Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension FundSun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund
Eric Field, Assistant Chief Counsel, with whom Judith R. Starr, General Counsel, Israel Goldowitz, Chief Counsel, Karen L. Morris, Deputy Chief Counsel, Craig T. Fessenden, Attorney, and Beth A. Bangert, Attorney, were on brief, for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, amicus curiae.
Patrick F. Philbin, with whom Theodore J. Folkman, P.C., Murphy & King P.C., John F. Hartmann, P.C., Marla Tun, Jeffrey S. Quinn, Kellen S. Dwyer, John S. Moran, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP were on brief, for appellees.
LYNCH, Chief Judge. This case presents important issues of first impression as to withdrawal liability for the pro rata share of unfunded vested benefits to a multiemployer pension fund of a bankrupt company, here, Scott Brass, Inc. (SBI). See Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),
The plaintiffs are the two private equity funds, which sought a declaratory judgment against the TPF. The TPF, which brought into the suit other entities related to the equity funds,1 has counterclaimed and sought payment of the withdrawal liability
We conclude that at least one of the private equity funds which operated SBI, through layers of fund-related entities, was not merely a “passive” investor, but sufficiently operated, managed, and was advantaged by its relationship with its portfolio company, the now bankrupt SBI. We also conclude that further factual development is necessary as to the other equity fund. We decide that the district court erred in ending the potential claims against the equity funds by entering summary judgment for them under the “trades or businesses” aspect of the two-part “control group” test under
As a result, we remand for further factual development and for further proceedings under the second part of the “control group” test, that of “common control,” in
I.
The material facts are undisputed.
A. The Sun Funds
Sun Capital Advisors, Inc. (“SCAI“) is a private equity firm founded by its co-CEOs and sole shareholders, Marc Leder and Rodger Krouse. Sun Capital, 903 F. Supp. 2d at 109. It is not a plaintiff or party in this case. SCAI and its affiliated entities find investors and create limited partnerships in which investor money is pooled, as in the private equity funds here. Moreover, SCAI finds and recommends investment opportunities for the equity funds, and negotiates, structures, and finalizes investment deals. Id. SCAI also provides management services to portfolio companies, and employs about 123 professionals to provide these services.
The plaintiffs here are two of SCAI‘s private equity funds (collectively the “Sun Funds“), Sun Capital Partners III, LP (“Sun Fund III“)3 and Sun Capital Partners
These private equity funds engaged in a particular type of investment approach, to be distinguished from mere stock holding or mutual fund investments. See, e.g., S. Rosenthal, Taxing Private Equity Funds as Corporate ‘Developers‘, Tax Notes, Jan. 21, 2013, at 361, 364 & n.31 (explaining that private equity funds differ from mutual funds and hedge funds because they “assist and manage the business of the companies they invest in“). As one commentator puts it, “[i]t is one thing to manage one‘s investments in businesses. It is another to manage the businesses in which one invests.” C. Sanchirico, The Tax Advantage to Paying Private Equity Fund Managers with Profit Shares: What Is It? Why Is It Bad?, 75 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1071, 1102 (2008).
The Sun Funds are overseen by general partners, Sun Capital Advisors III, LP and Sun Capital Advisors IV, LP. Leder and Krouse are each limited partners in the Sun Funds’ general partners and, together with their spouses, are entitled to 64.74% of the aggregate profits of Sun Capital Advisors III, LP and 61.04% of such profits from Sun Capital Advisors IV, LP. The Sun Funds’ limited partnership agreements vest their respective general partners with exclusive authority to manage the partnership. Part of this authority is the power to carry out all the objectives and purposes of the partnerships, which include investing in securities, managing and supervising any investments,
For these services, each general partner receives an annual fee of two percent of the total commitments (meaning the aggregate cash committed as capital to the partnership) to the Sun Funds, paid by the limited partnership, and a percentage of the Sun Funds’ profits from investments. The general partners also have a limited partnership agreement, which provides that for each general partner a limited partner committee makes all material partnership decisions. Sun Capital, 903 F. Supp. 2d at 110-11. Leder and Krouse are the sole members of the limited partner committees. Id. at 111. Included in the powers of the limited partner committees is the authority to make decisions and determinations relating to “hiring, terminating and establishing the compensation of employees and agents of the [Sun] Fund or Portfolio Companies.” The general partners also each have a subsidiary management company, Sun Capital Partners Management III, LLC and Sun Capital Partners Management IV, LLC, respectively. Id. These management companies contract with the holding company that owns the acquired company to provide management services for a fee, and contract with SCAI to provide the employees and consultants. See id. When portfolio companies pay fees to the management companies, the Sun Funds receive an offset to the fees owed to the general partner.7
B. The Acquisition of Scott Brass, Inc.
In 2006, the Sun Funds began to take steps to invest in SBI, the acquisition of which was completed in early 2007. Leder and Krouse made the decision to invest in SBI in their capacity as members of the limited partner committees.
SBI, a Rhode Island corporation, was an ongoing trade or business, and was closely held; its stock was not publicly traded. SBI was a leading producer of high quality brass, copper, and other metals “used in a variety of end markets, including electronics, automotive, hardware, fasteners, jewelry, and consumer products.” In 2006, it shipped 40.2 million pounds of metal. SBI made contributions to the TPF on behalf of its employees pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.
On November 28, 2006, a Sun Capital affiliated entity sent a letter of intent to SBI‘s outside financial advisor to purchase 100% of SBI. In December 2006, the Sun Funds formed Sun Scott Brass, LLC (SSB-LLC) as a vehicle to invest in SBI. Sun Fund III made a 30% investment ($900,000) and Sun Fund IV a 70% investment ($2.1 million) for a total equity investment of $3 million. This purchase price reflected a 25% discount because of SBI‘s known unfunded pension liability.8 SSB-LLC, on December 15, 2006, formed
On February 9, 2007, SBHC signed an agreement with the subsidiary of the general partner of Sun Fund IV to provide management services to SBHC and its subsidiaries, i.e., SBI. Since 2001, that general partner‘s subsidiary had contracted with SCAI to provide it with advisory services. In essence, as the district court described, the management company acted as a middle-man, providing SBI with employees and consultants from SCAI. Id.
Numerous individuals with affiliations to various Sun Capital entities, including Krouse and Leder, exerted substantial operational and managerial control over SBI, which at the time of the acquisition had 208 employees and continued as a trade or business manufacturing metal products. For instance, minutes of a March 5, 2007 meeting show that seven individuals from “SCP” attended a “Jumpstart Meeting” at which the hiring of three SBI salesmen was approved, as was the hiring of a consultant to analyze a computer system upgrade project at a cost of $25,000. Other items discussed included possible acquisitions, capital expenditures, and the mаnagement of SBI‘s working capital. Further, Leder, Krouse, and Steven Liff, an SCAI employee, were involved in email chains discussing liquidity, possible mergers, dividend payouts, and concerns about how to drive revenue growth at SBI. Leder, Krouse, and other employees of SCAI received weekly flash reports from SBI that contained detailed information about SBI‘s revenue, key financial data, market activity, sales opportunities, meeting notes, and action items. According to the Sun Funds, SBI continued to meet its pension obligations to the TPF for more than a year and a half after the acquisition.
C. SBI‘s Bankruptcy and This Litigation
In the fall of 2008, declining copper prices reduced the value of SBI‘s inventory, resulting in a breach of its loan covenants. Unable to get its lender to waive the violation of the covenants, SBI lost its ability to access credit and was unable to pay its bills. See id.
In October 2008, SBI stopped making contributions to the TPF, and, in so doing, became liable for its proportionate share of the TPF‘s unfunded vested benefits. See
On December 19, 2008, the TPF sent a demand fоr payment of estimated withdrawal liability to SBI. The TPF also sent a notice and demand to the Sun Funds demanding payment from them of SBI‘s withdrawal liability, ultimately calculated as $4,516,539. Sun Capital, 903 F. Supp. 2d at 111. The TPF asserted that the Sun Funds had entered into a partnership or joint venture in common control with SBI and were therefore jointly and severally
On June 4, 2010, the Sun Funds filed a declaratory judgment action in federal district court in Massachusetts. The Sun Funds sought a declaration that they were not subject to withdrawal liability under
The TPF counterclaimed that the Sun Funds were jointly and severally liable for SBI‘s withdrawal liability in the amount of $4,516,539, and also that the Sun Funds had engaged in a transaction to evade or avoid liability under
The district court issued a Memorandum and Order on October 18, 2012, granting summary judgment to the Sun Funds. Id. at 109. The district court did not reach the issue of common control, id. at 118, instead basing its decision on the “trade or business” portion of the two-part statutory test. It also decided the “evade or avoid” liability issue.10
On the “trade or business” issue, the district court addressed the level of deference owed to a September 2007 PBGC appeals letter that found a private equity fund to be a “trade or business” in the single employer pension plan context. Id. at 114-16. The appeals letter found the equity fund to be a “trade or business” because its controlling stake in the bankrupt company put it in a position to exercise control over that company through its general partner, which was compensated for its efforts.
The district court held that the appeals letter was owed deference only to the extent it could persuade. Id. at 115. The district court found the letter unpersuasive for two reasons: (1) the appeals board purportedly incorrectly attributed activity of the general partner to the investment fund; and (2) the appeals board letter supposedly conflicted with governing Supreme Court tax precedent. Id. at 115-16. Engaging in its own analysis, the court found that the Sun Funds were not “trades or businesses,” relying on the fact that the Sun Funds did not have any offices or employees, and did not make or sell goods or report income other than investment income on their tax returns. Id. at 117. Moreover, the Sun Funds were not engaged in the general partner‘s management activities. Id.
As to its “evade or avoid” liability analysis, the district court stated that
The TPF has timely appealed. It argues that the district court erred in finding that the Sun Funds were not “trades or businesses” and that the Sun Funds should be subject to “evade or avoid” liability under
A. Standard of Review
We review a grant or denial of summary judgment, as well as pure issues of law, de novo. Rodriguez v. Am. Int‘l Ins. Co. of P.R., 402 F.3d 45, 46-47 (1st Cir. 2005). We may affirm the district court on any independently sufficient ground manifest in the record. OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Can., 684 F.3d 237, 241 (1st Cir. 2012). The presence of cross-motions for summary judgment does not distort the standard of review. Rather, we view each motion separately in the light most favorablе to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Id. We make a determination “based on the undisputed facts whether either [party] deserve[s] judgment as a matter of law.” Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. CNA Ins. Co. (Eur.) Ltd., 633 F.3d 50, 53 (1st Cir. 2011). To prevail, the moving party must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact,” and that it “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
B. Withdrawal Liability Under the MPPAA
The MPPAA was enacted by Congress to protect the viability of defined pension benefit plans, to create a disincentive for employers to withdraw from multiemployer plans, and also to provide a means of recouping a fund‘s unfunded liabilities. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 720-22 (1984). As such, the MPPAA requires employers withdrawing from a multiemployer plan to pay their proportionate share of the pension fund‘s vested but unfunded benefits. See
The MPPAA provides: “For purposes of this subchapter, under regulations prescribed by the [PBGC], all employees of trades or businesses (whether or not incorporated) which are under common control shall be treаted as employed by a single employer and all such trades and businesses as a single employer.”
While Congress in
The phrase “trades or businesses” as used in
C. Failing to Have Promulgated Regulations, the PBGC Nonetheless Offers Guidance on the Meaning of “Trades or Businesses”
The only guidance we have from the PBGC is a 2007 appeals letter, defended in its amicus brief.
In a September 2007 response to an appeal,13 the PBGC, in a letter, applied a two-prong test it purported to derive from Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, to determine if the private equity fund was a “trade or business” for purposes of the first part of the
The PBGC found that the private equity fund involved in that matter met the profit motive requirement. It also determined that the size of the fund, the size of its profits, and the management fees paid to the general partner established continuity and regularity. The PBGC also observed
The PBGC does not assert that its 2007 letter is entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). It does, however, claim entitlement to deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997)
(1997). We disagree. The PBGC‘s letter stating its position is owed no more than Skidmore deference. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944). The letter was not the result of public notice and comment, and merely involved an informal adjudication resolving a dispute between a pension fund and the equity fund. Thus far, the letter has received no more deference than the power to persuade. See Sun Capital, 903 F. Supp. 2d at 115; Palladium, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 869. And rightly so. “[I]nterpretations contained in formats such as opinion letters are ‘entitled to respect’ . . . only to the extent that those interpretations have the ‘power to persuade.‘” Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000) (quoting Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140).The PBGC contends that, because it is interpreting a
phrase that appears in its own regulations, see
The letter is not owed Auer deference in this case
because such deference is inappropriate where significant monetary
liability would be imposed on a party for conduct that took place
at a time when that party lacked fair notice of the interpretation
at issue. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156, 2167 (2012). Christopher stressed that the agency in that
case had taken decades before acting, during which time the
industry practice at issue developed and continued.15 Id. at 2168
(“But where, as here, an agency‘s announcement of its
interpretation is preceded by a very lengthy period
Moreover, even if Christopher was not an impediment to
Auer deference, the anti-parroting principle would be. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 257 (2006) (“Simply put, the existence of a
parroting regulation does not change the fact that the question
here is not the meaning of the regulation but the meaning of the
statute. An agency does not acquire special authority to interpret
its own words when, instead of using its expertise and experience
to formulate a regulation, it has elected merely to paraphrase the
statutory language.“). The PBGC regulations make no effort to define “trades or businesses,”
Nonetheless, the views the PBGC expressed in the letter are entitled to Skidmore deference. See Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140 (observing that the “weight” of an agency‘s determination “depend[s] upon the thoroughness evident in [the agency‘s] consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade“).
D. Sun Fund IV is a “Trade or Business” Under § 1301(b)(1), the PBGC‘s “Investment Plus” Approach is Persuasive, and the Same Approach Would Be Employed Even Without Deference
The Sun Funds argue that the “investment plus” test is incompatible with Supreme Court tax precedent. Regardless, they argue, the Sun Funds cannot be held responsible for the activities of other entities in the management and operation of SBI. And even if the Sun Funds had engaged in those activities, they argue, that would not be enough.
Where the MPPAA issue is one of whether there is mere
passive investment to defeat pension withdrawal liability, we are
persuaded that some form of an “investment plus” approach is
appropriate when evaluating the “trade or business” prong of
In a very fact-specific approach, we take account of a
number of factors, cautioning that none is dispositive in and of
itself. The Sun Funds make investments in portfolio companies with
the principal purpose of making a profit. Profits are made from
the sale of stock at higher prices than the purchase price and
through dividends. But a mere investment made
Here, however, the Sun Funds have also undertaken activities as to the SBI property. The Sun Funds’ limited partnership agreements and private placement memos explain that the Funds are actively involved in the management and operation of the companies in which they invest. Pioneer Ranch, 494 F.3d at 577-78 (observing that an entity‘s own statements about its goals, purposes, and intentions are “highly relevant, because [they] constitute . . . declaration[s] against interest.” (quoting Connors v. Incoal, Inc., 955 F.2d 245, 254 (D.C. Cir. 1993)) (internal quotation mark omitted)). Each Sun Fund agreement states, for instance, that a “principal purpose” of the partnership is the “manag[ement] and supervisi[on]” of its investments. The agreements also give the general partner of each Sun Fund exclusive and wide-ranging management authority.
In addition, the general partners are empowered through their own partnership agreements to make decisions about hiring, terminating, and compensating agents and employees of the Sun Funds and their portfolio companies. The general partners receive a percentage of total commitments to the Sun Funds and a percentage of profits as compensation -- just like the general partner of the equity fund in the PBGC appeals letter.
It is the purpose of the Sun Funds to seek out potential portfolio companies that are in need of extensive intervention with respect to their management and operatiоns, to provide such intervention, and then to sell the companies. The private placement memos explain that “[t]he Principals17 typically work to reduce costs, improve margins, accelerate sales growth through new products and market opportunities, implement or modify management information systems and improve reporting and control functions.” More specifically, those memos represent that restructuring and operating plans are developed for a target portfolio company even before it is acquired and a management team is built specifically for the purchased company, with “[s]ignificant changes . . . typically made to portfolio companies in the first three to six months.” The strategic plan developed initially is “consistently monitored and modified as necessary.” Involvement can encompass even small details, including signing of all checks for its new portfolio companies and the holding of frequent meetings with senior staff to discuss operations, competition, new products and personnel.
Such actions are taken with the ultimate goal of selling the portfolio company for a profit. On this point, the placement memos explain that after implementing “significant operating improvements . . . during the first two years[,]” . . . the Principals expect to exit investments in two to five years (or sooner under appropriate circumstances).”
Further, the Sun Funds’ controlling stake in SBI placed
them and their affiliated entities in a position where they were
intimately involved in the management and operation of the company.
See Harrell v. Eller Maritime Co., No. 8:09-CV-1400-T-27AEP, 2010 WL 3835150, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2010) (the involvement in
decisionmaking at management level goes
Through a series of service agreements described earlier, SCAI provided personnel to SBI for management and consulting services. Thereafter, individuals from those entities were immersed in details involving the management and operation of SBI, as discussed.
Moreover, the Sun Funds’ active involvement in management under the agreements provided a direct economic benefit to at least Sun Fund IV that an ordinary, passive investor would not derive: an offset against the management fees it otherwise would have paid its general partner for managing the investment in SBI.19 Here, SBI made payments of more than $186,368.44 to Sun Fund IV‘s general partner, which were offset against the fees Sun Fund IV had to pay to its general partner.20 This offset was not from an ordinary investment activity, which in the Sun Funds’ words “results solely in investment returns.” See also United States v. Clark, 358 F.2d 892, 895 (1st Cir. 1966) (holding that taxpayer not engaged in a “trade or business” in part because no evidence he received compensation “different from that flowing to an investor“).
In our view, the sum of all of these factors satisfy the “plus” in the “investment plus” test. The conclusion we reach is consistent with the conclusions of other appellate court decisions, though none has addressed this precise question. In Messina, where the Seventh Circuit employed an “investment plus“-like analysis on its own, the pension fund was seeking to impose withdrawal liability on a limited liability company (LLC) that owned rental property.21 706 F.3d at 877. The Seventh Circuit rejected the LLC‘s argument that it was a passive investment vehicle. Id. at 885-86.
The Seventh Circuit looked to the stated intent in the creation of the enterprise, as well as to the enterprise‘s legal form and how it was treated for tax purposes.22 Id. at 885. The company‘s operating agreement, which explained that it had developed a business plan to produce, sell, and market gravel, was highly relevant to the court‘s trade or business inquiry.23 Id. at 886 (stating that “[i]t was entirely appropriate for the district court to take these documents at face value“). The court also found it relevant that the activity was conducted “under the auspices of a formal, for-profit organization,” id., as are the Sun Funds.
Likewise, in an earlier case, the Seventh Circuit rejected an argument that a limited liability company that owned rental property was merely a “personal investment.”24 Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. SCOFBP, LLC, 668 F.3d 873, 879 (7th Cir. 2011). It noted that the company was a for-profit LLC, earned rental income, paid business management fees, and contracted with professionals to provide legal, management, and accounting services. Id. Hence, the company was “a formal business organization, engaged in regular and continuous activity for the purpose of generating income or profit and thus is . . . a ‘trade or business’ for purposes of the MPPAA.” Id.
The Sun Funds, however, argue that they cannot be “trades or businesses” because that would be inconsistent with two Supreme Court decisions Higgins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 312 U.S. 212 (1941), and Whipple v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 373 U.S. 193 (1963) -- whiсh interpret that phrase. The Sun Funds argue that cases interpreting the phrase “trade or business” as used anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code are binding because Congress intended for that phrase to be a term of art with a consistent meaning across uses. Also, the Sun Funds essentially argue that, by relying on Groetzinger, which stated that it was not cutting back on Higgins, the PBGC‘s “investment plus” test must be interpreted in a way consistent with Higgins and its progeny. Under Higgins, the Funds contend, they cannot be “trades or businesses.”
As to the first argument, we reject the proposition that,
apart from the provisions covered by
As to the second argument, we see no inconsistency with Higgins or Whipple. Those cases were concerned with different issues and did not purport to provide per se rules, much less rules determinative of withdrawal liability under the MPPAA. The premise of the Sun Funds’ argument is that Higgins and Whipple mean that entities that make investments, manage those investments, and earn only investment returns cannot be “trades or businesses” for any purpose. That argument is too blunt an instrument. In Higgins, the issue was whether certain claimed expenses were eligible for the deduction the taxpayer sought. The taxpayer, who had extensive investments in real estate, bonds, and stocks, spent a considerable amount of effort and time administratively overseeing his interests. 312 U.S. at 213. The taxpayer hired others to assist him and also rented offices to oversee his investments. Id. He claimed those expenses were deductible under Section 23(a) of the Revenue Act of 1932 as ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on a “trade or business.” Id. at 213-14. The Supreme Court held that those expenses were not incurred while carrying on a “trade or business” and were therefore not deductible. Id. at 217-18.
The Supreme Court reasoned that this was true because “[t]he petitioner merely kept records and collected interest and dividends from his securities, through managerial attention for his investments.” Id. at 218. The Court held that, no matter the size of the estate or the continuous nature of the work required to keep a watchful eye on investments, that by itself could not constitute a “trade or business.” Id. Significantly, the Court noted that the taxpayer “did not participate directly or indirectly in the management of the corporations in which he held stock or bonds.” Id. at 214.
The facts of this case are easily distinguishable from those of Higgins. See id. at 217 (“To determine whether the activities of a taxpayer are ‘carrying on a business’ requires an examination of the facts in each case.“). First, the taxpayer in Higgins was trying to claim a deduction to avoid paying taxes. Second and more important, unlike the investor in Higgins, the Sun Funds did participate in the management of SBI, albeit through affiliated entities.25
Whipple is also distinguishable: The taxpayer there
sought to deduct a worthless loan made to a business he controlled
as a bad business debt incurred in the taxpayer‘s “trade or
business.” 373 U.S. at 194-97. The taxpayer claimed that, because
he furnished regular services, namely his time and energy to
Devoting one‘s time and energies to the affairs of a corрoration is not of itself, and without more, a trade or business of the person so engaged. Though such activities may produce income, profit or gain in the form of dividends or enhancement in the value of an investment, this return is distinctive to the process of investing and is generated by the successful operation of the corporation‘s business as distinguished from the trade or business of the taxpayer himself. When the only return is that of an investor, the taxpayer has not satisfied his burden of demonstrating that he is engaged in a trade or business since investing is not a trade or business and the return to the taxpayer, though substantially the product of his services, legally arises not from his own trade or business but from that of the corporation.
Id. at 202 (emphasis added). The Sun Funds say that, because they earned no income other than dividends and capital gains, they are not “trades or businesses.” But the Sun Funds did not simply devote time and energy to SBI, “without more.” Rather, they were able to funnel management and consulting fees to Sun Fund IV‘s general partner and its subsidiary. Most significantly, Sun Fund IV received a direct economic benefit in the form of offsets against the fees it would otherwise have paid its general partner. It is difficult to see why the Whipple “without more” formulation is inconsistent with an MPPAA “investment plus” test.
The “investment plus” test as we have construed it in this opinion is thus consistent with the Groetzinger, Higgins, and Whipple line of cases.26 Cf. SCOFBP, 668 F.3d at 878 (“[I]t seems highly unlikely that a formal for-profit business organization would not qualify as a ‘trade or business’ under the Groetzinger test.“); Rosenthal, Taxing Private Equity Funds as Corporate ‘Developers‘, at 365 (“[P]rivate equity funds are active enough to be in a trade or business.“).
The Sun Funds make an additional argument: that because none of the relevant activities by agents and different business entities can be attributed to the Sun Funds themselves, withdrawal liability cannot be imposed upon them. We reject this argument as well. Without resolving the issue of the extent to which Congress intended in this area to honor corporate formalities, as have the parties, we look to the Restatement of Agency. Cf. Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434, 2441 (2013) (looking to Restatement of Agency to decide when Title VII vicarious liability appropriate). And, because the Sun Funds are Delaware limited partnerships, we also look to Delaware law.
Under Delaware law, a partner “is an agent of the
partnership for the purpose of its business, purposes or
activities,”
Here, the limited partnership agreements gave the Sun Funds’ general partners the exclusive authority to act on behalf of the limited partnerships to effectuate their purposes.27 These purposes included managing and supervising investments in portfolio companies, as well as “other such activity incidental or ancillary thereto” as deemed advisable by the general partner. So, under Delaware law, it is clear that the general partner of Sun Fund IV, in providing management services to SBI, was acting as an agent of the Fund.
Moreover, even absent Delaware partnership law, the partnership agreements themselves grant actual authority for the general partner to provide management services to portfolio companies like SBI. See Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 2.01, 3.01; cf. id. § 7.04 (principal incurs tort liability vicariously where agent acts with actual authority). And the general partners’ own partnership agreements giving power to the limited partner committee to make determinations about hiring, terminating, and compensating agents and employees of the Sun Funds and their portfolio companies show the existence of such authority. Hence, the general partner was acting within the scope of its authority.
Even so, the Sun Funds argue that the general partner entered the management service contract with SBI on its own accord, not as an agent of the Sun Funds.28 The Sun Funds’ own characterization is not dispositive.29 Cf. Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.02 cmt. a (stating “how the parties to any given relationship label it is not dispositive“).
The argument is unpersuasive for at least two reasons.
First, it was within the general partner‘s scope of authority to
provide management services to SBI. Second,
The Sun Funds also make a policy argument that Congress
never intended such a result in its
These are fine lines. The various arrangements and entities meant precisely to shield the Sun Funds from liability may be viewed as an attempt to divvy up operations to avoid ERISA obligations. We recognize that Congress mаy wish to encourage investment in distressed companies by curtailing the risk to investors in such employers of acquiring ERISA withdrawal liability. If so, Congress has not been explicit, and it may prefer instead to rely on the usual pricing mechanism in the private market for assumption of risk.
We express our dismay that the PBGC has not given more and earlier guidance on this “trade or business” “investment plus” theory to the many parties affected. The PBGC has not engaged in notice and comment rulemaking or even issued guidance of any kind which was subject to prior public notice and comment. See C. Sunstein, Simpler 216 (2013) (“[G]overnment officials learn from public comments on proposed rules. . . . It is not merely sensible to provide people with an opportunity to comment on rules before they are finalized; it is indispensable, a crucial safeguard against error.“). Moreover, its appeals letter that provides for the “investment plus” test leaves open many questions about exactly where the line should be drawn between a mere passive investor and one engaged in a “trade or business.”
Because to be an “employer” under
III.
We deny, for different reasons than the district court,
the TPF‘s appeal from entry of summary judgment against its claim
under
The TPF argues that
We hold that
The language of
Disregarding the agreement to divide SSB-LLC 70%/30%
would not result in Sun Fund IV being the 100% owner of SBI. At the moment SSB-LLC was divided 70%/30%, the transaction to purchase
SBI had not been completed. There is no way of knоwing that the
acquisition would have happened anyway if Sun Fund IV were to be a
100% owner, but it is doubtful. SSB-LLC was formed on December 15,
2006, at which point the 70%/30% division
The TPF argues that because Sun Fund IV had already signed a letter of intent to purchase 100% of SBI before the decision was made to divide ownership between the Sun Funds, we can rely on the letter of intent. The TPF claims that the decision to split ownership to avoid the automatic assumption of withdrawal liability at 80% ownership was made after a binding transaction was entered into through the letter of intent. That is not true. The letter of intent was so named because it was not a binding contract or any sort of purchase agreement. Rather, the letter explicitly contained a clause stating that:
The first five captioned paragraphs of this letter (‘Purchase Price‘, ‘Purchase Agreement Terms‘, ‘Financing‘, ‘Timing & Process‘, and ‘Due Diligence‘) represent only the intent of the parties, do not constitute a contract or agreement, are not binding, and shall not be enforceable against the Sellers, the Company, or Sun Capital. . . . [N]either party shall have any legally binding obligation to the other unless and until a definitive purchase agreement is executed.
This is simply not a case about an entity with a controlling stake of 80% or more under the MPPAA seeking to shed its controlling status to avoid withdrawal liability. As such, disregarding the agreement to divide ownership of SSB-LLC would not leave us with Sun Fund IV holding a controlling 80% stake in SBI.
The Sun Funds are not subject to liability pursuant to
IV.
Accordingly, the district court‘s grant of summary judgment is reversed in part, vacated in part, and affirmed in part. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings, including those needed to determine the “trade or business” issue as to Sun Fund III, and the issue of common cоntrol. So ordered. No costs are awarded.