December 12, 2019

December 11, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 10, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 09, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Private Equity Funds Found Liable for Portfolio Company Pension Plan Short Falls

On March 28, 2016, in an alarming decision in the Sun Capital litigation1, the Federal District Court ruled that two Sun Capital Fundstogether owning 100 percentof Scott Brass Inc. (SBI), were jointly and severally liable for the multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability of SBI under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). More precisely, the Sun Capital Funds were assessed liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) codified in the ERISA, Section 4203(a) in respect to the pension liabilities of their bankrupt portfolio company, SBI. Under MPPAA, to impose withdrawal liability on a private equity fund for the pension obligations of a portfolio company “two conditions must be satisfied: "1) the [fund] must be under “common control” with the [portfolio company], and 2) the [fund] must be a trade or business.” (emphasis added).4

The Sun Capital litigation commenced in 2011, and has now produced three decisions. The first decision of the District Court in 2012, favorable to the private equity fund industry, found no liability when a passive private equity fund invests in a portfolio company that goes bankrupt and cannot fund its multi-employer pension fund liability.In effect, the private equity funds won a temporary victory on the basis that they were not a “trade or business,” but were simply passive investors. This victory proved short lived. 

On appeal, (in the second Sun Capital decision) the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and found one of two Sun Capital private equity funds (Fund IV) liable for unfunded SBI pension liabilities, but sent the case back to the District Court for further determination as to whether or not the other Sun Capital Fund (Fund III) was also liable. Fund III and Fund IV appear to have been identical. However, the factor that made Fund IV clearly liable in the eyes of the Court of Appeals was evidence that Fund IV was not a mere passive investor in SBI. Rather, Fund IV was an “investor plus.” Proof of being an “investor plus” was active involvement in management of SBI by the funds in question evidenced by the combination of consulting fees paid to Sun Capital Advisors by SBI that, in turn, engendered management fee credits for the benefit of Fund IV. These management fee credits were critical to a finding of liability, under the “trade or business” test, and the District Court was then tasked on remand with inquiring into whether or not Fund III was also an “investor plus.” 

In the most recent and third decision, the District Court has now found that both of the Sun Capital Funds were engaged in “trade or business,” by applying an “investment plus test.” The District Court decision highlights Sun Capital’s active involvement in the management and operation of SBI; refers to statements in the Sun Capital Funds’ offering documents stating that the funds would be actively involved with their portfolio companies; and also identified management fee credit “carry forwards” due to Fund III triggered by consulting fees paid to Sun Capital Advisors by SBI. The management fee credits earned by Fund IV and fee offset carryforwards enjoyed by Fund III were economic benefits that tipped the balance in favor of finding both funds to be engaged in a “trade or business.” 

The District Court also found that the Sun Capital Funds created a “partnership-in-fact,” and the court thus aggregated the funds’ SBI holdings to meet the 80 percent ownership test required for controlled group liability under ERISA (even though no one fund owned more than 70 percent of SBI). The March 28, 2016, decision by the District Court established a mechanism, borrowing from income tax principles, through which the interests of private equity funds could be aggregated for determination of liability (based on the observation that the funds were essentially operated as one fund through the Sun Capital intermediary special-purpose limited liability company they used to invest in SBI). The factors the District Court highlighted in coming to this conclusion included the history of co-investments by the Sun Capital Funds, as well as their “identity of interest and unity of decision making” in the case of SBI. 

The Sun Capital case appears to be a watershed for private equity funds and their investors, at least in the context of certain unfunded pension liabilities.

1 Sun Capital Partners III LP, Sun Capital Partners III QP, LP, and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, No. 10-10921-DPW (D. Mass. Mar. 28, 2016). 
2 Sun Capital Partners III, LP and Sun Capital Partners III QP, LP (together “Fund III”) with Sun Capital Partners IV, LP (“Fund IV). 
3 Fund III owns 30% and Fund IV owns 70% of the equity interests of SBI through an intermediary limited liability company. 
4 Sun Capital, 724 F3d at 138. 
5 Sun Capital Partners III LP, Sun Capital Partners III QP, LP, and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, 909 F. Supp2d 107 (D. Mass Oct 18, 2012), reversed, Sun Capital Partners III LP, Sun Capital Partners III QP, LP, and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, 724 F. 3d 129 (First Circuit July 24, 2013)

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP


About this Author

Peter D. Fetzer, Securities Lawyer, Foley Lardner, Mergers Attorney

Peter Fetzer is a partner and business lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. His practice focuses primarily in the areas of securities regulation, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance and general corporate counseling to mutual funds, exchange traded funds, publicly traded investment advisers and public companies.

Stuart E. Fross, Foley Lardner, Securities lawyer, Finance Attorney

Stuart Fross is a partner and business lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP where he concentrates his practice on securities laws and regulations, as part of the Private Equity & Venture Capital, Transactional & Securities and International Practices.

Mr. Fross’ main focus is investment managers and pooled investment vehicles, including U.S. registered open-end, closed end and exchange traded funds, bank collective investment funds (with an emphasis a stable value funds), UCITS funds, as well as private funds, organized in the US and offshore. Mr. Fross has extensive experience in equity, high-income and fixed income trading operations, as well as with distribution related issues for registered and unregistered funds. 

Michelle E.P. Nunez, Foley, Commercial restructuring lawyer, formation of funds attorney
Senior Counsel

Michelle E.P. Nuñez is a senior counsel and business lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. She counsels institutional investors, unregistered funds, including hedge funds and private equity funds, and their advisers on a range of U.S. legal and regulatory matters relating to fund investments, the structuring, restructuring and formation of funds, fund reorganizations, acquisitions and mergers, regulatory and compliance matters relating to existing funds, fund governance issues and investment adviser compliance. Ms. Nuñez also advises impact investors on the legal and...

Gustavo Resendiz, Foley, partner structuring lawyer, capital raising attorney
Senior Counsel

Gus Resendiz is a senior counsel and business lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. He focuses his practice on the formation of U.S. and non-U.S. private investment funds, including hedge, private equity, venture capital and real estate investment funds as well as funds of funds. Mr. Resendiz advises fund managers and sponsors on a wide range of matters, including management company and general partner structuring, capital raising, regulatory and compliance issues, internal governance, and portfolio investments. In addition, Mr. Resendiz represents institutional investors...