
circumstances.
(l) The term ‘‘UBS Seconded
Employee’’ means, an individual
nominally employed by a Misconduct
Entity who performs work on behalf of
a UBS QPAM; provided that such UBS
QPAM is solely responsible for the
management and control of the
employee’s job activities performed on
behalf of such QPAM. Notwithstanding
the preceding sentence, the UBS QPAM
must be solely responsible for the
establishment of the employee’s job
duties and terms of employment
(including compensation, promotions,
and benefits); and must have
supervisory responsibility with respect
to, among other things, the employee’s
performance, training, and disciplinary
actions.
(m) The term ‘‘UBS QPAMs’’ means,
individually or collectively, the
Affiliated QPAMs and/or the Related
QPAMs.
(n) The ‘‘conduct’’ of any person or
entity that is the ‘‘subject of’’ the
Criminal Activity encompasses any
misconduct of CSAG, CSSEL, UBS, UBS
France (later merged with UBS Europe),
UBS Securities Japan, and/or their
personnel: (i) that is described in
Exhibit 3 to the Plea Agreement entered
into between UBS and the Department
of Justice Criminal Division, on May 20,
2015, in connection with case number
3:15–cr–00076–RNC; (ii) that is
described in Exhibits 3 and 4 to the Plea
Agreement entered into between UBS
Securities Japan and the Department of
Justice Criminal Division, on December
19, 2012, in connection with case
number 3:12–cr–00268–RNC; (iii) that is
described in Exhibit 1 of the Plea
Agreement (Factual Basis for Breach)
entered into between UBS and the
Department of Justice Criminal Division,
on May 20, 2015, in connection with
Case Number 3:15–cr–00076–RNC filed
in the US District Court for the District
of Connecticut; (iv) that is the basis of
the 2019 UBS France Conviction; and
(v) that is the subject of the 2014 CSAG
Conviction and the 2022 CSSEL
Conviction described in Section I(c)(1)
and (c)(2).
(o) The term ‘‘participate in’’ when
used to describe an individual or
entity’s participation in the Criminal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
Activity refers not only to active
participation in the Criminal Activity
but also includes an individual or
entity’s knowledge or approval of the
Criminal Activity, without taking active
steps to prohibit such conduct, such as
reporting the conduct to the individual’s
supervisors, and to the Board of
Directors.
Section II. Covered Transactions
(a) UBS QPAMs are not precluded
from relying on the exemptive relief
provided by Prohibited Transaction
Exemption 84–14 (PTE 84–14) 46 during
the Exemption Period, notwithstanding
the ‘‘Covered Convictions,’’ provided
that the definitions in Section I and the
conditions in Section III are satisfied.
(b) UBS QPAMS are not precluded
from relying on the exemptive relief
provided by PTE 84–14 during the
period from June 12, 2023, to June 11,
2024, notwithstanding UBS’s failure to
comply with Section III(j)(1) of PTE
2023–14.
Section III. Conditions
(a) The UBS QPAMs (including their
officers, directors, agents other than the
Misconduct Entities, employees of such
QPAMs, and UBS Seconded Employees)
did not know nor have reason to know
of and did not participate in the conduct
underlying the Criminal Activity.
Further, any other party engaged on
behalf of the UBS QPAMs who had
responsibility for, or exercised authority
in connection with, the management of
plan assets did not know or have reason
to know of and did not participate in the
criminal conduct underlying the
Criminal Activity.
(b) The UBS QPAMs (including their
officers, directors, agents other than the
Misconduct Entities, employees of such
QPAMs, and UBS Seconded Employees)
did not receive direct compensation, or
knowingly receive indirect
compensation, in connection with the
criminal conduct that is the subject of
the Criminal Activity. Further, any other
party engaged on behalf of the UBS
QPAMs who had responsibility for, or
exercised authority in connection with
the management of plan assets did not
receive direct compensation, or
knowingly receive indirect
compensation, in connection with the
Criminal Activity.
(c) The Affiliated QPAMs do not
currently and will not in the future
employ or knowingly engage any of the
individuals who participated in the
46 49 FR 9494 (March 13, 1984), as corrected at
50 FR 41430, (Oct. 10, 1985), as amended at 70 FR
49305 (Aug. 23, 2005), as amended at 75 FR 38837
(July 6, 2010), and as amended at 89 FR 23090
(April 3, 2024).
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
criminal conduct underlying the
Criminal Activity.
(d) At all times during the Exemption
Period, no Affiliated QPAM will use its
authority or influence to direct an
‘‘investment fund’’ (as defined in
Section VI(b) of PTE 84–14) that is
subject to ERISA or the Code and
managed by such Affiliated QPAM with
respect to one or more Covered Plans, to
enter into any transaction with a
Misconduct Entity or to engage a
Misconduct Entity to provide any
service to such investment fund, for a
direct or indirect fee borne by such
investment fund, regardless of whether
such transaction or service may
otherwise be within the scope of relief
provided by an administrative or
statutory exemption. An Affiliated
QPAM will not fail this condition solely
because:
(1) A UBS (or successor) affiliate
serves as a local sub-custodian that is
selected by an unaffiliated global
custodian that, in turn, is selected by
someone other than a UBS QPAM; or
(2) Services are provided by UBS
Seconded Employees.
(e) Any failure of an Affiliated QPAM
to satisfy Section I(g) of PTE 84–14 arose
solely from the Covered Convictions.
(f) A UBS QPAM did not exercise
authority over the assets of any plan
subject to Part 4 of Title I of ERISA (an
‘‘ERISA-covered plan’’) or Code section
4975 (an ‘‘IRA’’) in a manner that it
knew or should have known would
further the criminal conduct underlying
the Criminal Activity; or cause the UBS
QPAM or its affiliates to directly or
indirectly profit from the criminal
conduct underlying the Criminal
Activity.
(g) No Misconduct Entity will act as
a fiduciary within the meaning of ERISA
section 3(21)(A)(i) or (iii) or Code
section 4975(e)(3)(A) and (C) with
respect to ERISA-covered Plan and IRA
assets, except that each may act as such
a fiduciary with respect to employee
benefit plans sponsored for its own
employees or employees of an affiliate.
No Misconduct Entity will be treated as
violating the conditions of the
exemption solely because it acted as an
investment advice fiduciary within the
meaning of ERISA section 3(21)(A)(ii) or
Code section 4975(e)(3)(B).
(h)(1) Each Affiliated QPAM must
maintain, adjust (to the extent
necessary), implement, and follow the
written policies and procedures
described below (Policies). The Policies
must require and must be reasonably
designed to ensure that:
(i) The asset management decisions of
the QPAM are conducted independently
of the corporate and management and
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
business activities of each Misconduct
Entity, and without considering any fee
a related local sub-custodian may
receive from those decisions. This
condition does not preclude an
Affiliated QPAM, as defined in Section
I(b)(1), from receiving publicly available
research and other widely available
information from a UBS affiliate;
(ii) The QPAM fully complies with
ERISA’s fiduciary duties, and with
ERISA and the Code’s prohibited
transaction provisions, in each case as
applicable with respect to each Covered
Plan, and does not knowingly
participate in any violation of these
duties and provisions with respect to
Covered Plans;
(iii) The QPAM does not knowingly
participate in any other person’s
violation of ERISA or the Code with
respect to Covered Plans;
(iv) Any filings or statements made by
the QPAM to regulators, including but
not limited to, the Department, the
Department of the Treasury, the
Department of Justice, and the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, on behalf
of or in relation to Covered Plans, are
materially accurate and complete, to the
best of such QPAM’s knowledge at that
time;
(v) To the best of its knowledge at that
time, the QPAM does not make material
misrepresentations or omit material
information in its communications with
such regulators with respect to Covered
Plans, or make material
misrepresentations or omit material
information in its communications with
Covered Plans; and
(vi) The QPAM complies with the
terms of this exemption;
(2) Any violation of or failure to
comply with an item in subparagraphs
(h)(1)(ii) through (vi) is corrected as
soon as reasonably possible upon
discovery, or as soon after the QPAM
reasonably should have known of the
noncompliance (whichever is earlier),
and any such violation or compliance
failure not so corrected is reported,
upon the discovery of such failure to so
correct, in writing. This report must be
made to the head of compliance and the
general counsel (or their functional
equivalent) of the relevant UBS QPAM
that engaged in the violation or failure
and the independent auditor
responsible for reviewing compliance
with the Policies. A QPAM will not be
treated as having failed to develop,
implement, maintain, or follow the
Policies, if it corrects any instance of
noncompliance as soon as reasonably
possible upon discovery, or as soon as
reasonably possible after the QPAM
reasonably should have known of the
noncompliance (whichever is earlier),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
and provided that it adheres to the
reporting requirements set forth in this
subparagraph (2);
(3) Each Affiliated QPAM must
maintain, adjust (to the extent
necessary), and implement or continue
a program of training during the
Exemption Period (the Training) that is
conducted at least annually for all
relevant Affiliated QPAM asset/portfolio
management, trading, legal, compliance,
and internal audit personnel.47 The
Training must:
(i) At a minimum, cover the Policies,
ERISA and Code compliance (including
applicable fiduciary duties and the
prohibited transaction provisions),
ethical conduct, the consequences for
not complying with the conditions of
this exemption (including any loss of
exemptive relief provided herein), and
the requirement for prompt reporting of
any wrongdoing;
(ii) Be conducted by a professional
who has been prudently selected and
who has appropriate technical training
and proficiency with ERISA and the
Code to perform the tasks required by
this exemption; and
(iii) Be conducted in-person,
electronically, or via a website.
(i)(1) Each Affiliated QPAM submits
to an audit conducted by an
independent auditor, who has been
prudently selected and who has
appropriate technical training and
proficiency with ERISA and the Code, to
evaluate the adequacy of, and each
Affiliated QPAM’s compliance with, the
Policies and Training described above
in Section (h). The audit requirement
must be incorporated in the Policies.
(2) UBS shall provide the Department
a copy of the engagement agreement
with the independent auditor within 15
days after its execution. Within 45 days
after executing the engagement
agreement with the independent
auditor, and after consultation with the
auditor, UBS must finalize and provide
to the independent auditor a schedule
for completion of the audit. The
schedule must include target dates for
the auditor to send initial information
and document requests to UBS and for
UBS to respond to those requests. The
Department’s receipt and incorporation
of the engagement agreement into the
record, with or without comment,
should not be taken as an indication
that the Department has approved of the
engagement agreement.
(3) The initial audit under this
exemption must cover the period that
47 The exemption does not preclude an Affiliated
QPAM from maintaining separate training programs
provided each training program complies with this
exemption.
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3943
begins on June 12, 2024, and ends on
June 11, 2025, and the audit must be
completed by Thursday, December 11,
2025. The second audit must cover the
period that begins on June 12, 2025, and
ends on June 11, 2026, and must be
completed by Friday, December 11,
2026. The third audit must cover the
period that begins on June 12, 2026, and
ends on June 11, 2027, and must be
completed by Monday, December 13,
2027. The fourth audit must cover the
period that begins on June 12, 2027, and
ends on June 11, 2028, and must be
completed by Monday, December 11,
2028. The fifth audit must cover the
period that begins on June 12, 2028, and
ends on June 11, 2029, and must be
completed by Tuesday, December 11,
2029. Notwithstanding the audit periods
described above, the audit required
under PTE 2023–14 must be completed
for the prior period of June 12, 2023,
through June 11, 2024 and delivered to
the Department in accordance with the
terms of that exemption. The prior
exemption audit report(s) must be
submitted in accordance with section
III(i)(9) below;
(4) Within the scope of the audit and
to the extent necessary for the auditor,
in its sole opinion, to complete its audit
and comply with the conditions for
relief described herein, and only to the
extent such disclosure is not prevented
by state or federal statute, or involves
communications subject to attorneyclient privilege, each Affiliated QPAM
and, if applicable, UBS, must grant the
auditor unconditional access to its
business, including, but not limited to:
its computer systems; business records;
transactional data; workplace locations;
training materials; and personnel. Such
access is limited to information relevant
to the auditor’s objectives as specified
by the terms of this exemption;
(5) The auditor’s engagement must
specifically require the auditor to
annually determine whether each
Affiliated QPAM has developed,
implemented, maintained, and followed
the Policies in accordance with the
conditions of this exemption, and has
developed and implemented the
Training, as required herein;
(6) The auditor’s engagement must
specifically require the auditor to test
each Affiliated QPAM’s operational
compliance with the Policies and
Training. In this regard, the auditor
must test, for each Affiliated QPAM, a
sample of such Affiliated QPAM’s
transactions involving Covered Plans,
sufficient in size and nature to afford
the auditor a reasonable basis to
determine such Affiliated QPAM’s
operational compliance with the
Policies and Training;
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
3944
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
(7) For the audit, on or before the end
of the relevant period described in
Section III(i)(1) for completing the audit,
the auditor must issue a written report
(the Audit Report) to UBS and the
Affiliated QPAM to which the audit
applies that describes the procedures
performed by the auditor in connection
with its examination. The auditor, at its
discretion, may issue a single
consolidated Audit Report that covers
all the Affiliated QPAMs. The Audit
Report must include the auditor’s
specific determinations regarding:
(i) The adequacy of each Affiliated
QPAM’s Policies and Training; each
Affiliated QPAM’s compliance with the
Policies and Training; the need, if any,
to strengthen such Policies and
Training; and any instance of the
respective Affiliated QPAM’s
noncompliance with the written
Policies and Training described in
Section III(h) above. The Affiliated
QPAM must promptly address any
noncompliance and prepare a written
plan of action to address any
determination as to the adequacy of the
Policies and Training and the auditor’s
recommendations (if any) with respect
to strengthening the Policies and
Training of the respective Affiliated
QPAM. Any action taken or the plan of
action to be taken by the respective
Affiliated QPAM must be included in an
addendum to the Audit Report (such
addendum must be completed prior to
the certification described in Section
III(i)(7) below). In the event such a plan
of action to address the auditor’s
recommendation regarding the
adequacy of the Policies and Training is
not completed by the time of
submission of the Audit Report, the
following period’s Audit Report must
state whether the plan was satisfactorily
completed. Any determination by the
auditor that an Affiliated QPAM has
implemented, maintained, and followed
sufficient Policies and Training must
not be based solely or in substantial part
on an absence of evidence indicating
noncompliance. In this last regard, any
finding that an Affiliated QPAM has
complied with the requirements under
this subparagraph must be based on
evidence that each Affiliated QPAM has
implemented, maintained, and followed
the Policies and Training required by
this exemption. Furthermore, the
auditor must not solely rely on the
Exemption Report created by the
Compliance Officers, as described in
Section III(m) below, as the basis for the
auditor’s conclusions in lieu of
independent determinations and testing
performed by the auditor as required by
Section III(i)(3) and (4) above; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
(ii) The adequacy of the Exemption
Review described in Section III(m);
(8) The auditor must notify the
respective Affiliated QPAM of any
instance of noncompliance identified by
the auditor within five (5) business days
after such noncompliance is identified
by the auditor, regardless of whether the
audit has been completed as of that
date;
(9) With respect to the Audit Report,
the General Counsel, or one of the three
most senior executive officers of the
Affiliated QPAM to which the Audit
Report applies, must certify in writing,
under penalty of perjury, that the officer
has reviewed the Audit Report and this
exemption; that, to the best of such
officer’s knowledge at the time, such
Affiliated QPAM has addressed,
corrected, and remedied any
noncompliance and inadequacy or has
an appropriate written plan to address
any inadequacy regarding the Policies
and Training identified in the Audit
Report. Such certification must also
include the signatory’s determination
that, to the best of such officer’s
knowledge at the time, the Policies and
Training in effect at the time of signing
are adequate to ensure compliance with
the conditions of this exemption and
with the applicable provisions of ERISA
and the Code;
(10) The Risk Committee of UBS’s
Group AG’s Board of Directors is
provided a copy of the Audit Report;
and a senior executive officer of UBS
Group AG’s Compliance and
Operational Risk Control function must
review the Audit Report for each
Affiliated QPAM and must certify in
writing, under penalty of perjury, that
such officer has reviewed the Audit
Report;
(11) Each Affiliated QPAM provides
its certified Audit Report, by regular
mail to: Office of Exemption
Determinations (OED), 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001; or
via email to e-OED@dol.gov. This
delivery must take place no later than
45 days following completion of the
Audit Report. The Audit Reports will be
made part of the public record regarding
this exemption. Furthermore, each
Affiliated QPAM must make its Audit
Reports unconditionally available,
electronically or otherwise, for
examination upon request by any duly
authorized employee or representative
of the Department, other relevant
regulators, and any fiduciary of a
Covered Plan;
(12) The auditor must provide the
Department, upon request, for
inspection and review, access to all the
workpapers created and used in
connection with the audit, provided
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
such access and inspection is otherwise
permitted by law;
(13) UBS must notify the Department
of Labor’s Office of Exemption
Determinations (OED) no later than 90
days after the Effective Date of this
exemption, of the auditor selected to
complete audits required by Section
III(i)(1) above for the periods covering
June 12, 2024, through June 11, 2029.
Any engagement agreement with an
auditor to perform the audit required by
this exemption that is entered into
subsequent to the effective date of this
exemption must be submitted to OED no
later than two months after the
execution of such agreement;
(14) At the Department’s request, UBS
and the Auditor shall provide the
Department with updates about the
progress of the audit. The Department’s
requests may be directed to UBS and/or
the auditor;
(15) For only the initial audit required
by Section III(i)(1) above for the period
covering June 12, 2024, through June 11,
2025, the auditor must consult with the
auditors who performed the audits
required pursuant to PTE 2023–14 for
the period of June 12, 2023, through
June 11, 2024, unless such auditor is the
same auditor selected under paragraph
11 of this subsection. UBS must notify
OED if for any reason the consultation
required by this paragraph 12 cannot
occur and must provide an explanation
for why the consultation cannot occur.
Such consultation may, but need not,
occur for subsequent audits; and
(16) UBS must notify the Department
of a change in the independent auditor
no later than two months after the
engagement of a substitute or
subsequent auditor and must provide an
explanation for the substitution or
change including a description of any
material disputes between the
terminated auditor and UBS.
(j) As of the effective date of this
exemption, with respect to any
arrangement, agreement, or contract
between an Affiliated QPAM and a
Covered Plan, the QPAM agrees and
warrants to Covered Plans:
(1) To comply with ERISA and the
Code, as applicable with respect to such
Covered Plan; to refrain from engaging
in prohibited transactions that are not
otherwise exempt (and to promptly
correct any prohibited transactions); and
to comply with the standards of
prudence and loyalty set forth in ERISA
section 404 with respect to each such
ERISA-covered plan and IRA to the
extent that ERISA section 404 is
applicable;
(2) To indemnify and hold harmless
the Covered Plan for any actual losses
resulting directly from the QPAM’s
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
violation of any conditions of this
exemption, ERISA’s fiduciary duties, as
applicable, and of the prohibited
transaction provisions of ERISA and the
Code, as applicable; a breach of contract
by the QPAM; or any claim arising out
of the failure of such QPAM to qualify
for the exemptive relief provided by
PTE 84–14 as a result of a violation of
Section I(g) of PTE 84–14, other than a
Conviction covered under this
exemption. The term ‘‘actual losses’’
includes, but is not limited to, losses
and related costs arising from
unwinding transactions with third
parties and from transitioning Plan
assets to an alternative asset manager as
well as costs associated with any
exposure to excise taxes under Code
section 4975 as a result of a QPAM’s
inability to rely upon the relief in PTE
84–14;
(3) Not to require (or otherwise cause)
the Covered Plan to waive, limit, or
qualify the liability of the QPAM for
violating ERISA or the Code for
engaging in prohibited transactions;
(4) Not to restrict the ability of the
Covered Plan to terminate or withdraw
from its arrangement with the QPAM,
with respect to any investment in a
separately-managed account or pooled
fund subject to ERISA and managed by
such QPAM, with the exception of
reasonable restrictions, appropriately
disclosed in advance, that are
specifically designed to ensure equitable
treatment of all investors in a pooled
fund in the event such withdrawal or
termination may have adverse
consequences for all other investors. In
connection with any such arrangement
involving investments in pooled funds
subject to ERISA entered into after the
effective date of this exemption, the
adverse consequences must relate to a
lack of liquidity of the underlying
assets, valuation issues, or regulatory
reasons that prevent the fund from
promptly redeeming an ERISA-covered
plan’s or IRA’s investment, and such
restrictions must be applicable to all
such investors and be effective no
longer than reasonably necessary to
avoid the adverse consequences;
(5) Not to impose any fees, penalties,
or charges for such termination or
withdrawal with the exception of
reasonable fees, appropriately disclosed
in advance, that are specifically
designed to prevent generallyrecognized abusive investment practices
or specifically designed to ensure
equitable treatment of all investors in a
pooled fund in the event such
withdrawal or termination may have
adverse consequences for all other
investors, provided that such fees are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
applied consistently and in a like
manner to all such investors;
(6) Not to include exculpatory
provisions disclaiming or otherwise
limiting liability of the QPAM for a
violation of such agreement’s terms. To
the extent consistent with ERISA
section 410, however, this provision
does not prohibit disclaimers for
liability caused by an error,
misrepresentation, or misconduct of a
plan fiduciary or other party hired by
the plan fiduciary who is independent
of UBS (and affiliates), or damages
arising from acts outside the control of
the Affiliated QPAM; and
(7) Within 120 days after the effective
date of this exemption, each QPAM
must provide a notice of its obligations
under this Section III(j) to each Covered
Plan. For prospective Covered Plans that
enter into a written asset or investment
management agreement with a QPAM
on or after a date that is 120 days after
the effective date of this exemption, the
QPAM must agree to its obligations
under this Section III(j) in an updated
investment management agreement
between the QPAM and such clients or
other written contractual agreement.
Notwithstanding the above, a QPAM
will not violate the condition solely
because a Covered Plan refuses to sign
an updated investment management
agreement. For new Covered Plans that
were provided an investment
management agreement prior to the
effective date of this exemption,
returning it within 120 days after the
effective date of this exemption, and
that signed investment management
agreement requires amendment to meet
the terms of the exemption, the QPAM
may provide the new Covered Plan with
amendments that need not be signed
with any documents required by this
subsection (j) within ten (10) business
days after receipt of the signed
agreement.
(k) Within 60 days after the
publication date of the notice of final
exemption in the Federal Register, each
Affiliated QPAM provides notice of the
proposed and final exemption as
published in the Federal Register, along
with a summary describing the facts that
led to the Covered Convictions (the
Summary), which has been submitted to
the Department, and a prominently
displayed statement (the Statement) that
the Covered Convictions result in a
failure to meet a condition in PTE 84–
14, to each sponsor and beneficial
owner of a Covered Plan that has
entered into a written asset or
investment management agreement with
an Affiliated QPAM, or the sponsor of
an investment fund in any case where
an Affiliated QPAM acts as a sub-
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3945
adviser to the investment fund in which
such ERISA-covered plan and IRA
invests. The Summary will be submitted
to OED before it is distributed by each
Affiliated QPAM. All prospective
Covered Plan clients that enter into a
written asset or investment management
agreement with an Affiliated QPAM
after a date that is 60 days after the
effective date of this exemption must
receive a copy of the notice of the
exemption, the Summary, and the
Statement before, or contemporaneously
with, the Covered Plan’s receipt of a
written asset or investment management
agreement from the Affiliated QPAM.
The notices may be delivered
electronically (including by an email
that has a link to the exemption).
(l) The Affiliated QPAMs must
comply with each condition of PTE 84–
14, as amended, with the sole exception
of the violation of Section I(g) of PTE
84–14 that is attributable to the Covered
Convictions. If, during the Exemption
Period, an entity within UBS’s corporate
structure engages in conduct prohibited
by Section I(g) of PTE 84–14 (other than
the Covered Convictions), relief in this
exemption would terminate
immediately.
(m)(1) Within 60 days after the date of
publication of the exemption, each
Affiliated QPAM must designate two
senior Compliance Officers (the
Compliance Officers) who will be
responsible for compliance with the
Policies and Training requirements
described herein. For purposes of this
condition (m), each relevant line of
business within an Affiliated QPAM
may designate its own two Compliance
Officers. Notwithstanding the above, the
appointed Compliance Officers must not
be a person who: (i) participated in the
criminal conduct underlying the
Criminal Activity, or knew of, or (ii) had
reason to know of, the Criminal Activity
without taking active documented steps
to stop the misconduct.
(2) The Compliance Officers must
conduct a review of each twelve-month
period of the Exemption Period (the
Exemption Review), to determine the
adequacy and effectiveness of the
implementation of the Policies and
Training.48
(3) With respect to the Compliance
Officers, the following conditions must
be met:
(i) Each Compliance Officer must be
a professional who has extensive
experience with, and knowledge of, the
regulation of financial services and
48 Pursuant to PTE 2023–14, the Compliance
Officer also must conduct and complete an
exemption review within three months of June 11,
2024.
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
3946
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
products, including under ERISA and
the Code;
(ii) Each Compliance Officer must
have a direct reporting line to the
highest-ranking corporate officer in
charge of compliance for the applicable
Affiliated QPAM or the highest-ranking
corporate officer in charge of the
applicable Affiliated QPAM and
(iii) The Compliance Officers
responsible for the Exemption Review
must provide the Exemption Report
described in Section III(m)(4)(ii) below
to the Auditor within seven (7) days of
completing the report.
(4) With respect to the Exemption
Review, the following conditions must
be met:
(i) The Annual Exemption Review
includes a review of the Affiliated
QPAM’s compliance with and
effectiveness of the Policies and
Training and of the following: any
compliance matter related to the
Policies or Training that was identified
by, or reported to, the Compliance
Officers or others within the compliance
and risk control function (or its
equivalent) during the time period; the
most recent Audit Report issued
pursuant to this exemption or PTE
2023–14; any material change in the
relevant business activities of the
Affiliated QPAMs; and any change to
ERISA, the Code, or regulations related
to fiduciary duties and the prohibited
transaction provisions that may be
applicable to the activities of the
Affiliated QPAMs;
(ii) The Compliance Officers must
prepare a written report for the
Exemption Review (an Exemption
Report) that (A) summarizes their
material activities during the prior year;
(B) sets forth any instance of
noncompliance discovered during the
prior year, and any related corrective
action; (C) details any change to the
Policies or Training to guard against any
similar instance of noncompliance
occurring again; and (D) makes
recommendations, as necessary, for
additional training, procedures,
monitoring, or additional and/or
changed processes or systems, and
management’s actions on such
recommendations;
(iii) In the Exemption Report, each
Compliance Officer must certify in
writing that to the best of his or her
knowledge at the time: (A) the report is
accurate; (B) the Policies and Training
are working in a manner which is
reasonably designed to ensure that the
Policies and Training requirements
described herein are met; (C) any known
instance of noncompliance during the
prior year and any related correction
taken to date have been identified in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
Exemption Report; and (D) the Affiliated
QPAMs have complied with the Policies
and Training, and/or corrected (or are
correcting) any known instances of
noncompliance in accordance with
Section III(h) above;
(iv) The Exemption Report must be
provided to appropriate corporate
officers of UBS and to each Affiliated
QPAM to which such report relates, and
to the head of compliance and the
general counsel (or their functional
equivalent) of UBS, and the relevant
Affiliated QPAM. The Exemption
Report must be made unconditionally
available to the independent auditor
described in Section III(i) above; and
(v) The Exemption Review, including
the Compliance Officers’ written
Annual Exemption Report, must cover
the Exemption Period, and the Annual
Review, including the Compliance
Officers’ written Report, must be
completed within three (3) months
following the end of the period to which
it relates.
(n) UBS imposes its internal
procedures, controls, and protocols on
each Misconduct Entity to reduce the
likelihood of any recurrence of conduct
that is the subject of the Criminal
Activity.
(o) Relief in this exemption will
terminate on the date that is one year
following the date that a U.S. regulatory
authority makes a final decision that
UBS or CSAG or an affiliate of either
failed to comply in all material respects
with any requirement imposed by such
regulatory authority in connection with
the Covered Convictions.
(p) Each Affiliated QPAM will
maintain records necessary to
demonstrate that the conditions of this
exemption have been met for six (6)
years following the date of any
transaction for which the Affiliated
QPAM relies upon the relief in this
exemption.
(q) During the Exemption Period, UBS
must: (1) immediately disclose to the
Department any Deferred Prosecution
Agreement (a DPA) or Non-Prosecution
Agreement (an NPA) with the U.S.
Department of Justice, entered into by
UBS or any of its affiliates (as defined
in Section VI(d) of PTE 84–14) in
connection with conduct described in
Section I(g) of PTE 84–14 or section 411
of ERISA via email addressed to e-OED@
dol.gov; and (2) immediately provide
the Department with any information
requested by the Department, as
permitted by law, regarding the
agreement and/or conduct and
allegations that led to the agreement via
email addressed to e-OED@dol.gov.
(r) Within 60 days after the effective
date of this exemption, each Affiliated
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
QPAM, in its agreements with, or in
other written disclosures provided to
Covered Plans, will clearly and
prominently inform Covered Plan
clients of their right to obtain a copy of
the Policies or a description (Summary
Policies) which accurately summarizes
key components of the QPAM’s written
Policies developed in connection with
this exemption. If the Policies are
thereafter changed, each Covered Plan
client must receive a new disclosure
within six (6) months following the end
of the calendar year during which the
Policies were changed.49 With respect to
this requirement, the description may be
continuously maintained on a website,
provided that such website link to the
Policies or Summary Policies is clearly
and prominently disclosed to each
Covered Plan.
(s) An Affiliated QPAM will not fail
to meet the terms of this exemption
solely because a different Affiliated
QPAM fails to satisfy a condition for
relief described in Section III(c), (d), (h),
(i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (p), (r), or (t); or if
the independent auditor described in
Section III(i) fails to comply with a
provision of the exemption other than
the requirement described in Section
III(i)(12), provided that such failure did
not result from any actions or inactions
of UBS or its affiliates;
(t) If the independent auditor or UBS
or its affiliates learns of any material
noncompliance with a condition of this
exemption, UBS must send a notice (a
‘‘Violation Notice’’) to all affected
Covered Plans and the Department that
prominently and conspicuously states
or describes: (1) that UBS, or the UBS
QPAM, as applicable, failed to meet the
terms of this exemption (and describes
the failure); (2) the extent to which UBS
QPAMs have potentially been operating
without an exemption due to the failure;
(3) whether UBS plans to apply for
retroactive relief from the Department
for this failed condition; (4) any further
transactions engaged in by the UBS
QPAMs on behalf of Covered Plans that
may be non-exempt prohibited
transactions unless the Department
grants retroactive relief for the period in
which the transactions occurred; and (5)
UBS must indemnify and hold harmless
the Covered Plan for any actual losses
resulting directly from the QPAM’s
failure to comply with any conditions of
this exemption, ERISA’s fiduciary
duties and of the prohibited transaction
provisions of ERISA and the Code, a
49 If the UBS meets this disclosure requirement
through Summary Policies, changes to the Policies
shall not result in the requirement for a new
disclosure unless, as a result of changes to the
Policies, the Summary Policies are no longer
accurate.
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Notices
breach of contract by the QPAM, or any
claim arising out of the failure of such
QPAM to qualify for the exemptive
relief provided by PTE 84–14 as a result
of a violation of PTE 84–14 Section I(g),
other than a Conviction covered under
the exemption. The Violation Notice
must be sent to all affected Covered
Plans and the Department within 30
days after the independent auditor
becomes aware of the violation. If the
Violation Notice is not sent within the
30-day period, the UBS QPAM may selfcorrect the failure by sending the
Violation Notice to all affected Covered
Plans and the Department with an
addendum describing the failure within
30 days after the completion of next
scheduled audit.
(u) All the material facts and
representations set forth in the
Summary of Facts and Representations
are true and accurate at all times.
(v) Each UBS QPAM must develop
written processes that clearly describe:
(1) how the QPAM identifies and
quantifies ‘‘actual losses’’ for purposes
of Section III(j)(2); and (2) how Covered
Plans may recover or avoid incurring
the losses that the UBS QPAM must
indemnify or hold Covered Plans
harmless from incurring pursuant to
Section III(j)(2). Each UBS QPAM must
develop these processes and deliver a
copy of the processes to each Covered
Plan within 90 days after the date the
Department publishes a final exemption
in the Federal Register and notify
Covered Plans of any subsequent
material changes to the processes within
30 days of the effective date of such
changes. Applicability Date: This
exemption will be in effect for the
period beginning on June 12, 2024 and
ending on June 11, 2029, as well as the
period of June 12, 2023, through June
11, 2024.
Signed at Washington, DC.
George Christopher Cosby,
Director, Office of Exemption Determinations,
Employee Benefits Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2025–00812 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2025–
02; Exemption Application No. D–12073]
Exemption From Certain Prohibited
Transaction Restrictions Involving
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer
Center (MSKCC or the Applicant)
Located in New York, New York
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Labor.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:37 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
ACTION:
Background
Notice of exemption.
This document contains a
notice of exemption issued by the
Department of Labor (the Department)
from certain 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
exemption permits the reinsurance of
risks and the receipt of a premium by
MSK Employee Benefits IC (MSK EB or
the Captive), a captive insurance and
reinsurance subsidiary that is whollyowned by MSKCC, in connection with
a single premium group insurance
contract sold by an unrelated fronting
insurer (the Fronting Insurer or the
Fronter) to provide pension annuities to
participants and beneficiaries in the
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Pension Plan (the Plan). The relief
provided in the exemption will only be
available if the conditions in Section III
are met in conformance with the
definitions in Section I.
SUMMARY:
The exemption will be in effect
on January 15, 2025.
DATES:
Mr.
Joseph Brennan of the Department at
(202) 693–8456. (This is not a toll-free
number.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The
Applicant submitted an exemption
application requesting an individual
exemption pursuant to ERISA section
408(a) in accordance with the
Department’s exemption procedures set
forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B.1
On July 9, 2024, the Department
published a notice of proposed
exemption in the Federal Register.2
Based on adherence to the conditions of
this exemption by MSKCC, the
Independent Fiduciary, and the IB 95–
1 Independent Fiduciary (as defined
below), the Department makes the
requisite findings under ERISA section
408(a) that this exemption is: (1)
administratively feasible for the
Department, (2) in the interest of the
participants and beneficiaries of the
Plan, and (3) protective of the rights of
the participants and beneficiaries of the
Plan. Accordingly, affected parties
should be aware that the conditions
incorporated in this exemption are,
individually and taken as a whole,
necessary for the Department to grant
the relief provided herein. The
Department would not have granted this
exemption without these conditions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 76
2 89
PO 00000
FR 66637, 66644, (October 27, 2011).
FR 56422 (July 9, 2024).
Frm 00161
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3947
Overview of the Exemption
1. Under the exemption, the Plan will
enter into a single premium group
annuity insurance contract (the GAC)
with an unrelated Fronting Insurer that
will be selected by an IB 95–1 Fiduciary
in compliance with the requirements of
the Department’s Interpretive Bulletin
95–1.3 The Fronting Insurer will, in
turn, enter into a reinsurance contract
(the Reinsurance Arrangement) with the
Captive. Under the Reinsurance
Arrangement, the Captive will reinsure
100 percent of the Plan’s risks under the
GAC. Importantly, the Fronting Insurer
will remain fully responsible for the
benefits of participants and beneficiaries
for the entire duration of the GAC and
Reinsurance Arrangement if the Captive
fails to fulfill its contractual obligations
to the Fronting Insurer, without any
caveats, contingencies, or conditions
that would relieve or limit the Fronting
Insurer’s contractual obligation to pay
benefits to the Plan’s participants and
beneficiaries.
In connection with the Reinsurance
Arrangement, all Plan participants and
beneficiaries will receive an increase to
their monthly pension benefit that is
currently expected to be 5.55 percent.4
The Applicant expects that this benefit
increase will provide $66,408,000 in
additional benefits to the Plan’s
participants and beneficiaries.
Importantly, this increase will remain in
place for the entirety of Plan
participants’ and beneficiaries’ lives
and, as a condition of this exemption,
3 29
CFR 2509.95–1.
discussed in more detail below, the
exemption requires the Plan participants and
beneficiaries to receive the majority of the benefits
derived from the Reinsurance Arrangement. While,
as noted above, it is ‘‘currently expected’’ that a
5.55% increase in Plan’s participants’ and
beneficiaries’ monthly pension benefits will achieve
this objective, the exact percentage increase needed
to ensure that Plan participants and beneficiaries
receive the majority of the benefits derived from the
proposed arrangement will not be known until the
Plan actually enters into the GAC, which will occur
after the Fronting Insurer is selected by the IB 95–
1 Fiduciary. As described in further detail below,
after the Plan enters into the GAC, Milliman, a
second independent fiduciary acting solely on
behalf of the Plan, must determine, based on
objective data, that the Plan participants’ and
beneficiaries’ monthly pension benefits have been
increased by a percentage that ensures they will
receive the majority of the benefits derived from the
Reinsurance Arrangement. The methodology for
making this calculation is discussed below.
Milliman as independent fiduciary must, among
other things, conclude, in a written report
submitted to the Department, that Plan participants
and beneficiaries received the appropriate
percentage increase in their monthly pension
benefits. The written report of the independent
fiduciary will be available to the public by
contacting EBSA’s Public Disclosure Office and
referencing Exemption Application D–12073.
4 As
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3929-3947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00812]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security Administration
[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2025-03; Exemption Application No. D-
12098]
Exemption From Certain Prohibited Transaction Restrictions
Involving UBS AG (UBS), Located in Zurich, Switzerland
AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This exemption provides conditional prospective relief that
allows current and future asset managers under the UBS corporate
umbrella (UBS QPAMs) to continue to rely on PTE 84-14 for the five-year
period from June 12, 2024, through June 11, 2029, notwithstanding four
judgments of conviction involving entities within the UBS and CSAG
(Credit Suisse AG) corporate umbrellas. The exemption also provides
conditional retroactive relief to UBS QPAMs covering their reliance on
PTE 84-14 during the one-year period from June 12, 2023, through June
11, 2024.
DATES: The exemption is in effect from June 12, 2023, through June 11,
2029.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Schroth of the Department at
(202) 693-8571 (this is not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 11, 2024, the Department published a
notice of proposed exemption in the Federal Register,\1\ (the Proposal)
that would permit UBS' Affiliated QPAMs and/or the Related QPAMs
(referred to herein individually or collectively as the UBS QPAMs) \2\
to continue to rely on the exemptive relief provided by PTE 84-14,
notwithstanding several judgments of conviction involving entities
within the UBS and CSAG corporate umbrellas that are described
below.\3\ The Department is hereby granting this exemption to ensure
that participants and beneficiaries of ERISA-covered plans and
Individual Retirement Accounts managed by UBS QPAMs (collectively
referred to as Covered Plans) \4\ do not suffer harm that UBS
represented would occur if the UBS QPAMs can no longer rely on PTE 84-
14. This exemption provides only the relief expressly specified herein
and does not provide relief from violations of any law other than the
prohibited transaction provisions of Title I of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), and the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 88 FR 30785 (May 12, 2023).
\2\ For purposes of this exemption, the term ``Affiliated QPAM''
and ``Related QPAM'' mean, respectively: (1) UBS Americas, UBS Hedge
Fund Solutions LLC, Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC, and any
future separate legal entity within the Asset Management or the
Global Wealth Management Americas U.S. divisions of UBS that
qualifies as a ``qualified professional asset manager'' (as defined
in Section VI(a) of PTE 84-14) and that relies on the relief
provided by PTE 84-14, and with respect to which UBS is an
``affiliate'' (as defined in Part VI(d) of PTE 84-14) and (2) any
current or future ``qualified professional asset manager'' (as
defined in Section VI(a) of PTE 84-14) that relies on the relief
provided by PTE 84-14, and with respect to which UBS owns a direct
or indirect five (5) percent or more interest. The terms
``Affiliated QPAM'' and ``Related QPAM'' exclude any Misconduct
Entity, and the term ``Related QPAM'' excludes any entity with
respect to which a Misconduct Entity is an ``affiliate'' (as defined
in section VI(d)(1) of PTE 84-14).
\3\ 89 FR 65, 23090 (April 3, 2024).
\4\ The term ``Covered Plan'' means a plan subject to Part IV of
Title I of ERISA (an ERISA-covered plan) or a plan subject to Code
section 4975 (an IRA), in each case, with respect to which an
Affiliated QPAM relies on PTE 84-14 or with respect to which an
Affiliated QPAM (or any UBS affiliate) has expressly represented
that the manager qualifies as a QPAM or relies on PTE 84-14. A
Covered Plan does not include an ERISA-covered plan or IRA to the
extent the Affiliated QPAM has expressly disclaimed reliance on QPAM
status or PTE 84-14 in entering into a contract, arrangement, or
agreement with the ERISA-covered plan or IRA. Notwithstanding the
above, an Affiliated QPAM may disclaim reliance on QPAM status or
PTE 84-14 in a written modification of a contract, arrangement, or
agreement with an ERISA-covered plan or IRA, where: the modification
is made in a bilateral document signed by the client; the client's
attention is specifically directed toward the disclaimer; and the
client is advised in writing that, with respect to any transaction
involving the client's assets, the Affiliated QPAM will not
represent that it is a QPAM, and will not rely on the relief
described in PTE 84-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed below, based on the administration record, the
Department makes the requisite findings under ERISA section 408(a) that
this exemption is: (1) administratively feasible, (2) in the interest
of Covered Plans and their participants and beneficiaries, and (3)
protective of the rights of the participants and beneficiaries of
Covered Plans. Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of the
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 requested to the Secretary of Labor. Accordingly, this final
individual exemption is being issued solely by the Department. Affected
parties should be aware that the exemption's conditions are,
individually and collectively, necessary for the Department to grant
the requested relief. Absent these conditions, the Department would not
have granted this exemption.
Benefits of the Exemption:
The Department's objective in granting this exemption is to protect
Covered Plans from the harms and costs UBS represents would be imposed
on them if the UBS QPAMs no longer could rely on the relief provided in
PTE 84-14. Among other important conditions, this exemption ensures
that Covered Plans can terminate their relationships with one of the
UBS QPAMs in an orderly and cost-effective fashion when the fiduciary
of a Covered Plan determines that it is prudent to do so. This
exemption promotes adherence to basic fiduciary standards and
responsibilities required by Title I of ERISA and the Code by the UBS
QPAMs and reinforces their obligation to act with a high degree of
integrity on behalf of their Covered Plan clients as required by PTE
84-14.
Background
1. UBS is a Swiss-based global financial services company organized
under the laws of Switzerland. On June 12, 2023, UBS acquired CSAG,
another Swiss-based global financial services firm. This acquisition
brought Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC, a subsidiary of CSAG and a
QPAM, under the UBS corporate umbrella. UBS represents that on May 1,
2024, Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC was merged into UBS Asset
Management (Americas) LLC. (UBS Americas), and UBS Americas is the
surviving entity after the merger. As of November 5, 2024, UBS
represents that UBS Americas is the only current Affiliated QPAM.
PTE 84-14
2. PTE 84-14 reflects the Department's conclusion that it could
provide broad relief from the prohibited transaction provisions of
ERISA section 406(a) and Code section 4975(c)(1) only if the
commitments and the investments of plan assets and the negotiations
leading thereto are the sole responsibility of an independent
discretionary manager called a Qualified
[[Page 3930]]
Plan Asset Manager or ``QPAM'' that meets the exemption's
conditions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Qualified Plan Asset Manager'' or ``QPAM'' is defined in
Section VI(a) of PTE 84-14. (See 89 FR 65, 23090, 23141 (April 3,
2024)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 provides that a QPAM becomes
ineligible to rely on the relief provided by PTE 84-14 for ten years
following: (1) a Criminal Conviction, as such term is defined in
Section VI(s) of PTE 84-14, of the QPAM or an ``affiliate'' thereof,\6\
or any direct or indirect owner of a five percent or more interest in
the QPAM; or (2) on or after June 17, 2024, the date on which the QPAM,
an ``affiliate'' thereof, or any direct or indirect owner of a five
percent or more interest in the QPAM is found or determined in a final
judgment or court-approved settlement by a Federal or State criminal or
civil court to have engaged in Prohibited Misconduct, as such term is
defined in Section VI(t) of amended PTE 84-14.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section VI(d) of PTE 84-14 defines the term ``affiliate''
for purposes of Section I(g) as ``(1) Any person directly or
indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with the person, (2) Any
director of, relative of, or partner in, any such person, (3) Any
corporation, partnership, trust or unincorporated enterprise of
which such person is an officer, director, or a five percent or more
partner or owner, and (4) Any employee or officer of the person
who--(A) is a highly compensated employee (as defined in Section
4975(e)(2)(H) of the Code) or officer (earning 10 percent or more of
the yearly wages of such person), or (B) has direct or indirect
authority, responsibility or control regarding the custody,
management or disposition of plan assets.'' (See 89 FR 23090, 23141
(April 3, 2024)).
\7\ The prohibited misconduct provision was effective on June
17, 2024 (89 FR 65, 23090 (April. 3, 2024)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The Department included Section I(g) in PTE 84-14 based on its
expectation that QPAMs will maintain a high standard of integrity in
order to remain eligible to receive the broad prohibited transaction
relief provided in PTE 84-14. This expectation extends not only to the
QPAM itself, but also to those who may be in a position to influence
the QPAM's policies.
Relevant Convictions
5. UBS-related entities are currently the subject of four criminal
convictions that violate Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 (the Convictions).
To protect Covered Plans from the costs and harms that UBS represents
could arise if the UBS QPAMs suddenly lost their ability to engage in
potentially beneficial transactions on behalf of their Covered Plan
clients under PTE 84-14 due to these Convictions, the Department issued
several temporary individual prohibited transaction exemptions over
several years with protective conditions that are discussed below.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In connection with the Credit Suisse-related convictions,
the Department issued the following exemptions: PTE 2022-01 (87 FR
1186 (Jan. 10, 2022)); PTE 2019-07 (84 FR 61928 (Nov. 14, 2019));
PTE 2015-14 (80 FR 59817 (Oct. 2, 2015)); PTE 2014-11 (79 FR 68716
(Nov. 18, 2014)). In connection with the UBS-related convictions,
the Department issued: PTE 2020-01 (85 FR 8020 (Feb. 12, 2020)); PTE
2019-01 (84 FR 6163 (Feb. 26, 2019)); PTE 2017-07 (82 FR 61903 (Dec.
29, 2017)); PTE 2016-17 (81 FR 94049 (Dec. 22, 2016)); PTE 2013-09
(78 FR 56740 (Sep. 13, 2013)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The 2017 UBS Conviction. In 2013, UBS Securities Japan Co. Ltd.
(UBS Securities Japan) pled guilty to a crime arising out of its
fraudulent submission of Yen London Interbank Offer (Yen LIBOR) rates
between 2006 and 2009, and its participation in a scheme to defraud
counterparties to interest rate derivatives trades executed on its
behalf by secretly manipulating certain benchmark interest rates to
which the profitability of those trades was tied (the 2013 UBS
Conviction).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The UBS QPAMs received exemptive relief to continue to rely
on PTE 84-14 notwithstanding the 2013 Conviction. However, the
Section I(g) disqualification period for the 2013 Conviction expired
on or about February 19, 2023; therefore, the UBS QPAMs no longer
require exemptive relief from the Department to continue their
reliance on PTE 84-14 with respect to the 2013 conviction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. In connection with misconduct related to the 2013 UBS
Conviction, UBS and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (the LIBOR NPA) wherein the
DOJ agreed not to criminally prosecute UBS for any crimes related to
UBS's misconduct involving its submission of Yen LIBOR rates and other
benchmark rates between 2001 and 2010 (LIBOR Manipulation). A provision
of DOJ's LIBOR NPA required UBS to avoid engaging in additional
criminal activity for two years from the date of the LIBOR NPA.
8. Separately from the LIBOR Manipulation and after entering into
the LIBOR NPA, UBS also was determined by DOJ to have participated in
deceptive currency trading and sales practices with respect to certain
foreign exchange (FX) market transactions and collusive conduct in
certain FX markets (FX Misconduct). DOJ determined that by engaging in
the FX Misconduct, UBS had breached the terms of the LIBOR NPA. As a
result, UBS entered a guilty plea and was convicted on January 10, 2017
of engaging in the LIBOR Manipulation that was the subject of the LIBOR
NPA. Specifically, UBS pled guilty to a scheme to defraud
counterparties to interest rate derivatives transactions by secretly
manipulating benchmark interest rates to which the profitability of
those transactions was tied. This conviction is referred to as the
``2017 UBS Conviction,'' \10\ which disqualifies UBS-related QPAMs from
relying on the relief set forth in PTE 84-14 for a ten-year period from
January 10, 2017, through January 9, 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In PTE 2023-14, the Department erroneously referred to this
conviction as the 2018 Conviction. The conviction actually occurred
on January 10, 2017 (as described in PTE 2020-01, the prior UBS
exemption).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The 2014 CSAG Conviction. On May 19, 2014, the Tax Division of
DOJ and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia
filed a one-count criminal information in the District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia charging CSAG with a conspiracy to violate
Code section 7206(2) in contravention of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 371. According to the Statement of Facts, for decades before
and through approximately 2009, CSAG operated an illegal cross-border
banking business that knowingly and willfully aided and assisted
thousands of U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared
accounts that concealed offshore assets and income from the Internal
Revenue Service. On May 19, 2014, pursuant to a plea agreement (the
Plea Agreement), CSAG pleaded guilty to a charge of assisting U.S.
citizens in federal income tax evasion. The District Court entered a
judgment of conviction against CSAG on November 21, 2014, which
disqualified CSAG-related (and, thus, UBS-related QPAMs due to the
merger) from the relief set forth in PTE 84-14 from November 21, 2014,
through November 20, 2024.
10. The 2019 UBS France Conviction. In 2013, France opened an
investigation into UBS, UBS France, and certain former employees of UBS
France S.A. The investigation centered on the maintenance of foreign
(``cross-border'') UBS bank accounts held for private citizens.
Following a trial in the French First Instance Court, the French court
convicted UBS and UBS France on February 20, 2019, of illegally
soliciting clients from 2004 to 2012 and laundering the proceeds of tax
fraud from 2004 to 2012. Based on this conviction, the UBS-related
QPAMs were disqualified from relying on the relief provided in PTE 84-
14 from February 20, 2019, through February 19, 2029.
11. The 2022 Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited (CSSEL)
Conviction.
On October 19, 2021, DOJ's, Criminal Division, Money Laundering and
Asset Recovery Section and Fraud Section and the United States
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York, filed a
criminal information in the District Court for the Eastern District of
New
[[Page 3931]]
York charging CSSEL with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349. CSSEL agreed to resolve the action
through a plea agreement presented to the New York District Court on
October 19, 2021 (the CSSEL Plea Agreement). Under the CSSEL Plea
Agreement, CSSEL agreed to enter a guilty plea to the charge set out in
the CSSEL information (the CSSEL Plea).
The District Court entered a judgment of conviction against CSSEL
on July 22, 2022. Due to the judgement of conviction, the CSAG-related
QPAMs (and, thus, UBS-related QPAMs due to the merger) are ineligible
from relying on the relief set forth in PTE 84-14 from July 22, 2022
through July 21, 2032.
Requests for Relief and Additional Information
12. On April 17, 2023, UBS and CSAG (and their affiliated QPAMs)
submitted an exemption application to the Department that requested
modifications to their existing exemptions due to their imminent
merger. On June 2, 2023, the Department published PTE 2023-14, which
allowed UBS-related and Credit Suisse-related QPAMs to continue to rely
on PTE 84-14, notwithstanding the Convictions, for one year following
the date of the merger, which UBS represents occurred on June 12, 2023
(the Merger). PTE 2023-14 had an audit requirement tailored to the
unique circumstances of the one-year exemption, which is referred to as
the Stub Period Audit.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Before the merger of UBS and CSAG, PTE 2020-01 required
that the UBS QPAMs submit to annual audits covering periods from
March 20 through March 19 of the following year (the CS QPAMs were
on a different audit schedule). Upon the merger of UBS and CSAG on
June 12, 2023, a one-year temporary exemption provided in PTE 2023-
14 became effective. PTE 2023-14 provided that the combined UBS-CSAG
entity would resume audits on a unified schedule from June 12, 2023,
through June 11, 2024. Thus, the last audit to occur under PTE 2020-
01, originally scheduled from March 20, 2023 through March 19, 2024,
was modified to run from March 20, 2023, through June 11, 2023 and
became known as the Stub Period Audit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. On February 22, 2024, UBS filed an exemption application with
the Department that requested a five-year extension of PTE 2023-14 from
June 12, 2024, through June 11, 2029. During the Department's review
process for UBS' exemption application, the Department requested
additional information from UBS regarding the auditor's findings for
each audit that was performed before its application was submitted. In
response, UBS' counsel notified the Department on May 3, 2024, that UBS
failed to complete the Stub Period Audit report, and UBS did not submit
the certified audit report to the Department until May 10, 2024.\12\ In
fact, the record currently before the Department indicates that UBS did
not engage the independent auditor, Fiduciary Counselors Inc, to
complete the Stub Period Audit until March 18, 2024, notwithstanding
the fact that PTE 2023-14 required the audit to be completed by
December 9, 2023, and for the audit report to be certified and
submitted to the Department by January 23, 2024. The Department stated
in the proposed exemption that UBS should have engaged an independent
auditor well in advance of the dates set forth in Section III(j) of the
exemption for the audit to be timely completed and for the audit report
to be timely certified and submitted to the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In a supplemental letter to the Department dated May 29,
2024, UBS' counsel informed the Department that the auditor notified
UBS about the failure to complete the stub audit in January 2024,
and the auditor sent a draft of the engagement letter to perform the
audit to UBS on February 12, 2024. These events occurred before the
Department received UBS' exemption application on February 23, 2024,
and UBS should have disclosed them in its exemption application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. On June 11, 2024, the Department published a proposed exemption
in the Federal Register with an effective period from June 12, 2024,
through June 11, 2029. The Proposal alerted UBS that its failure to
timely comply with the Stub Period Audit requirement violated an
important condition of the relief the Department provided in PTE 2023-
14. UBS itself pointed out the importance of the audit requirement in
its exemption application where it stated that, ``[t]he purpose of the
independent audit is to give [Covered Plan] clients and the Department
the confidence that the asset manager is complying with ERISA, and that
continued exemptive relief is warranted.'' In the Proposal, the
Department reiterated this point by stating that it included the
independent audit requirements in the exemption to ensure that the UBS
QPAMs remain insulated from the convicted UBS and Credit Suisse
entities and could be trusted to safeguard plan assets, notwithstanding
the convictions.
15. Because the UBS QPAMs failed to comply with the audit
conditions of the exemption, the Department determined that they were
ineligible to rely on the relief provided by PTE 2023-14, and the
Department indicated in the proposed exemption that it is considering
whether it should grant retroactive relief extending back to June 12,
2023 as part of this exemption, which would otherwise provide relief
only from June 12, 2024 through June 11, 2029. The Department requested
comments from UBS, the public, and interested parties on whether
retroactive relief is appropriately including in this exemption, which
would extend exemptive coverage to include the period from June 12,
2023, through June 11, 2024, as well as June 12, 2024, through June 11,
2029. The Department also requested UBS provide a detailed statement
regarding how a grant of retroactive relief would be consistent with
the requirements for such relief set forth in the Department's
exemption procedure regulation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 29 CFR 2570.35(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. In connection with the Department's request for comment on
retroactive relief, in the Proposal, the Department also requested UBS
to describe how Covered Plans were safeguarded in light of this failure
to satisfy the Stub Audit condition and whether UBS acted in good faith
despite its failure. UBS's comments and the Department's responses to
those comments are discussed below.
Retroactive Relief Periods
17. The exemption provides retroactive relief to UBS for two
periods. The first period covers June 12, 2023, through June 11, 2024,
and allows UBS QPAMs to rely on PTE 84-14 despite UBS' failure to
comply with the Stub Period Audit requirement in Section III(j)(1) of
PTE 2023-14. The second period of retroactive relief applies from June
12, 2024, through January 15, 2025, and is needed because UBS failed to
submit a complete exemption application with sufficient information
(including a description of its failure to meet the Stub Period Audit
Requirement) and enough lead time for the Department to develop a
complete administrative record, publish a proposed exemption with an
adequate public notice and comment period, consider the public comments
received, and publish this grant notice exemption before the relief
provided under PTE 2023-14 expired.
Department's Note:
18. The Department notes that this individual exemption would
solely provide relief from the ineligibility under PTE 84-14 Section
I(g) that occurred with respect to the four criminal convictions of
entities within the UBS corporate family that are described above. The
conditions of this exemption require the UBS QPAMs to adhere to every
other specific condition for relief that is required under PTE 84-14,
as amended, including the ineligibility provision in the amended
version of PTE 84-14, which became effective on June 17, 2024. If any
UBS-
[[Page 3932]]
Affiliated QPAMs violate any conditions of amended PTE 84-14 in the
future, they would fail to comply with the requirements of the
exemption, and the relief provided under this exemption would become
unavailable.
Written Comments
19. In the Proposal, the Department invited all interested persons
to submit written comments and/or requests for a public hearing with
respect to the notice of the Proposal by July 29, 2024.\14\ The
Department received written comments from the following commenter: (1)
UBS; (2) an anonymous commenter; (3) the ERISA Industry Committee; (4)
SIFMA; and (5) a group of individuals referring to themselves as the
``QPAM Coalition.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ PTE 2024-03's original deadline for the comment period was
July 15, 2024. The Department extended the comment period to July
29, 2024, based on two requests from commentors. (See 89 FR 137,
58189).
\15\ The Department also received comments three months after
the end of the comment period, as extended, which the Department did
not consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. In granting this exemption, the Department has considered the
public comments noted above, as well as representations by UBS. If any
material statement or representation by UBS to the Department that is
included in its application or its comment is not or has not remained
completely and factually accurate, UBS must immediately alert the
Department.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The representations stated herein that are attributable to
UBS or any commenter do not reflect factual findings or opinions of
the Department. The Department notes that the availability of this
exemption is subject to the express condition that the material
facts and representations contained in the are true and complete at
all times, and accurately describe all material terms of the
transactions covered by the exemption. If there is any material
change in a transaction covered by the exemption, or in a material
fact or representation described in the application, the exemption
will cease to apply as of the date of the change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments From UBS
Comment 1: Department's Request for Justification of Retroactive Relief
for Failure To Perform Audit
21. As stated above, in the Proposal, the Department requested that
UBS demonstrate whether retroactive relief is appropriate, and that the
UBS QPAMs at a minimum: (a) ensured that appropriate safeguards were
established during the period of exemptive relief provided under PTE
2023-14 from June 12, 2023 to June 11, 2024, to protect the interests
of Covered Plan clients (the First Retroactive Period); (b) Covered
Plan clients were not harmed by non-exempt transactions during the
First Retroactive Period; (c) a responsible plan fiduciary acted in
good faith and took appropriate steps that were necessary to protect
the Covered Plans from abuse, loss, and risk during the First
Retroactive Period; and (d) the UBS QPAMs have adjusted their policies
and procedures in light of past failures to comply with PTE 2023-14 to
ensure that such failures will not reoccur.
22. Comment #1(a): UBS Ensured and will ensure that appropriate
safeguards were established during the First Retroactive Period to
protect the interests of Covered Plan. UBS stated that appropriate
safeguards were established during the First Retroactive Period despite
its failure to properly perform the required audit. Specifically, UBS
represents that the UBS official responsible for overseeing the audits
failed to meet the deadline, in part, because they mistakenly believed
that the Stub Period Audit's findings would be rolled into the
following year's audit report. UBS represents that, upon realizing the
mistake, it engaged an independent auditor who completed the Stub
Period Audit. The Auditor concluded that it found no deficiencies on
behalf of UBS or the UBS QPAMs during the Stub Audit period, and the
Auditor provided no recommendations for improvement. In its comment
letter, UBS asserted that the successful completion of the Stub Period
Audit, albeit late, evidences that UBS established adequate safeguards
to protect Covered Plans during the First Retroactive Period.
23. Comment #1(b): Covered Plan clients were not harmed by non-
exempt transactions during the First Retroactive Period. UBS
represented that Covered Plans were not harmed by non-exempt
transactions. To make that determination, UBS reviewed all Client Plan
transactions that UBS conducted from June 2023 to June 2024, which
encompassed more than 16,000 transactions. UBS' review determined that
there were, in fact, no non-exempt prohibited transactions. In this
regard, UBS determined that potentially implicated Client Plan
transactions for which UBS QPAMs would otherwise rely on PTE 84-14 were
either (1) covered, in the alternative, by other prohibited transaction
exemptions or (2) were not, in fact, prohibited transactions.
24. The transactions that UBS determined were not prohibited
transactions in need of exemptive relief consisted of approximately
three to four hundred loans held during the relevant period in which
one component of the investment--a service fee paid to an
administrative agent by the borrower, rather than the plan--was not
covered by an alternative exemption and very likely involved a party in
interest for many of the transactions. UBS confirmed to the Department,
however, that the fee was not paid from plan assets. UBS provided that
the fee was paid by the counterparty to the loans, not the plan or UBS,
and the fee was not incorporated in the plan's payment for the loans'
overarching investment because, as the lender, the plan's investment
was in the form of lending money to the counterparty. UBS further
stated that the borrower of these loans also selects the administrative
agent on its own accord without direction from plans or UBS.
Furthermore, the fees are usually negotiated between the administrative
service agent and the borrower before the identity of the plan lender
is even known.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Department is not opining on UBS' determination as to
whether the transactions it has described are prohibited
transactions as that is outside the scope of this prohibited
transaction exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Comment 1(c): A responsible plan fiduciary acted (and is
acting) in good faith and took (and will take) appropriate steps that
are necessary to protect the Covered Plans from abuse, loss, and risk
during the Relief Period. UBS maintains that the UBS QPAMs acted in
good faith to protect Covered Plans because they maintained extensive
protocols to ensure it upheld its fiduciary responsibilities and no
Covered Plans were harmed during the Relief Period. For example, UBS
represents that its protocols required the UBS QPAMs to seek the best
possible trade execution for each and every transaction regardless of
the identity of the counterparty, and in accordance with each of the
written investment guidelines approved by each Covered Plan. Further,
UBS addressed the failure to perform the Stub Audit and proposed
changes to its protocols, as discussed immediately below, to ensure
that such a failure does not reoccur.
26. Comment 1(d): The UBS QPAMs have adjusted their policies and
procedures in light of past failures to comply with PTE 2023-14 to
ensure that such failures will not reoccur. To prevent the reoccurrence
of a missed Stub Period Audit, UBS proposed to take the following
steps: (1) designate a second Compliance Officer both to facilitate the
timely completion of exemption reviews and audits and check to ensure
that exemption deadlines are correctly identified and completed; (2)
inform the Auditor in writing within 45 days after receiving the
Auditor's engagement agreement of the target dates for the Auditor to
send UBS the initial document requests and for UBS to respond to those
requests; (3)
[[Page 3933]]
require the Compliance Officers to provide the Auditor with the
Exemption Report created pursuant to Section III(m)(4)(ii) of the
exemption within seven days after the Exemption Report's completion;
(4) allow the Department to receive audit updates from UBS and the
Auditor upon request; and (5) provide the Department with a copy of the
Auditor's engagement agreement within 15 days after its execution.
27. The Department is persuaded that adding these conditions to the
exemption's existing protective conditions will be beneficial to
Covered Plans and has included them in this final exemption.
Comment 2: UBS' Materiality Argument
28. UBS contends that failing to adhere to a condition of PTE 2023-
14 relating to the due date of the Stub Period Audit should not cause
it to forfeit the exemptive relief provided in PTE 2023-14 because its
failure to comply with the condition was not a ``material failure.''
29. The Department strongly disagrees with UBS's materiality
argument. First, each condition in an exemption is material to the
Department's findings and must be adhered to in order for an ERISA-
covered plan, IRA, a party in interest, or disqualified person to rely
on the exemption. Second, the independent audits required by PTE 2023-
14 and similar exemptions are particularly vital to the Department's
findings, because they help ensure that, among other things: the QPAMs
adhere to their basic fiduciary obligations under ERISA; transactions
prohibited under ERISA section 406 are implemented in accordance with
the requirements of PTE 84-14 and monitored in a way that protects
participants; the Policies and Training requirements of the exemption
are maintained; and violations of the Policies and Training
requirements are promptly reported and remedied. The purpose of the
audit requirement is not merely to ascertain possible past violations,
but rather to promote and encourage an ongoing culture of compliance
for personnel subject to the audit. The latter goal is ill-served when
the QPAMs disregard their obligation to perform timely audits,
irrespective of whether any particular audit would have found serious
past violations of the exemption's conditions. Lastly, in contradiction
of UBS' contention that the failure to comply with the condition was
not a ``material failure,'' UBS acknowledged the importance of the
independent audit requirement in its exemption application, which
stated that, ``[t]he purpose of the independent audit is to give
[Covered Plans] clients and the Department the confidence that the
asset manager is complying with ERISA, and that continued exemptive
relief is warranted.''
Comment 3: Covered Plans Would Be Harmed Without an Exemption
30. UBS asserts that Covered Plans would incur harm if relief is
not granted, because Covered Plans would likely terminate their
relationships with the UBS QPAMs and hire new asset managers. UBS
contends that Covered Plans would switch because the Covered Plan's
fiduciaries would be uncertain as to which transactions would have
prohibited transaction relief, and as to the specific conditions and
limitations that would be imposed upon those transactions. UBS argues
that Covered Plans that switch asset managers would be harmed because
they would lose access to UBS's unique services and strategies.
Further, the Covered Plans would spend additional fees and incur lost
opportunities costs as a result of an asset manager switch, and the
additional fees would include costs incurred to solicit and hire a new
asset manager. UBS estimates Covered Plans would incur $90 million in
liquidation and reinvestment costs as a result of liquidating all of
the Covered Plan positions.\18\ In support of this estimate, UBS
provided a report from an institutional investment consultant
concluding that UBS' assumptions and methodology in calculating these
liquidation costs were reasonable and the estimation of $90 million in
liquidation costs was also reasonable.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ UBS submitted a report by an independent consultant in
support of the estimated liquidation cost.
\19\ The report was provided by John Minihan, Ph.D., a former
Senior Lecturer of finance at MIT Sloan School of Management, a
former associate editor of the Journal of Investing, and currently
an investment management industry consultant with 30 years of
experience in institutional investment consulting. Dr. Minahan
provided, in summary, that UBS's estimates and assumptions were
reasonable as expected values but with two minor caveats. First,
asset managers can take several years to transition assets and if
market conditions deteriorate during that time transitions could
cause additional risk to ERISA clients. Second, new asset managers
may decide that not all assets need to be liquidated and, if so, an
assumption that all assets need to be liquidated would overstate
transition costs. Dr. Minahan believes that these two caveats do not
undermine the reasonableness of the estimated expected values ``as
long as they do not overwhelm each other.'' He also provides that
these caveats are difficult to quantify and work in opposite
directions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Department's Note: While the Department recognizes that Covered
Plans may incur certain liquidation and reinvestment costs as a result
of liquidating their positions, UBS QPAMs are cautioned that if UBS
engages in future conduct prohibited by PTE 84-14, the Department may
not be able to make its required findings in order to grant future
exemptive relief. UBS QPAMs must take all prudent steps pursuant to its
obligations under ERISA section 404 to mitigate risks of losses to, and
to defray the reasonable expenses related to the investment of, Covered
Plan assets if UBS engages in future conduct prohibited by PTE 84-14.
The Department believes that the failure to take such basic steps, in
the event that the UBS QPAMs become ineligible for their exemptive
relief under PTE 84-14, would likely constitute a violation of the
QPAMs' fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of their Covered
Plan clients.
Comment 4: Nonquantifiable Harms Should Be Considered
32. UBS argues that the Department should include nonquantifiable
harms in the Department's findings. UBS suggests that the Department
has foreclosed including information about potential harms in its
findings unless the harm is estimated in dollar amounts.\20\ The
Department has no objection to considering any nonquantifiable harms
identified by UBS. However, information concerning the dollar value of
harms, including the methodology and assumptions made in reaching such
dollar values, are important to the Department's analysis. The
Department will consider representations about nonquantifiable harm to
Covered Plans to the extent the Department is able to determine that
the information presented is relevant, reliable, and necessary to the
Department's findings. The Department notes, however, that depending on
context and the type of harm that the applicant represents may occur,
the Department will request to see additional, quantifiable data in
order appropriately consider such representations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In footnote 24 of the Proposal, ``[t]he Department notes
that UBS provided information not mentioned in this proposal
regarding the potential losses to ERISA clients, but without clearly
identifying the dollar amount of losses to plans in concrete terms.
In such cases, the Department does not have enough information to
include such representations in its findings. However, the
information that UBS provided that the Department can rely on is
described below.'' 89 FR 49219 n.24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: Denying Exemptive Relief Would Negatively Impact the QPAM
Program as a Whole
33. UBS argues that denying prospective or retroactive relief would
result in wide-ranging consequences for all retirement accounts within
the
[[Page 3934]]
financial industry. UBS contends, for example, that denying relief
would make it more difficult for counterparties to transact with any
industry QPAMs because counterparties would be unsure if new
convictions or later-discovered issues would result in crippling
financial penalties for those counterparties. UBS argues that this
increased risk would be priced into the market for all retirement
plans, whether or not a QPAM is compliant with PTE 84-14 or an
individual exemption with respect to a failure to comply with PTE 84-14
I(g).
34. The Department agrees that a denial of UBS' exemption request
could have consequences for Covered Plans. However, these consequences
would be due to the widespread UBS-related criminal behavior that
occurred over long periods of time, involved massive amounts of client
assets, and UBS' inability to comply with the terms of PTE 2023-14 that
are described above. The Department does not believe that UBS' history
of criminal sanctions is representative of the industry as a whole, or
is likely to result in the sorts of consequences suggested by UBS with
respect to entities that have far different compliance histories.
35. Additionally, the Department notes that it is aware that UBS
and/or its affiliates are the subject of additional investigations that
could result in future violations of Section I(g) of PTE 84-14.\21\
While the Department cannot opine on the likelihood that UBS asset
managers will receive additional exemptive relief if it engages in
additional violations of Section I(g) of PTE 84-14, the Department may
take a proactive approach to protecting Covered Plans in light of the
uncertainty created by these additional investigations. Especially
given the history and extent of criminal conduct at issue, the
Department is considering proposing an individual exemption that would,
in certain circumstances, permit UBS asset managers to continue to
engage in the same covered transactions described in Section I of PTE
84-14, if the UBS QPAMs become ineligible again to rely on PTE 84-14
due to another violation of Section I(g) of PTE 84-14.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, for example, the following publicly available news
articles describing inquiries into possible UBS/Credit Suisse-
related misconduct: UBS's French unit placed under formal
investigation at https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/ubs-french-division-placed-under-formal-investigation-20160304; Credit Suisse
has violated US tax evasion deal, Senate Committee finds [verbar]
The Business Standard, at https://www.tbsnews.net/world/global-economy/credit-suisse-has-violated-us-tax-evasion-deal-senate-committee-finds-607578.
\22\ It is expected that a number of conditions would apply,
including that no QPAM or its personnel were involved in the
Prohibited Misconduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. As currently contemplated, the relief that would be provided in
the individual exemption would not be linked to PTE 84-14, and the
asset managers that rely on the individual exemption would not be
referred to as QPAMs.\23\ If the Department takes this approach, the
proposed individual exemption would be subject to a full notice and
comment period, and UBS, plan fiduciaries and plan counterparties would
have ample opportunity to comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The Department notes that, should UBS QPAMs become
disqualified from the relief in this exemption due to additional
UBS-related prohibited misconduct described in Section I(g) of PTE
84-14, Section I(i) of PTE 84-14 may permit UBS QPAMs to continue to
rely on the class exemption for one year, if the terms and
conditions of the class exemption are met. In that instance, the
effective date of the above-described individual exemption, if
granted, would begin following the period covered by Section I(i) of
PTE 84-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. The Department previously raised the possibility of this type
of individual exemption in the preamble to the PTE 2023-14 proposal and
requested comment from UBS. UBS responded that current QPAMs have
existing contracts that expressly rely on the QPAM exemption or include
representations that the asset manager is a QPAM, and those contracts
do not account for an alternative individual exemption such as the one
the Department described in the preamble to the proposal for PTE 2023-
14. Moreover, UBS asserted that the QPAM exemption is widely accepted
and understood by sophisticated clients; therefore, the Department's
withdrawal of the availability of the relief provided in PTE 84-14 for
a particular asset manager and substituting an alternative individual
exemption would put that asset manager at a competitive disadvantage.
UBS claimed that this result is directly contrary to the financial
strength and stability that regulators intended to be achieved by the
Merger, and that if the Department is interested in creating an
alternative individual exemption to the QPAM exemption, it should make
the alternative available to all asset managers concurrently with the
QPAM exemption, so that the alternative can gain broad market adoption.
38. The Department is not persuaded by UBS' response. The fact that
UBS QPAMs may have existing contracts with the provisions and
limitations described above, is not dispositive to the Department's
determination whether UBS QPAMs should be permitted to continue to rely
on PTE 84-14, especially considering UBS' multiple violations of
Section I(g) of the class exemption that call its integrity and
compliance culture into question. The Department is also skeptical of
assertions that it should rely on the parties' contract provisions as a
basis for disregarding exemption conditions or limiting the
consequences of violating those provisions. A QPAM cannot simply
contract with a client in a manner that ensures the QPAM will always be
able to remain a QPAM, regardless of the QPAM's or its affiliates'
behavior.
39. Further, the fact that the QPAM exemption is widely accepted
and understood by sophisticated clients suggests to the Department that
these counterparties would not be confused by an individual exemption
that clearly states it has the same scope of relief as Section I of PTE
84-14. UBS' ``competitive disadvantage'' arguments also do not support
a finding under ERISA Section 408(a) that UBS QPAMs should be permitted
to rely on PTE 84-14; particularly where to the Department's knowledge,
none of UBS' ``competitors'' have as many disqualifying convictions as
UBS.
40. Regarding UBS's suggestion that the Department should make the
individual exemption approach ``available to all asset managers
concurrently with the QPAM exemption, so that the alternative can gain
broad market adoption,'' the Department notes that the scope,
seriousness, and recurrent nature of UBS' prohibited misconduct are
unique. Therefore, the Department is not persuaded that making such an
individual exemption available for broad market adoption is presently
warranted.
Comment 6: Indemnification
41. Section III(k) of PTE 2023-14 requires UBS to ``indemnify and
hold harmless the Covered Plans for any actual losses resulting
directly from UBS QPAM's violation of fiduciary duties, prohibited
transactions, breach of contract, or any claim arising out of the
failure of such QPAM to qualify for the exemptive relief provided by
PTE 84-14 as a result of violation of Section I(g) of PTE 84-14.'' \24\
Given this
[[Page 3935]]
requirement, the Department requested in the Proposal that UBS comment
on why Covered Plans would incur the liquidation and other costs
identified by UBS if the Department does not grant relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ PTE 2023-14, Section III(k)(2) requires UBS QPAMs ``[t]o
indemnify and hold harmless the Covered Plan for any actual losses
resulting directly from the QPAM's violation of ERISA's fiduciary
duties, as applicable, and of the prohibited transaction provisions
of ERISA and the Code, as applicable; a breach of contract by the QP
AM; or any claim arising out of the failure of such QPAM to qualify
for the exemptive relief provided by PTE 84-14 as a result of a
violation of Section I(g) of PTE 84-14, other than a Conviction
covered under this exemption. This condition applies only to actual
losses caused by the QPAM's violations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. In its response, UBS argues that liquidation and additional
costs do not result ``directly'' from UBS's criminal convictions and
failures to comply with exemptive conditions. UBS argues instead that a
Covered Plan fiduciary and new asset manager's decision to liquidate
and reinvest plan assets is an intervening decision by a separate
agent, which is inconsistent with one of many definitions of
``directly'' contained in the Oxford Dictionary.
43. The Department disagrees with UBS's analysis. The condition
requires indemnification for costs that result ``directly'' from, among
other things, ``the failure of such QPAM to qualify for the exemptive
relief provided by PTE 84-14 as a result of violation of Section I(g)
of PTE 84-14.'' As UBS itself noted in a letter to the Department,
dated July 29, 2024, ``[i]n fact, Dr. Minahan, an expert in the field
of ERISA plan transitions, projects that if the Department does not
grant UBS a new exemption, ``then most, and likely all, UBS ERISA
Clients would feel forced to replace UBS as their asset manager.''
Certainly, to the extent Covered Plans ``feel forced'' to transition to
new asset managers because the UBS QPAMs could no longer rely on PTE
84-14, the liquidation and additional costs arising from the transition
constitute actual losses resulting directly from the failure of such
QPAM to qualify for the exemptive relief provided by PTE 84-14 as a
result of violation of Section I(g) of PTE 84-14. If a plan's fiduciary
is compelled to replace a UBS asset manager as a result of a violation
of Section I(g) and the asset manager's loss of QPAM status, the
affected plan is entitled to indemnification of its associated losses,
including the transitional expenses necessary to effectuate the switch
to a qualified QPAM.
Comment 7. Violation Notice
44. Section III(t) of the Proposal includes a condition that would
require UBS to send a Violation Notice, as defined therein, to Covered
Plans if UBS fails to comply with an exemption condition. UBS commented
that this proposed condition would be too difficult to administer and
would not materially increase protection for Covered Plans.
45. The Department disagrees. Providing timely information to
Covered Plans will allow their fiduciaries to take prudent and timely
steps, as necessary to protect themselves from loss of the exemption's
protections. This Violation Notice is particularly relevant to UBS due
to its history of recidivism.
46. However, the Department understands UBS' position that certain
aspects of the Violation Notice requirement may be difficult to
administer. In particular, UBS raised concerns regarding the difficulty
it would confront to determine whether a Violation Notice must be
issued. In response to this concern, and as a recognition that UBS may
need more time to make its required determination that sending a
violations notice is required, the Department has revised the deadline
in Section III to extend the time a Violation Notice must be provided
to Covered Plans as a result of a breach of an exemption condition,
from 14 to 30 days after the violation is discovered. In situations
where the auditor discovers a violation that the UBS QPAM had not
previously detected, the UBS QPAM may comply with the Violation Notice
condition by sending the Violation Notice to all affected Covered Plans
and the Department within 30-days after the completion of the audit, if
the notice includes an addendum describing the reason for the UBS
QPAM's failure to send the Violation Notice. This last provision is not
a substitute for UBS' own responsibility to take reasonable steps to
determine whether a violation has occurred.
Comment 8: Written Processes Related to Indemnification
47. Section III(v) of the Proposal would require all UBS QPAMs to
develop written processes that clearly describe: (a) how the QPAM
identifies and quantifies ``actual losses'' for purposes of Section
III(j)(2) of the exemption; and (b) how Covered Plans may recover or
avoid incurring the losses that the UBS QPAM must indemnify or hold
Covered Plans harmless from incurring pursuant to Section III(j)(2) of
the exemption. UBS commented that losses are too specific to each
Covered Plan for it to develop an effective written indemnification
process. Additionally, UBS asserted that it would be unable to develop
written processes for indemnification because the party seeking
indemnification would have to identify the specific covered losses or
expenses.
48. The Department disagrees with UBS' interpretation of this
condition. The condition simply requires UBS to establish a process
that would apply when Covered Plans submit indemnification claims, not
to identify all the specific losses or expenses that could conceivably
be covered in advance of violation. The process should, at a minimum,
inform Covered Plans of how to initiate a claim for indemnification
with a UBS QPAM (including a description of the information required to
be submitted) and provide reasonable time frames for the resolution of
claims. The process should also ensure that substantially similar
claims are treated alike, and Covered Plans are equitably treated based
on the merits of the claim rather than type or size of client. The
process also should require the UBS QPAM to fully and fairly notify
Covered Plans of the indemnification requirement and inform them that
they can submit questions relating to the final indemnification
provision to the Department's email inbox ([email protected]). The
Department believes that these clarifications address the concerns
raised by UBS.
49. Further, the Department has revised the provision in the final
exemption to require each UBS QPAM to complete the development of the
indemnification claims process and deliver a copy of the process to
each Covered Plan within 90 days after January 15, 2025, rather than
within 30 days as originally proposed. The extended timelines give the
UBS QPAMs enough time to specify appropriate processes and make any
required internal changes to operationalize such processes. The
exemption requires the UBS QPAMs to notify Covered Plans of any
subsequent material changes to the processes within 30 days after the
effective date of such changes.
Comment 9: Seconded Employee Definition
50. UBS commented that it has no fundamental objection to the
Department's proposed definition of ``UBS Seconded Employee'' in
Section I(l) of the Proposal.\25\ However, UBS
[[Page 3936]]
believes that the definition should reflect the language in the recent
Deutsche Bank exemption (PTE 2024-02), which does not contain this new
definition of Seconded Employee, to promote greater consistency across
individual QPAM exemptions.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The Proposal added a new definition of the term ``UBS
Seconded Employee'' that means, an individual nominally employed by
a Misconduct Entity who performs work on behalf of a qualified UBS
QPAM, provided that such UBS QPAM is solely responsible for the
management and control of the employee's job activities performed on
behalf of such QPAM. The UBS QPAM must be solely responsible for the
establishment of the employee's job duties and terms of employment
(including compensation, promotions, and benefits), and must have
supervisory responsibility with respect to, among other things, the
employee's performance, training, and disciplinary actions. The
definition of UBS Seconded Employee is used in Sections III(d) to
clarify that an employee of a Misconduct Entity may provide services
to a UBS QPAM, as long as the individual is a ``Seconded Employee.''
Sections III(a) and (b) require that Seconded Employees did not
participate in the conduct underlying the Criminal Activity or
receive compensation in connection therewith.
\26\ See 89 FR 76, 27789 (April 18, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. The Department has decided to retain the proposed language in
the final exemption. Conditions in the Department's individual
exemptions may evolve over time as it becomes clear that additional
clarity or substantive improvements are appropriate. The Department
notes that prior QPAM Section I(g) exemptions relied on the term
``seconded employee'' to permit certain employees to perform services
for QPAMs notwithstanding the fact that such employees were nominally
employed by a corporate entity that had been involved in
misconduct.\27\ In the recent Deutsche Bank exemption, PTE 2024-02,
that the Applicant points out, the Department declined to use the term
``seconded employee'' and instead included a description of the type of
employees permitted to perform services under these circumstances.\28\
In the Proposal, the Department created a defined term ``UBS Seconded
Employee'' in order to further streamline the operative language of the
exemption. The defined term also slightly modified the language from
that which was in the Deutsche Bank exemption to more clearly set forth
the requirement that the QPAMs have control over the seconded employee.
For example, the term ``oversight'' was changed to ``control'' and the
term ``day to day activities'' was changed to ``job activities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ These employees were required not to have participated in,
been aware of, and received compensation in respect of, any of the
misconduct.
\28\ Section III(g) of PTE 2024-02 provides that, ``Other than
with respect to employee benefit plans maintained or sponsored for
its own employees or the employees of an affiliate, DB Group
Services will not act as a fiduciary within the meaning of ERISA
Sections 3(21)(A)(i) or (iii) or Code Sections 4975(e)(3)(A) and (C)
with respect to ERISA-covered plan and IRA assets; provided,
however, that DB Group Services will not be treated as violating the
conditions of this exemption solely because . . . . (2) DB Group
Services' employees perform work on behalf of a DB QPAM that is
solely responsible for the management and oversight of the DB Group
Services' employee's day to day activities performed on behalf of
such QPAM, including the employee's performance, training, and terms
of employment (including compensation, promotions, and benefits),
including any such employees acting in a discretionary fiduciary
capacity with respect to the DB QPAM.'' See also 89 FR 76, 27795-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 10: Other Edits
52. UBS requested that the Department make the following edits to
the Proposal's operative text, which it characterizes as clarification
of facts or technical corrections:
(a) The definition of ``CSAG'' in Section I(a)(1) should be revised
to clarify that CSAG merged into UBS AG on May 31, 2024, with UBS AG as
the surviving entity.
Department Response: The Department concurs and has made the
change.
(b) The definition of ``UBS Americas'' in Section I(a)(5) should be
revised to reflect that UBS AM Americas no longer is wholly owned by
UBS Americas, Inc.
Department Response: The Department concurs and has revised Section
I(a)(5) to reflect that UBS AM is majority-owned by UBS Americas, Inc.
(c) The definition of ``UBS Hedge Fund Solutions LLC'' in Section
I(a)(7) should be deleted because UBS Hedge Fund Solutions LLC merged
with UBS Asset Management (Americas) LLC, on April 1, 2024.
Department's Response: The Department has not made the requested
change, because the definition in the Proposal provides clarity that
the retroactive relief covers the subject entity as well.
(d) The definition of ``Affiliated QPAM'' should be modified to
reflect that UBS AM Americas is the only current UBS QPAM, and a future
additional QPAM may sit within a successor of the Asset Management or
Global Wealth Management Americas U.S. divisions of UBS.
Department's Response: The Department has not made UBS' requested
changes, because the retrospective nature of this exemption warrants
defining the term ``Affiliated QPAM'' consistent with PTE 2023-14, and
UBS' requested change would allow an entity to qualify as an Affiliated
QPAM notwithstanding that it also fits within the definition of
Misconduct Entity.
(e) The footnote in Section I(b) should be deleted.\29\ This
footnote is unnecessary. Moreover, UBS O'Connor LLC no longer exists;
it merged with UBS AM Americas on April 1, 2024, with UBS AM Americas
as the surviving entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ This footnote states that ``UBS represents that UBS
O'Connor LLC and UBS Realty Investors LLC are entities under the UBS
corporate umbrella that currently offer investment products which
are accessible by ERISA-covered plans, but do not currently rely on
Class PTE 84-14 when managing those products.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department's Response: The Department concurs and has made the
change.
(f) The definition of ``Misconduct Entity'' in Section I(i) should
be revised to remove ``CSAG,'' as CSAG no longer exists.
Department's Response: The Department has not made the requested
change, because the proposed definition provides clarity that
retroactive relief covers periods of time that CSAG existed.
(g) The reference to ``CS Affiliated QPAM[s]'' in the footnote in
Section III(h)(1) should be deleted.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The referenced footnote states that ``[t]he exemption does
not preclude the UBSQPAMs and CS Affiliated QPAM from maintaining
separate Policies provided that the Policies comply with this
exemption.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department's Response: The Department concurs and has made the
change.
(h) Section III(i) should be revised to require provision of a copy
of the audit report to the Risk Committee of UBS Group AG's Board of
Directors and to a senior executive officer of UBS Group AG's
Compliance and Operational Risk Control function.
Department's Response: The Department concurs and has made the
requested change.
(i) The phrase ``one-year exemption'' should be revised to ``five-
year exemption'' in Sections III(i)(3) and III(k).
Department's Response: The Department concurs that the operative
language in Sections III(i)(3) and III(k) should not read ``one-year
exemption'' and has modified the provisions to read ``exemption.''
(j) Section III(m)(1)(ii) should be revised to require that the
compliance officer (or officers) have a direct reporting line to either
the highest-ranking corporate officer in charge of compliance for the
applicable Affiliated QPAM or the highest-ranking corporate officer in
charge of the applicable Affiliated QPAM. This would allow the QPAM to
designate the highest-ranking corporate compliance officer as a
``compliance officer'' under the exemption.
Department's Response: The Department concurs and has made the
requested change.
(k) Section III(l) should be included in the list in the first
clause of Section III(s), and the reference in the second clause of
Section III(s) should be to Section III(i)(10), not Section III(i)(11).
[[Page 3937]]
Department's Response: The Department concurs and has made UBS'
requested changes, although due to changes to Section III(i) described
above, the latter change was made to Section III(i)(12) not Section
III(i)(11).
(l) The phrase ``at all times'' should be deleted from Section
III(u),\31\ because that phrase is inconsistent with the Proposed
Exemption's statement that only ``material change[s]'' in ``material
fact[s] or representation[s]'' would affect the status of the
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Section III(u) provides that, ``All the material facts and
representations set forth in the Summary of Facts and
Representations are true and accurate at all times.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department's Response: The Department disagrees with this revision.
If, at any time, a material representation UBS made to the Department
is no longer accurate, UBS must immediately inform the Department. If
UBS has questions regarding the materiality of a representation, it
should contact the Office of Exemption Determinations immediately.
Industry Comments
SIFMA (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association) and the
ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC)
53. SIFMA and ERIC's comment letters argue that if the Department
does not grant UBS retroactive relief, it will cause wide ranging
disruption to the securities markets.
54. The Department notes that it has addressed these broad concerns
in its response to Comment 5, above. The Department reiterates that it
must make the findings required by ERISA section 408(a) in order to
grant an exemption with respect to the particular applicant seeking
relief and for the transactions described in the application. If a QPAM
or related party's behavior precludes such a finding, any wide-ranging
disruption to the securities markets that results would be solely
attributable to behavior of such QPAM or related party. As such, many
of the concerns raised in SIFMA and ERIC's comments are outside the
scope of this exemption.
Anonymous
55. An anonymous commenter stated without specificity that the
Department should not grant the proposed exemption in order to better
protect the financial industry from corruption. Since the comment
offered no further reasoning or substance, the Department cannot
respond with specificity to this comment. This exemption, however, has
taken the commenter's position into account by ensuring that Covered
Plans are insulated from UBS' malfeasance.
The QPAM Coalition Comment 1: Hearing Request
56. A commenter entitled the ``QPAM Coalition,'' is comprised of,
at various times, Mr. James S. Henry; Mr. John Christensen; Dr. Paul J.
Morganoff; Mr. Ralph Nader; Mr. Khadija Sharife; Mr. Ke Francis Karugu;
and Mr. and Mrs. Andreas and Dagmar Frank. The coalition made two
separate submissions during the comment period, which are considered
together for purposes of this granted notice. As a preliminary matter,
the QPAM Coalition requested a public hearing to provide a ``more
thorough examination and interrogation.'' In the view of the QPAM
Coalition, the Application omitted critical data required by the
Department's exemption procedure regulation, and a public hearing is
needed to fully air the universe of relevant lawsuits and criminal
investigations concerning UBS' and Credit Suisse's conduct as a
fiduciary . . . .\32\ The QPAM Coalition states that ``extraordinary
new details about UBS/CS misconduct [discussed below] really do deserve
to be aired in public.'' The QPAM Coalition states that its members
``would be available to present even more [i]mportant evidence directly
related to the question of whether UBS/CS deserve to have their
(collectively) 14th QPAM Exemption since 1994, despite serial criminal
convictions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 29 CFR 2570.35(a)(5). The QPAM Coalition also takes issue
with UBS' representation that the ``number of plans and IRAs to
which the exemption will apply are too numerous to identify.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. The Department notes that most of the exemptions identified by
the QPAM Coalition were either extensions of existing exemptions or
necessitated by the merger of UBS and Credit Suisse. Such extensions do
not involve new instances of misconduct, and it is inappropriate to
treat them as if they were the result of new, distinct, and separate
violations of exemption conditions. To the contrary, the grants of
extensions generally reflected the Department's view that the QPAMs had
complied with the conditions of the initial exemptions. Similarly, it
is inappropriate to penalize the UBS QPAMs solely because they received
exemptions (including this one) that arose from the merger of Credit
Suisse and UBS; particularly when considering that these exemptions did
not arise from any additional criminal misconduct or failure to
supervise by UBS or its affiliates.
58. As the Department notes in its exemption procedure regulation
(the Procedures),\33\ ``[t]he Department will grant a request for a
hearing . . . where a hearing is necessary to fully explore material
factual issues identified by the person requesting the hearing.'' \34\
The QPAM Coalition provided an expansive and detailed description of
the ``extraordinary new details'' that needed to be discussed at a
public hearing in their comment letter. Although the QPAM Coalition
suggests that it could provide more evidence at a hearing, the
Department's regulations provide that it may decline to hold a hearing
if, among other things, ``the factual issues identified can be fully
explored through the submission of evidence in written (including
electronic) form.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 29 CFR part 2570 (76 FR 66637 (Oct. 27, 2011)).
\34\ See Section 2570.46(b).
\35\ See Section 2570.46(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. In the Department's view, the ``factual issues'' identified by
the QPAM Coalition could be and have been fully explored through the
submission of its written and electronically provided evidence. The
Department also notes that its Procedures provide that hearing
requestors must state, among other things, ``the nature of the person's
interest in the exemption and the manner in which the person would be
adversely affected by the exemption.'' \36\ The QPAM Coalition did not
state in their comment letters how they would be ``materially affected
by the exemption.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Section 2570.46(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. The Department notes that in processing UBS' exemption request,
it thoroughly reviewed UBS' application. The Department relied on
public comments and a robust exchange of information with UBS and
external stakeholders to fill in factual gaps in the public record. The
QPAM Coalition's own comment provided information concerning a number
of past and current investigations and prosecutions that form part of
the public record that the Department has reviewed in making its
requisite findings under ERISA section 408(a) Among other materials
provided in their comments, the QPAM Coalition provided the text of a
decision of the French Court of Cassation, Criminal Division, dated
November 15, 2023 dealing with UBS' participation in a cross-border tax
evasion via French and Swiss branches of UBS; a copy of the criminal
complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against UBS
Securities LLC, et al. on November 08, 2018 in Case No. 1:18-cv-06369-
RPK-PK; a comment letter describing additional lawsuits and criminal
trials that they believe should be taken into
[[Page 3938]]
consideration by the Department; \37\ copies of letters written by
members of the QPAM Coalition to the UBS General Counsel \38\
describing shortcomings in the compliance and controls of Credit
Suisse' banking systems and generally detailing efforts to inform UBS
and Credit Suisse of ``entrenched criminal structures'' within Credit
Suisse; a transcript of comments at the Department's November 2022
hearing regarding amendments to the QPAM Exemption; and a copy of a
letter to the Department \39\ advocating for the denial of Credit
Suisse's exemption application No. D-11819.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The comment letter provides information about: United
States v. UBS Securities, LLC, et al. (generally, UBS' conduct in
the mortgage crisis); Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC 601 U.S. 23
(2024) (regarding an employee's claim that UBS forced him to
fraudulently certify his analyst reports); U.S. v. Birkenfeld, Case
No. 08-60099-CR-ZLOCH (concerning offshore bank accounts and
suppression of whistleblower activity); and links to various French
and German tax fraud matters involving UBS.
\38\ Letter from Dr. Paul Morjanoff, Financial Recovery and
Consulting Services Pty Ltd to Ms. Barbara Levi, UBS Group General
Counsel, dated July 11, 2023.
\39\ Letter from Dr. Paul Morjanoff, Financial Recovery and
Consulting Services Pty Ltd to Thomas Perez, U.S. Secretary of
Labor, dated June 23, 2014.
\40\ Credit Suisse was granted PTE 2014-11 on November 18, 2014
(79 FR 68716).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. The QPAM Coalition's comment further supplemented the record
with articles written by its members that describe, among other things:
the role of Swiss banks in money laundering and corrupt banking
practices in Kenya; how, in the QPAM Coalition's view, Swiss bank
secrecy laws facilitate participation by UBS and Credit Suisse in
various criminal and political activities, including Swiss banks' past
involvement in South Africa's ``apartheid machinery''; political
activities in Yemen, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mozambique;
circumvention of European Union sanctions on various governments; the
facilitation of corrupt finance and banking activities in various
developing countries; and UBS' leveraging of the British Channel
Island's legal jurisdiction to avoid criminal prosecution for various
acts.
62. Finally, the QPAM Coalition submitted a brief article
advocating for an ``institutional grey list'' similar to ones
established by various inter-governmental organizations, such as the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, that would
assist the Department in evaluating financial institutions that
repeatedly find themselves in violation of applicable law. Even though
the information provided by the QPAM Coalition does not lead the
Department to conclude that a hearing is necessary to further explore
any of the issues presented in its comment, the information provided by
the QPAM Coalition validates the importance of one of the exemption's
critical conditions: an in-depth annual audit of each UBS QPAM by a
qualified, independent auditor. In this regard, the scope of ongoing
investigations and potential misconduct identified by the QPAM
Coalition in its comments illustrates the need for an independent audit
to verify on an annual basis that the UBS QPAMs continue to adhere to
applicable fiduciary provisions and the terms of this exemption and
maintain a strong culture of compliance.
63. Based on the record developed by the Department, it does not
appear to the Department that UBS QPAM personnel participated in the
conduct described by the QPAM Coalition. In fact, the Department is
able to make its findings that the UBS QPAMs may continue to rely on
PTE 84-14 in part because the QPAMs and their personnel are insulated
from the corporate management and business activities of UBS entities
that were involved in criminal activity described above. In this
regard, the independent auditor must continue to validate, among other
things, that the asset management decisions of the QPAM are conducted
independently of the corporate and management and business activities
of each Misconduct Entity, and any failures of the QPAMs to maintain or
follow the Policies must be corrected and reported to the QPAM's head
of compliance and general counsel.
The QPAM Coalition Comment 2: Rebutting UBS
64. The QPAM Coalition's comment focuses on rebutting UBS' five
``principal reasons'' justifying the Department's grant of a five-year
exemption. As described by the QPAM Coalition, UBS argues that (1) the
convictions and the pending French charge do not relate to the UBS
QPAMs, which are operated as separate businesses from the entities
involved in the underlying conduct; (2) the disqualifying conduct
described in the convictions and the pending French charge is
historical in nature; (3) the UBS QPAMs have documented proof that
ERISA plan assets have been safeguarded, as evidenced by their ERISA
audit results for many years; (4) it is in the best interest of plans
and their participants and beneficiaries for plan fiduciaries, well
versed in their obligations to protect plan assets, to be able to
select the asset managers they judge best, particularly when DOL-
supervised audits confirm the managers' capability; and (5) UBS and the
UBS QPAMs should not be punished, in effect, for the acquisition of
Credit Suisse AG by UBS Group AG at the strong encouragement of the
Swiss government.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See UBS Exemption Application, dated February 22, 2024, pp.
1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. In response to these arguments, the QPAM Coalition states that
(1) is irrelevant because the QPAM Exemption's required standard of
integrity relates to the ``corporate family's culture of compliance,''
and the exemption is a privilege to execute transactions which would
otherwise be illegal; (2) is irrelevant because ``UBS and Credit Suisse
repeatedly engaged in stonewalling and obstruction of investigations,
as well as legal tactics of interminable delays, even when they knew of
their own guilt;'' (3) the UBS and Credit Suisse audit reports are not
``proof'' because they did not assess all relevant factors, ``including
if financial instruments were being illegitimately laundered through
pension funds;'' (4) UBS and Credit Suisse should have taken its
responsibility more seriously before engaging in criminal activity;
moreover, according to the QPAM Coalition, the UBS entities are still
engaging in some of these behaviors; and (5) UBS benefitted greatly
from taking over Credit Suisse AG. The QPAM Coalition also points out
in their comment that the UBS QPAMs violated various conditions of the
exemption, including the requirement for the stub audit.
66. The Department has considered and rejected the QPAM Coalition's
request to deny the UBS QPAMs' exemption application. The QPAM
Coalition's points are addressed in turn:
(1) The Department agrees with the principle that the required
standard of integrity in PTE 84-14 relates not just to the QPAM's
compliance culture, but also to its ``corporate family's culture of
compliance.'' Therefore, an important aspect of the Proposal is that
the UBS QPAMs are operated separately from the parts of the UBS
organization that engaged in criminal misconduct underlying the
Convictions (Criminal Misconduct). The record in this case demonstrates
that the UBS QPAMs have been insulated from UBS' corporate and business
decisions, and from the parts of UBS that were involved in the Criminal
Misconduct. Furthermore, the Department designed the Proposal's first
six conditions for relief to ensure that the UBS QPAMs: (1) had no
involvement with the Criminal
[[Page 3939]]
Misconduct; and (2) continue to have no relationship with any entity or
individual that was involved in the Criminal Misconduct. In order to
further support the UBS QPAMs' insulation from the rest of UBS and to
strengthen their own culture of compliance, the Department included
other conditions in the Proposal that would require the UBS QPAMs to
maintain their own policies, procedures, and training program, perform
internal compliance reporting, and submit to a publicly available
independent audit;
(2) The Department agrees that it is important that the Department
consider the Criminal Misconduct irrespective of the applicant's
suggestion that it is ``historical in nature,'' and the Department has,
accordingly, considered all the Criminal Misconduct in connection with
this exemption. The Department considered the numerous convictions, and
the extent of UBS' cooperation (or non-cooperation) with investigators,
as well as the information provided by UBS, commenters (including the
QPAM Coalition), and other internal and external stakeholders, in
formulating the conditions for relief described in this exemption and
making its findings under ERISA section 408(a);
(3) The Department notes that the independent audits are meant to
verify that the assets of Covered Plans are managed in accordance with
the requirements of Title I of ERISA and the Code, as applicable, and
that the requirements of the individual exemptions from Section I(g) of
PTE 84-14 are met. The Department determined in this exemption and in
others that an independent audit with the requirements described
herein, provides a sufficient mechanism for the Department to make its
findings that the Proposal is protective of the rights of participants
and beneficiaries of Covered Plans; \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The Department notes that the record does not contain any
information that the UBS QPAMs illegally laundered financial
instruments through pension plans, and this has not been a specific
target of the independent audits required by the Department in
numerous individual exemptions. If the QPAM Coalition or any other
commenter has evidence demonstrating that the UBS QPAMs had used or
permitted money laundering through pension funds, this would be of
great import to the Department, and likely also to a number of other
Federal and international regulators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) The QPAM Coalition is not clear which responsibilities it is
referring to in its statement that UBS should have taken its
responsibilities more seriously before engaging in criminal activity.
In this regard, the Department notes that the Proposal is focused on
the actions of the UBS QPAMS and is not aware that the UBS QPAMs failed
to take their responsibilities under ERISA seriously prior to the
criminal activity engaged in by other UBS entities. However, the
conditions for relief in this grant notice require the UBS QPAMs to
adhere to Policies and Training designed to promote adherence to basic
fiduciary standards under Title I of ERISA and the Code and reinforce
their obligation to act with a high degree of integrity on behalf of
their Covered Plan clients as required by PTE 84-14. The Department
acknowledges the QPAM Coalition's statement that certain UBS entities
continue to be investigated for their participation in various forms of
misconduct, but it has not seen evidence of wrongdoing sufficient to
warrant a different approach to the exemption than that taken by the
Department. Also, when considering past and continuing Criminal
Misconduct by other corporate entities, the Department must consider
the potential harms to Covered Plans that may result from a denial of
the exemption. The final exemption reflects the Department's primary
focus on protecting Covered Plans and their participants and
beneficiaries from the costs that they may incur if the UBS QPAMs
become ineligible to rely on PTE 84-14, subject to the QPAMs' adherence
to protective conditions that insulate UBS QPAMs, and by extension
Covered Plans, from potential concerns based on the compliance culture
in other parts of the organization; and
(5) Lastly, the QPAM Coalition states that UBS benefitted greatly
from taking over Credit Suisse, thus undercutting the Applicant's
argument that UBS should not be punished, in effect for acquiring
Credit Suisse AG at the behest of the Swiss government. The Department
notes that its primary concern is to ensure that an exemption is in the
interest and protective of the rights of Covered Plans and their
participants and beneficiaries--not whether UBS benefitted from the
acquisition of Credit Suisse AG.
67. In sum, in response to the QPAM Coalition's rebuttal of UBS,
the Department acknowledges the severity of the misconduct at issue,
but also notes that none of the specific entities responsible for the
wrongdoing are granted relief under the terms of this exemption. In
addition to considering past misconduct, the Department must consider
the potential harms to Covered Plans that may result from a denial of
the exemption. Based on the written administrative record for this
exemption, the Department has concluded that the exemption's conditions
will appropriately ensure that Covered Plans are protected from future
violations, and insulated from the injury they could experience from
denial of the requested exemption. The Department also has determined
that a hearing is not necessary to further explore the issues raised in
the commenter's written submission.
The QPAM Coalition Comment 3: Request for Changes to the Exemption
68. The QPAM Coalition made a series of requests if the Department
determines to grant exemptive relief for the UBS QPAMs. Generally, the
QPAM Coalition requested that the Department: (1) require UBS to
provide additional information regarding the plans for which it
provides services; prohibit UBS from managing plan assets due to a
self-perception that it is ``above the law''; (2) limit the exemption's
effective period to two-years; (3) require UBS to pay monetary
penalties (presumably in order to rely on the QPAM Exemption);
implement a regime for monitoring UBS compliance with the exemption's
conditions that includes a panel of independent auditors; (4) establish
a public registry for all financial actors involved in working with
QPAMs; and (5)collaborate with financial regulators from around the
world in making its determinations regarding UBS' exemption request,
and other financial entities that on the relief provided in PTE 84-14.
69. The Department carefully considered the QPAM Coalition's
comments and determined not to make their requested changes for the
following reasons. First, the Department does not have the authority to
make some of the requested changes. For example, in connection with the
exemption process, the Department does not have the authority to
prohibit the UBS QPAMs from managing plan assets if the UBS QPAMs rely
on other available prohibited transaction exemptions or to require the
UBS QPAMs to pay additional monetary penalties based on the Covered
Convictions.
70. Second, in the Department's view, several of the QPAM
Coalition's recommendations would not provide meaningful protections to
Covered Plans. For example, limiting relief in the exemption to two
years as suggested by coalition would not provide much additional
protection to Covered Plans especially considering the exemption
condition requiring the UBS QPAMs to undergo an in-depth annual audit
by an independent auditor. The audit reports are publicly available and
could form the basis for the Department to revise or revoke this
exemption, if warranted or lead to a referral of the UBS QPAMs to
[[Page 3940]]
EBSA's Office of Enforcement in the event that violations of ERISA were
revealed through the audit. UBS QPAMs are well aware of these potential
consequences, which makes the audit an effective means to ensure
compliance with the provisions of Title I of ERISA and the terms of
this exemption. The Department also is not persuaded that a panel of
auditors would provide significant additional protection to Covered
Plans as compared to a single independent auditor experienced and
knowledgeable about ERISA and the terms of this exemption.\43\ The
Department reviews each audit and is empowered to seek additional
information from the auditor if the audit appears lacking in any
respect. The Department notes that Covered Plans already receive a copy
of the proposed exemption, the final exemption, the Summary and the
Statement. Further, the annual independent audit is available to all
Covered Plan fiduciaries through EBSA's Public Disclosure Room (see
above). This final exemption also adds two additional disclosure
requirements (the Violation Notice, and disclosure of the QPAMs'
indemnification procedures). The Department is skeptical that, under
the circumstances, more disclosure of the kind suggested by the QPAM
Coalition \44\ will benefit Covered Plans, and the QPAM Commenters
Coalition has not made a showing to the contrary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The ERISA Coalition also failed to provide any detail
regarding how the ``panel of auditors'' could be operationalized as
a condition for relief. Important unanswered questions include how a
panel of auditors would be chosen, how they would coordinate their
audit findings, and how any conflicts in their findings would be
resolved.
\44\ The QPAM Coalition, suggests, among other things, that
``foreign banks should provide information on why they wish to open
branches in the E.U. financial market, including submission of all
possible convictions, deferred prosecution agreements, and
equivalent measures, transparently and publicly.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
71. Regarding the comment that the Department should coordinate
with regulators around the world, the Department notes that it has
communicated with other regulators in the past during its consideration
of exemption requests and will continue to do so in the future when
appropriate to protect affected plans.
The conditions of this exemption are not intended to punish UBS or
burden the UBS QPAMs in a manner that will not provide meaningful
protections to Covered Plans. Instead, the Department's objective in
granting this exemption is to (i) insulate UBS QPAMs from the business
and corporate decision making of UBS and its affiliates and any
Criminal Misconduct or potential future misconduct of UBS and its
affiliates; (ii) allow Covered Plans to terminate their relationship
with the UBS QPAMs with minimal disruption to the Covered Plans; (iii)
create an annual reliable and independent public record that documents
the UBS QPAMs' level of compliance with the terms of this exemption and
adherence to their basic fiduciary duties; and (iv) provide the
Department with the flexibility to revise or revoke the relief in this
exemption in a manner most protective of Covered Plans if UBS engages
in future criminal activity.
Modifications to the Proposal the Department Is Making on Its Own
Motion
72. The Department has decided to make several minor changes to the
Proposal in the final exemption to correct scrivener's errors in the
operative text, renumber sections of the operative text, and make
certain updates to the factual record.
73. The Department also revised Section III(l) of the Proposal by
replacing text referencing the exemption's termination if a UBS entity
is convicted of a crime described in Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 and
replacing this text with the exemption's termination if a UBS entity
engages in conduct prohibited by Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 (see Section
III (l) in this exemption). The Department made this modification to
ensure consistency with the ineligibility requirements of the recently
amended PTE 84-14.
74. Section III(o) of the Proposal reads: ``Relief in this
exemption will terminate on the date that is six months following the
date that a U.S. regulatory authority makes a final decision that UBS
or an affiliate of either failed to comply in all material respects
with any requirement imposed by such regulatory authority in connection
with the Covered Convictions.'' The Department inadvertently omitted
the words ``or CSAG'' following ``UBS.'' Further, the Department has
determined to extend the relief period to one year to make the
provision consistent with the one-year transition period requirement in
Section I(i) of amended PTE 84-14. After these edits, Condition (o) of
this final exemption reads: ``this exemption will terminate on the date
that is one year following the date that a U.S. regulatory authority
makes a final decision that UBS or CSAG or an affiliate of either
failed to comply in all material respects with any requirement imposed
by such regulatory authority in connection with the Covered Convictions
[emphasis added].''
75. Finally, the Department modified Section III(s) of the Proposal
by adding language that an Affiliated QPAM will not fail to meet the
terms of this exemption if a different Affiliated QPAM failed to
provide Covered Plans with a Violation Notice required by Section
III(t) of this exemption. The Department is making this revision
because it did not intend for a QPAM to lose exemptive relief under the
exemption solely when a different QPAM fails to provide a Violation
Notice.
Publicly Available Information:
76. The complete application file (D-12098) is available for public
inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits
Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, reachable by phone at
(202) 693-8673. For a more complete statement of the facts and
representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this
exemption, please refer to the notice of proposed exemption published
on June 11, 2024 (89 FR 49213).
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 ERISA section 408(a) and/or Code section 4975(c)(2) does not
relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest from certain
requirements of other provisions of ERISA or the Code, including but
not limited to any prohibited transaction provisions to which the
exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility
provisions of ERISA section 404, which, among other things, require a
fiduciary to discharge their duties respecting the plan solely in the
interest of the plan's participants and beneficiaries and in a prudent
fashion in accordance with ERISA section 404(a)(1)(B); nor does it
affect the requirement of Code section 401(a) that the plan must
operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer
maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries.
(2) As required by ERISA section 408(a) and/or Code section
4975(c)(2), the Department finds that the exemption is: (a)
administratively feasible for the Department; (b) in the interests of
Covered Plans and their participants and beneficiaries; and (c)
protective of the rights of the Covered Plan's participants and
beneficiaries.
(3) This exemption is supplemental to and not in derogation of any
other provisions of ERISA and/or the Code, including statutory or
administrative
[[Page 3941]]
exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a
transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is
not dispositive for determining whether the transaction is in fact a
prohibited transaction.
(4) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express
condition that the facts and representations contained in the
application accurately describe all material terms of the transactions
that are the subject of the exemption and are true at all times.
Accordingly, after considering the entire record developed in
connection with UBS's exemption application, the Department has
determined to grant the following exemption under the authority of
ERISA section 408(a) and Code section 4975(c)(2) and in accordance with
the Department's exemption procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570,
subpart B.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemption
Section I. Definitions
(a) Names of Certain Corporate Entities:
(1) The term ``CSAG'' means Credit Suisse AG, which was 100% owned
by Credit Suisse Group AG, before UBS acquired Credit Suisse Group AG
on June 12, 2024, and became the sole surviving entity.
(2) The term ``CSAM LLC'' means Credit Suisse Asset Management,
LLC. On May 1, 2024, CSAM LLC was merged into UBS Americas, with UBS
Americas as the surviving entity.
(3) The term ``CSSEL'' means Credit Suisse Securities (Europe)
Limited an indirectly a wholly owned subsidiary of UBS Group AG.
(4) The term ``UBS'' means UBS AG which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of UBS Group AG.
(5) The term ``UBS Americas'' means UBS Asset Management (Americas)
LLC, which is majority owned by UBS Americas, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of UBS AG.
(6) The term ``UBS Europe'' means UBS Europe SE. UBS Europe is the
successor to UBS (France) S.A. UBS (France) S.A. was a wholly owned
subsidiary of UBS under the laws of France until 2023. In July of 2023,
UBS France S.A. merged into UBS Europe and set up a branch in France
called UBS Europe SE France Branch.
(7) The term ``UBS Hedge Fund Solutions LLC'' was formerly known as
UBS Alternative and Quantitative Investments, LLC and is wholly owned
by UBS Americas Holding LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of UBS. UBS
Hedge Fund Solutions merged into UBS Americas on April 1, 2024.
(8) The term ``UBS Securities Japan'' means UBS Securities Japan
Co. Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of UBS incorporated under the laws
of Japan.
(b) The term ``Affiliated QPAM'' means: UBS Americas, UBS Hedge
Fund Solutions LLC, Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC, and any future
separate legal entity within the Asset Management or the Global Wealth
Management Americas U.S. divisions of UBS that qualifies as a
``qualified professional asset manager'' (as defined in Section VI(a)
of PTE 84-14) and that relies on the relief provided by PTE 84-14, and
with respect to which UBS is an ``affiliate'' (as defined in Part VI(d)
of PTE 84-14). The term Affiliated QPAM excludes a Misconduct Entity.
(c) The term ``Criminal Activity'' means the Covered Convictions,
the 2013 UBS Conviction, and the FX Misconduct.
(d) The term ``Covered Convictions'' means (1) the judgment of
conviction against CSAG for one count of conspiracy to violate section
7206(2) of the Internal Revenue Code in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 371, that was entered in the District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia in Case Number 1:14-cr-188-RBS, on
November 21, 2014 (the ``2014 CSAG Conviction''); (2) the judgment of
conviction against CSSEL in Case Number 1:21-cr-00520-WFK (the ``2022
CSSEL Conviction''); (3) the judgment of conviction against UBS in case
number 3:15-cr-00076-RNC in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut for one count of wire fraud in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2 in connection with UBS's
submission of Yen London Interbank Offered Rates and other benchmark
interest rates between 2001 and 2010; and (4) the judgment of
conviction on February 20, 2019, against UBS and UBS France in case
Number 1105592033 in the French First Instance Court (the ``2019 UBS
France Conviction'').
(e) The term ``2013 UBS Conviction'' means the judgment of
conviction against UBS Securities Japan Co. Ltd. in case number 3:12 cr
00268 RNC in the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut for
one count of wire fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
sections 1343 and 2 in connection with submission of YEN London
Interbank Offered Rates and other benchmark interest rates.
(f) The term ``FX Misconduct'' means the conduct engaged in by UBS
personnel described in Exhibit 1 of the Plea Agreement (Factual Basis
for Breach) entered into between UBS and the Department of Justice
Criminal Division, on May 20, 2015, in connection with Case Number
3:15-cr-00076-RNC filed in the US District Court for the District of
Connecticut.
(g) The term ``Covered Plan'' means a plan subject to Part IV of
Title I of ERISA (an ``ERISA-covered plan'') or a plan subject to Code
section 4975 (an ``IRA''), in each case, with respect to which an
Affiliated QPAM relies on PTE 84-14, or with respect to which an
Affiliated QPAM (or any UBS affiliate) has expressly represented that
the manager qualifies as a QPAM or relies on PTE 84-14. A Covered Plan
does not include an ERISA-covered plan or IRA to the extent the
Affiliated QPAM has expressly disclaimed reliance on QPAM status or PTE
84-14 in entering into a contract, arrangement, or agreement with the
ERISA-covered plan or IRA. Notwithstanding the above, an Affiliated
QPAM may disclaim reliance on QPAM status or PTE 84-14 in a written
modification of a contract, arrangement, or agreement with an ERISA-
covered plan or IRA, where: the modification is made in a bilateral
document signed by the client; the client's attention is specifically
directed toward the disclaimer; and the client is advised in writing
that, with respect to any transaction involving the client's assets,
the Affiliated QPAM will not represent that it is a QPAM, and will not
rely on the relief described in PTE 84-14.
(h) The term ``Exemption Period'' means the period beginning on
June 12, 2024, and ending on June 11, 2029.
(i) The term ``Misconduct Entity'' means any one of the following:
an entity subject to one of the Covered Convictions, i.e., UBS, UBS
France (recently merged into UBS Europe), CSAG and CSSEL; the entity
subject to the 2013 UBS Conviction, i.e., UBS Securities Japan; or an
entity that was the subject of the FX Misconduct, i.e., UBS.
(j) The term ``Related QPAM'' means any current or future
``qualified professional asset manager'' (as defined in Section VI(a)
of PTE 84-14) that relies on the relief provided by PTE 84-14, and with
respect to which UBS owns a direct or indirect five (5) percent or more
interest, but with respect to which a Misconduct Entity is not an
``affiliate'' (as defined in section VI(d)(1) of PTE 84-14). The term
``Related QPAM'' excludes a Misconduct Entity.
(k) The term ``best knowledge,'' ``to the best of one's
knowledge,'' ``best knowledge at that time,'' and other similar ``best
knowledge'' terms shall include matters that are known to the
[[Page 3942]]
applicable individual or should be known to such individual upon the
exercise of such individual's due diligence required under the
circumstances, and, with respect to an entity other than a natural
person, such term includes matters that are known to the directors and
officers of the entity or should be known to such individuals upon the
exercise of such individuals' due diligence required under the
circumstances.
(l) The term ``UBS Seconded Employee'' means, an individual
nominally employed by a Misconduct Entity who performs work on behalf
of a UBS QPAM; provided that such UBS QPAM is solely responsible for
the management and control of the employee's job activities performed
on behalf of such QPAM. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the UBS
QPAM must be solely responsible for the establishment of the employee's
job duties and terms of employment (including compensation, promotions,
and benefits); and must have supervisory responsibility with respect
to, among other things, the employee's performance, training, and
disciplinary actions.
(m) The term ``UBS QPAMs'' means, individually or collectively, the
Affiliated QPAMs and/or the Related QPAMs.
(n) The ``conduct'' of any person or entity that is the ``subject
of'' the Criminal Activity encompasses any misconduct of CSAG, CSSEL,
UBS, UBS France (later merged with UBS Europe), UBS Securities Japan,
and/or their personnel: (i) that is described in Exhibit 3 to the Plea
Agreement entered into between UBS and the Department of Justice
Criminal Division, on May 20, 2015, in connection with case number
3:15-cr-00076-RNC; (ii) that is described in Exhibits 3 and 4 to the
Plea Agreement entered into between UBS Securities Japan and the
Department of Justice Criminal Division, on December 19, 2012, in
connection with case number 3:12-cr-00268-RNC; (iii) that is described
in Exhibit 1 of the Plea Agreement (Factual Basis for Breach) entered
into between UBS and the Department of Justice Criminal Division, on
May 20, 2015, in connection with Case Number 3:15-cr-00076-RNC filed in
the US District Court for the District of Connecticut; (iv) that is the
basis of the 2019 UBS France Conviction; and (v) that is the subject of
the 2014 CSAG Conviction and the 2022 CSSEL Conviction described in
Section I(c)(1) and (c)(2).
(o) The term ``participate in'' when used to describe an individual
or entity's participation in the Criminal Activity refers not only to
active participation in the Criminal Activity but also includes an
individual or entity's knowledge or approval of the Criminal Activity,
without taking active steps to prohibit such conduct, such as reporting
the conduct to the individual's supervisors, and to the Board of
Directors.
Section II. Covered Transactions
(a) UBS QPAMs are not precluded from relying on the exemptive
relief provided by Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-14 (PTE 84-14)
\46\ during the Exemption Period, notwithstanding the ``Covered
Convictions,'' provided that the definitions in Section I and the
conditions in Section III are satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 49 FR 9494 (March 13, 1984), as corrected at 50 FR 41430,
(Oct. 10, 1985), as amended at 70 FR 49305 (Aug. 23, 2005), as
amended at 75 FR 38837 (July 6, 2010), and as amended at 89 FR 23090
(April 3, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) UBS QPAMS are not precluded from relying on the exemptive
relief provided by PTE 84-14 during the period from June 12, 2023, to
June 11, 2024, notwithstanding UBS's failure to comply with Section
III(j)(1) of PTE 2023-14.
Section III. Conditions
(a) The UBS QPAMs (including their officers, directors, agents
other than the Misconduct Entities, employees of such QPAMs, and UBS
Seconded Employees) did not know nor have reason to know of and did not
participate in the conduct underlying the Criminal Activity. Further,
any other party engaged on behalf of the UBS QPAMs who had
responsibility for, or exercised authority in connection with, the
management of plan assets did not know or have reason to know of and
did not participate in the criminal conduct underlying the Criminal
Activity.
(b) The UBS QPAMs (including their officers, directors, agents
other than the Misconduct Entities, employees of such QPAMs, and UBS
Seconded Employees) did not receive direct compensation, or knowingly
receive indirect compensation, in connection with the criminal conduct
that is the subject of the Criminal Activity. Further, any other party
engaged on behalf of the UBS QPAMs who had responsibility for, or
exercised authority in connection with the management of plan assets
did not receive direct compensation, or knowingly receive indirect
compensation, in connection with the Criminal Activity.
(c) The Affiliated QPAMs do not currently and will not in the
future employ or knowingly engage any of the individuals who
participated in the criminal conduct underlying the Criminal Activity.
(d) At all times during the Exemption Period, no Affiliated QPAM
will use its authority or influence to direct an ``investment fund''
(as defined in Section VI(b) of PTE 84-14) that is subject to ERISA or
the Code and managed by such Affiliated QPAM with respect to one or
more Covered Plans, to enter into any transaction with a Misconduct
Entity or to engage a Misconduct Entity to provide any service to such
investment fund, for a direct or indirect fee borne by such investment
fund, regardless of whether such transaction or service may otherwise
be within the scope of relief provided by an administrative or
statutory exemption. An Affiliated QPAM will not fail this condition
solely because:
(1) A UBS (or successor) affiliate serves as a local sub-custodian
that is selected by an unaffiliated global custodian that, in turn, is
selected by someone other than a UBS QPAM; or
(2) Services are provided by UBS Seconded Employees.
(e) Any failure of an Affiliated QPAM to satisfy Section I(g) of
PTE 84-14 arose solely from the Covered Convictions.
(f) A UBS QPAM did not exercise authority over the assets of any
plan subject to Part 4 of Title I of ERISA (an ``ERISA-covered plan'')
or Code section 4975 (an ``IRA'') in a manner that it knew or should
have known would further the criminal conduct underlying the Criminal
Activity; or cause the UBS QPAM or its affiliates to directly or
indirectly profit from the criminal conduct underlying the Criminal
Activity.
(g) No Misconduct Entity will act as a fiduciary within the meaning
of ERISA section 3(21)(A)(i) or (iii) or Code section 4975(e)(3)(A) and
(C) with respect to ERISA-covered Plan and IRA assets, except that each
may act as such a fiduciary with respect to employee benefit plans
sponsored for its own employees or employees of an affiliate. No
Misconduct Entity will be treated as violating the conditions of the
exemption solely because it acted as an investment advice fiduciary
within the meaning of ERISA section 3(21)(A)(ii) or Code section
4975(e)(3)(B).
(h)(1) Each Affiliated QPAM must maintain, adjust (to the extent
necessary), implement, and follow the written policies and procedures
described below (Policies). The Policies must require and must be
reasonably designed to ensure that:
(i) The asset management decisions of the QPAM are conducted
independently of the corporate and management and
[[Page 3943]]
business activities of each Misconduct Entity, and without considering
any fee a related local sub-custodian may receive from those decisions.
This condition does not preclude an Affiliated QPAM, as defined in
Section I(b)(1), from receiving publicly available research and other
widely available information from a UBS affiliate;
(ii) The QPAM fully complies with ERISA's fiduciary duties, and
with ERISA and the Code's prohibited transaction provisions, in each
case as applicable with respect to each Covered Plan, and does not
knowingly participate in any violation of these duties and provisions
with respect to Covered Plans;
(iii) The QPAM does not knowingly participate in any other person's
violation of ERISA or the Code with respect to Covered Plans;
(iv) Any filings or statements made by the QPAM to regulators,
including but not limited to, the Department, the Department of the
Treasury, the Department of Justice, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, on behalf of or in relation to Covered Plans, are
materially accurate and complete, to the best of such QPAM's knowledge
at that time;
(v) To the best of its knowledge at that time, the QPAM does not
make material misrepresentations or omit material information in its
communications with such regulators with respect to Covered Plans, or
make material misrepresentations or omit material information in its
communications with Covered Plans; and
(vi) The QPAM complies with the terms of this exemption;
(2) Any violation of or failure to comply with an item in
subparagraphs (h)(1)(ii) through (vi) is corrected as soon as
reasonably possible upon discovery, or as soon after the QPAM
reasonably should have known of the noncompliance (whichever is
earlier), and any such violation or compliance failure not so corrected
is reported, upon the discovery of such failure to so correct, in
writing. This report must be made to the head of compliance and the
general counsel (or their functional equivalent) of the relevant UBS
QPAM that engaged in the violation or failure and the independent
auditor responsible for reviewing compliance with the Policies. A QPAM
will not be treated as having failed to develop, implement, maintain,
or follow the Policies, if it corrects any instance of noncompliance as
soon as reasonably possible upon discovery, or as soon as reasonably
possible after the QPAM reasonably should have known of the
noncompliance (whichever is earlier), and provided that it adheres to
the reporting requirements set forth in this subparagraph (2);
(3) Each Affiliated QPAM must maintain, adjust (to the extent
necessary), and implement or continue a program of training during the
Exemption Period (the Training) that is conducted at least annually for
all relevant Affiliated QPAM asset/portfolio management, trading,
legal, compliance, and internal audit personnel.\47\ The Training must:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The exemption does not preclude an Affiliated QPAM from
maintaining separate training programs provided each training
program complies with this exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) At a minimum, cover the Policies, ERISA and Code compliance
(including applicable fiduciary duties and the prohibited transaction
provisions), ethical conduct, the consequences for not complying with
the conditions of this exemption (including any loss of exemptive
relief provided herein), and the requirement for prompt reporting of
any wrongdoing;
(ii) Be conducted by a professional who has been prudently selected
and who has appropriate technical training and proficiency with ERISA
and the Code to perform the tasks required by this exemption; and
(iii) Be conducted in-person, electronically, or via a website.
(i)(1) Each Affiliated QPAM submits to an audit conducted by an
independent auditor, who has been prudently selected and who has
appropriate technical training and proficiency with ERISA and the Code,
to evaluate the adequacy of, and each Affiliated QPAM's compliance
with, the Policies and Training described above in Section (h). The
audit requirement must be incorporated in the Policies.
(2) UBS shall provide the Department a copy of the engagement
agreement with the independent auditor within 15 days after its
execution. Within 45 days after executing the engagement agreement with
the independent auditor, and after consultation with the auditor, UBS
must finalize and provide to the independent auditor a schedule for
completion of the audit. The schedule must include target dates for the
auditor to send initial information and document requests to UBS and
for UBS to respond to those requests. The Department's receipt and
incorporation of the engagement agreement into the record, with or
without comment, should not be taken as an indication that the
Department has approved of the engagement agreement.
(3) The initial audit under this exemption must cover the period
that begins on June 12, 2024, and ends on June 11, 2025, and the audit
must be completed by Thursday, December 11, 2025. The second audit must
cover the period that begins on June 12, 2025, and ends on June 11,
2026, and must be completed by Friday, December 11, 2026. The third
audit must cover the period that begins on June 12, 2026, and ends on
June 11, 2027, and must be completed by Monday, December 13, 2027. The
fourth audit must cover the period that begins on June 12, 2027, and
ends on June 11, 2028, and must be completed by Monday, December 11,
2028. The fifth audit must cover the period that begins on June 12,
2028, and ends on June 11, 2029, and must be completed by Tuesday,
December 11, 2029. Notwithstanding the audit periods described above,
the audit required under PTE 2023-14 must be completed for the prior
period of June 12, 2023, through June 11, 2024 and delivered to the
Department in accordance with the terms of that exemption. The prior
exemption audit report(s) must be submitted in accordance with section
III(i)(9) below;
(4) Within the scope of the audit and to the extent necessary for
the auditor, in its sole opinion, to complete its audit and comply with
the conditions for relief described herein, and only to the extent such
disclosure is not prevented by state or federal statute, or involves
communications subject to attorney-client privilege, each Affiliated
QPAM and, if applicable, UBS, must grant the auditor unconditional
access to its business, including, but not limited to: its computer
systems; business records; transactional data; workplace locations;
training materials; and personnel. Such access is limited to
information relevant to the auditor's objectives as specified by the
terms of this exemption;
(5) The auditor's engagement must specifically require the auditor
to annually determine whether each Affiliated QPAM has developed,
implemented, maintained, and followed the Policies in accordance with
the conditions of this exemption, and has developed and implemented the
Training, as required herein;
(6) The auditor's engagement must specifically require the auditor
to test each Affiliated QPAM's operational compliance with the Policies
and Training. In this regard, the auditor must test, for each
Affiliated QPAM, a sample of such Affiliated QPAM's transactions
involving Covered Plans, sufficient in size and nature to afford the
auditor a reasonable basis to determine such Affiliated QPAM's
operational compliance with the Policies and Training;
[[Page 3944]]
(7) For the audit, on or before the end of the relevant period
described in Section III(i)(1) for completing the audit, the auditor
must issue a written report (the Audit Report) to UBS and the
Affiliated QPAM to which the audit applies that describes the
procedures performed by the auditor in connection with its examination.
The auditor, at its discretion, may issue a single consolidated Audit
Report that covers all the Affiliated QPAMs. The Audit Report must
include the auditor's specific determinations regarding:
(i) The adequacy of each Affiliated QPAM's Policies and Training;
each Affiliated QPAM's compliance with the Policies and Training; the
need, if any, to strengthen such Policies and Training; and any
instance of the respective Affiliated QPAM's noncompliance with the
written Policies and Training described in Section III(h) above. The
Affiliated QPAM must promptly address any noncompliance and prepare a
written plan of action to address any determination as to the adequacy
of the Policies and Training and the auditor's recommendations (if any)
with respect to strengthening the Policies and Training of the
respective Affiliated QPAM. Any action taken or the plan of action to
be taken by the respective Affiliated QPAM must be included in an
addendum to the Audit Report (such addendum must be completed prior to
the certification described in Section III(i)(7) below). In the event
such a plan of action to address the auditor's recommendation regarding
the adequacy of the Policies and Training is not completed by the time
of submission of the Audit Report, the following period's Audit Report
must state whether the plan was satisfactorily completed. Any
determination by the auditor that an Affiliated QPAM has implemented,
maintained, and followed sufficient Policies and Training must not be
based solely or in substantial part on an absence of evidence
indicating noncompliance. In this last regard, any finding that an
Affiliated QPAM has complied with the requirements under this
subparagraph must be based on evidence that each Affiliated QPAM has
implemented, maintained, and followed the Policies and Training
required by this exemption. Furthermore, the auditor must not solely
rely on the Exemption Report created by the Compliance Officers, as
described in Section III(m) below, as the basis for the auditor's
conclusions in lieu of independent determinations and testing performed
by the auditor as required by Section III(i)(3) and (4) above; and
(ii) The adequacy of the Exemption Review described in Section
III(m);
(8) The auditor must notify the respective Affiliated QPAM of any
instance of noncompliance identified by the auditor within five (5)
business days after such noncompliance is identified by the auditor,
regardless of whether the audit has been completed as of that date;
(9) With respect to the Audit Report, the General Counsel, or one
of the three most senior executive officers of the Affiliated QPAM to
which the Audit Report applies, must certify in writing, under penalty
of perjury, that the officer has reviewed the Audit Report and this
exemption; that, to the best of such officer's knowledge at the time,
such Affiliated QPAM has addressed, corrected, and remedied any
noncompliance and inadequacy or has an appropriate written plan to
address any inadequacy regarding the Policies and Training identified
in the Audit Report. Such certification must also include the
signatory's determination that, to the best of such officer's knowledge
at the time, the Policies and Training in effect at the time of signing
are adequate to ensure compliance with the conditions of this exemption
and with the applicable provisions of ERISA and the Code;
(10) The Risk Committee of UBS's Group AG's Board of Directors is
provided a copy of the Audit Report; and a senior executive officer of
UBS Group AG's Compliance and Operational Risk Control function must
review the Audit Report for each Affiliated QPAM and must certify in
writing, under penalty of perjury, that such officer has reviewed the
Audit Report;
(11) Each Affiliated QPAM provides its certified Audit Report, by
regular mail to: Office of Exemption Determinations (OED), 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001; or via email to e-
[email protected]. This delivery must take place no later than 45 days
following completion of the Audit Report. The Audit Reports will be
made part of the public record regarding this exemption. Furthermore,
each Affiliated QPAM must make its Audit Reports unconditionally
available, electronically or otherwise, for examination upon request by
any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department, other
relevant regulators, and any fiduciary of a Covered Plan;
(12) The auditor must provide the Department, upon request, for
inspection and review, access to all the workpapers created and used in
connection with the audit, provided such access and inspection is
otherwise permitted by law;
(13) UBS must notify the Department of Labor's Office of Exemption
Determinations (OED) no later than 90 days after the Effective Date of
this exemption, of the auditor selected to complete audits required by
Section III(i)(1) above for the periods covering June 12, 2024, through
June 11, 2029. Any engagement agreement with an auditor to perform the
audit required by this exemption that is entered into subsequent to the
effective date of this exemption must be submitted to OED no later than
two months after the execution of such agreement;
(14) At the Department's request, UBS and the Auditor shall provide
the Department with updates about the progress of the audit. The
Department's requests may be directed to UBS and/or the auditor;
(15) For only the initial audit required by Section III(i)(1) above
for the period covering June 12, 2024, through June 11, 2025, the
auditor must consult with the auditors who performed the audits
required pursuant to PTE 2023-14 for the period of June 12, 2023,
through June 11, 2024, unless such auditor is the same auditor selected
under paragraph 11 of this subsection. UBS must notify OED if for any
reason the consultation required by this paragraph 12 cannot occur and
must provide an explanation for why the consultation cannot occur. Such
consultation may, but need not, occur for subsequent audits; and
(16) UBS must notify the Department of a change in the independent
auditor no later than two months after the engagement of a substitute
or subsequent auditor and must provide an explanation for the
substitution or change including a description of any material disputes
between the terminated auditor and UBS.
(j) As of the effective date of this exemption, with respect to any
arrangement, agreement, or contract between an Affiliated QPAM and a
Covered Plan, the QPAM agrees and warrants to Covered Plans:
(1) To comply with ERISA and the Code, as applicable with respect
to such Covered Plan; to refrain from engaging in prohibited
transactions that are not otherwise exempt (and to promptly correct any
prohibited transactions); and to comply with the standards of prudence
and loyalty set forth in ERISA section 404 with respect to each such
ERISA-covered plan and IRA to the extent that ERISA section 404 is
applicable;
(2) To indemnify and hold harmless the Covered Plan for any actual
losses resulting directly from the QPAM's
[[Page 3945]]
violation of any conditions of this exemption, ERISA's fiduciary
duties, as applicable, and of the prohibited transaction provisions of
ERISA and the Code, as applicable; a breach of contract by the QPAM; or
any claim arising out of the failure of such QPAM to qualify for the
exemptive relief provided by PTE 84-14 as a result of a violation of
Section I(g) of PTE 84-14, other than a Conviction covered under this
exemption. The term ``actual losses'' includes, but is not limited to,
losses and related costs arising from unwinding transactions with third
parties and from transitioning Plan assets to an alternative asset
manager as well as costs associated with any exposure to excise taxes
under Code section 4975 as a result of a QPAM's inability to rely upon
the relief in PTE 84-14;
(3) Not to require (or otherwise cause) the Covered Plan to waive,
limit, or qualify the liability of the QPAM for violating ERISA or the
Code for engaging in prohibited transactions;
(4) Not to restrict the ability of the Covered Plan to terminate or
withdraw from its arrangement with the QPAM, with respect to any
investment in a separately-managed account or pooled fund subject to
ERISA and managed by such QPAM, with the exception of reasonable
restrictions, appropriately disclosed in advance, that are specifically
designed to ensure equitable treatment of all investors in a pooled
fund in the event such withdrawal or termination may have adverse
consequences for all other investors. In connection with any such
arrangement involving investments in pooled funds subject to ERISA
entered into after the effective date of this exemption, the adverse
consequences must relate to a lack of liquidity of the underlying
assets, valuation issues, or regulatory reasons that prevent the fund
from promptly redeeming an ERISA-covered plan's or IRA's investment,
and such restrictions must be applicable to all such investors and be
effective no longer than reasonably necessary to avoid the adverse
consequences;
(5) Not to impose any fees, penalties, or charges for such
termination or withdrawal with the exception of reasonable fees,
appropriately disclosed in advance, that are specifically designed to
prevent generally-recognized abusive investment practices or
specifically designed to ensure equitable treatment of all investors in
a pooled fund in the event such withdrawal or termination may have
adverse consequences for all other investors, provided that such fees
are applied consistently and in a like manner to all such investors;
(6) Not to include exculpatory provisions disclaiming or otherwise
limiting liability of the QPAM for a violation of such agreement's
terms. To the extent consistent with ERISA section 410, however, this
provision does not prohibit disclaimers for liability caused by an
error, misrepresentation, or misconduct of a plan fiduciary or other
party hired by the plan fiduciary who is independent of UBS (and
affiliates), or damages arising from acts outside the control of the
Affiliated QPAM; and
(7) Within 120 days after the effective date of this exemption,
each QPAM must provide a notice of its obligations under this Section
III(j) to each Covered Plan. For prospective Covered Plans that enter
into a written asset or investment management agreement with a QPAM on
or after a date that is 120 days after the effective date of this
exemption, the QPAM must agree to its obligations under this Section
III(j) in an updated investment management agreement between the QPAM
and such clients or other written contractual agreement.
Notwithstanding the above, a QPAM will not violate the condition solely
because a Covered Plan refuses to sign an updated investment management
agreement. For new Covered Plans that were provided an investment
management agreement prior to the effective date of this exemption,
returning it within 120 days after the effective date of this
exemption, and that signed investment management agreement requires
amendment to meet the terms of the exemption, the QPAM may provide the
new Covered Plan with amendments that need not be signed with any
documents required by this subsection (j) within ten (10) business days
after receipt of the signed agreement.
(k) Within 60 days after the publication date of the notice of
final exemption in the Federal Register, each Affiliated QPAM provides
notice of the proposed and final exemption as published in the Federal
Register, along with a summary describing the facts that led to the
Covered Convictions (the Summary), which has been submitted to the
Department, and a prominently displayed statement (the Statement) that
the Covered Convictions result in a failure to meet a condition in PTE
84-14, to each sponsor and beneficial owner of a Covered Plan that has
entered into a written asset or investment management agreement with an
Affiliated QPAM, or the sponsor of an investment fund in any case where
an Affiliated QPAM acts as a sub-adviser to the investment fund in
which such ERISA-covered plan and IRA invests. The Summary will be
submitted to OED before it is distributed by each Affiliated QPAM. All
prospective Covered Plan clients that enter into a written asset or
investment management agreement with an Affiliated QPAM after a date
that is 60 days after the effective date of this exemption must receive
a copy of the notice of the exemption, the Summary, and the Statement
before, or contemporaneously with, the Covered Plan's receipt of a
written asset or investment management agreement from the Affiliated
QPAM. The notices may be delivered electronically (including by an
email that has a link to the exemption).
(l) The Affiliated QPAMs must comply with each condition of PTE 84-
14, as amended, with the sole exception of the violation of Section
I(g) of PTE 84-14 that is attributable to the Covered Convictions. If,
during the Exemption Period, an entity within UBS's corporate structure
engages in conduct prohibited by Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 (other than
the Covered Convictions), relief in this exemption would terminate
immediately.
(m)(1) Within 60 days after the date of publication of the
exemption, each Affiliated QPAM must designate two senior Compliance
Officers (the Compliance Officers) who will be responsible for
compliance with the Policies and Training requirements described
herein. For purposes of this condition (m), each relevant line of
business within an Affiliated QPAM may designate its own two Compliance
Officers. Notwithstanding the above, the appointed Compliance Officers
must not be a person who: (i) participated in the criminal conduct
underlying the Criminal Activity, or knew of, or (ii) had reason to
know of, the Criminal Activity without taking active documented steps
to stop the misconduct.
(2) The Compliance Officers must conduct a review of each twelve-
month period of the Exemption Period (the Exemption Review), to
determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the implementation of the
Policies and Training.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Pursuant to PTE 2023-14, the Compliance Officer also must
conduct and complete an exemption review within three months of June
11, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) With respect to the Compliance Officers, the following
conditions must be met:
(i) Each Compliance Officer must be a professional who has
extensive experience with, and knowledge of, the regulation of
financial services and
[[Page 3946]]
products, including under ERISA and the Code;
(ii) Each Compliance Officer must have a direct reporting line to
the highest-ranking corporate officer in charge of compliance for the
applicable Affiliated QPAM or the highest-ranking corporate officer in
charge of the applicable Affiliated QPAM and
(iii) The Compliance Officers responsible for the Exemption Review
must provide the Exemption Report described in Section III(m)(4)(ii)
below to the Auditor within seven (7) days of completing the report.
(4) With respect to the Exemption Review, the following conditions
must be met:
(i) The Annual Exemption Review includes a review of the Affiliated
QPAM's compliance with and effectiveness of the Policies and Training
and of the following: any compliance matter related to the Policies or
Training that was identified by, or reported to, the Compliance
Officers or others within the compliance and risk control function (or
its equivalent) during the time period; the most recent Audit Report
issued pursuant to this exemption or PTE 2023-14; any material change
in the relevant business activities of the Affiliated QPAMs; and any
change to ERISA, the Code, or regulations related to fiduciary duties
and the prohibited transaction provisions that may be applicable to the
activities of the Affiliated QPAMs;
(ii) The Compliance Officers must prepare a written report for the
Exemption Review (an Exemption Report) that (A) summarizes their
material activities during the prior year; (B) sets forth any instance
of noncompliance discovered during the prior year, and any related
corrective action; (C) details any change to the Policies or Training
to guard against any similar instance of noncompliance occurring again;
and (D) makes recommendations, as necessary, for additional training,
procedures, monitoring, or additional and/or changed processes or
systems, and management's actions on such recommendations;
(iii) In the Exemption Report, each Compliance Officer must certify
in writing that to the best of his or her knowledge at the time: (A)
the report is accurate; (B) the Policies and Training are working in a
manner which is reasonably designed to ensure that the Policies and
Training requirements described herein are met; (C) any known instance
of noncompliance during the prior year and any related correction taken
to date have been identified in the Exemption Report; and (D) the
Affiliated QPAMs have complied with the Policies and Training, and/or
corrected (or are correcting) any known instances of noncompliance in
accordance with Section III(h) above;
(iv) The Exemption Report must be provided to appropriate corporate
officers of UBS and to each Affiliated QPAM to which such report
relates, and to the head of compliance and the general counsel (or
their functional equivalent) of UBS, and the relevant Affiliated QPAM.
The Exemption Report must be made unconditionally available to the
independent auditor described in Section III(i) above; and
(v) The Exemption Review, including the Compliance Officers'
written Annual Exemption Report, must cover the Exemption Period, and
the Annual Review, including the Compliance Officers' written Report,
must be completed within three (3) months following the end of the
period to which it relates.
(n) UBS imposes its internal procedures, controls, and protocols on
each Misconduct Entity to reduce the likelihood of any recurrence of
conduct that is the subject of the Criminal Activity.
(o) Relief in this exemption will terminate on the date that is one
year following the date that a U.S. regulatory authority makes a final
decision that UBS or CSAG or an affiliate of either failed to comply in
all material respects with any requirement imposed by such regulatory
authority in connection with the Covered Convictions.
(p) Each Affiliated QPAM will maintain records necessary to
demonstrate that the conditions of this exemption have been met for six
(6) years following the date of any transaction for which the
Affiliated QPAM relies upon the relief in this exemption.
(q) During the Exemption Period, UBS must: (1) immediately disclose
to the Department any Deferred Prosecution Agreement (a DPA) or Non-
Prosecution Agreement (an NPA) with the U.S. Department of Justice,
entered into by UBS or any of its affiliates (as defined in Section
VI(d) of PTE 84-14) in connection with conduct described in Section
I(g) of PTE 84-14 or section 411 of ERISA via email addressed to e-
[email protected]; and (2) immediately provide the Department with any
information requested by the Department, as permitted by law, regarding
the agreement and/or conduct and allegations that led to the agreement
via email addressed to [email protected].
(r) Within 60 days after the effective date of this exemption, each
Affiliated QPAM, in its agreements with, or in other written
disclosures provided to Covered Plans, will clearly and prominently
inform Covered Plan clients of their right to obtain a copy of the
Policies or a description (Summary Policies) which accurately
summarizes key components of the QPAM's written Policies developed in
connection with this exemption. If the Policies are thereafter changed,
each Covered Plan client must receive a new disclosure within six (6)
months following the end of the calendar year during which the Policies
were changed.\49\ With respect to this requirement, the description may
be continuously maintained on a website, provided that such website
link to the Policies or Summary Policies is clearly and prominently
disclosed to each Covered Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ If the UBS meets this disclosure requirement through
Summary Policies, changes to the Policies shall not result in the
requirement for a new disclosure unless, as a result of changes to
the Policies, the Summary Policies are no longer accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(s) An Affiliated QPAM will not fail to meet the terms of this
exemption solely because a different Affiliated QPAM fails to satisfy a
condition for relief described in Section III(c), (d), (h), (i), (j),
(k), (l), (m), (p), (r), or (t); or if the independent auditor
described in Section III(i) fails to comply with a provision of the
exemption other than the requirement described in Section III(i)(12),
provided that such failure did not result from any actions or inactions
of UBS or its affiliates;
(t) If the independent auditor or UBS or its affiliates learns of
any material noncompliance with a condition of this exemption, UBS must
send a notice (a ``Violation Notice'') to all affected Covered Plans
and the Department that prominently and conspicuously states or
describes: (1) that UBS, or the UBS QPAM, as applicable, failed to meet
the terms of this exemption (and describes the failure); (2) the extent
to which UBS QPAMs have potentially been operating without an exemption
due to the failure; (3) whether UBS plans to apply for retroactive
relief from the Department for this failed condition; (4) any further
transactions engaged in by the UBS QPAMs on behalf of Covered Plans
that may be non-exempt prohibited transactions unless the Department
grants retroactive relief for the period in which the transactions
occurred; and (5) UBS must indemnify and hold harmless the Covered Plan
for any actual losses resulting directly from the QPAM's failure to
comply with any conditions of this exemption, ERISA's fiduciary duties
and of the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA and the Code, a
[[Page 3947]]
breach of contract by the QPAM, or any claim arising out of the failure
of such QPAM to qualify for the exemptive relief provided by PTE 84-14
as a result of a violation of PTE 84-14 Section I(g), other than a
Conviction covered under the exemption. The Violation Notice must be
sent to all affected Covered Plans and the Department within 30 days
after the independent auditor becomes aware of the violation. If the
Violation Notice is not sent within the 30-day period, the UBS QPAM may
self-correct the failure by sending the Violation Notice to all
affected Covered Plans and the Department with an addendum describing
the failure within 30 days after the completion of next scheduled
audit.
(u) All the material facts and representations set forth in the
Summary of Facts and Representations are true and accurate at all
times.
(v) Each UBS QPAM must develop written processes that clearly
describe: (1) how the QPAM identifies and quantifies ``actual losses''
for purposes of Section III(j)(2); and (2) how Covered Plans may
recover or avoid incurring the losses that the UBS QPAM must indemnify
or hold Covered Plans harmless from incurring pursuant to Section
III(j)(2). Each UBS QPAM must develop these processes and deliver a
copy of the processes to each Covered Plan within 90 days after the
date the Department publishes a final exemption in the Federal Register
and notify Covered Plans of any subsequent material changes to the
processes within 30 days of the effective date of such changes.
Applicability Date: This exemption will be in effect for the period
beginning on June 12, 2024 and ending on June 11, 2029, as well as the
period of June 12, 2023, through June 11, 2024.
Signed at Washington, DC.
George Christopher Cosby,
Director, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2025-00812 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
