United States: Sun Capital: District Court Relies On Constructive Partnership Theory To Find Separate PE Funds Liable For A Portfolio Company's Pension Obligations

The most recent Sun Capital decision is a troubling development for private equity fund sponsors and will likely require a "rethink" of fund structuring when private equity funds own portfolio companies with significant underfunded or contingent pension liabilities.

In the earlier decision Sun Capital Partners III, L.P. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Multiemployer Plan, 724 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2013) ("Sun II"), the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that one of the two private equity funds involved in the case (collectively, the "Sun Funds") operated as a "trade or business" for purposes of ERISA. However, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the district court in order to determine whether the second Sun Fund was a "trade or business," and whether the two Sun Funds together were under "common control" with Scott Brass, Inc. ("Scott Brass"), the bankrupt portfolio company previously owned by the two funds.1

On March 28th, on remand, the District Court of Massachusetts in Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund, No. 10-10921-DPW (D. Mass. 2016) ("Sun III") held that the two Sun Funds were liable for the unfunded vested benefits owed to the New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund (the "Multiemployer Plan") by Scott Brass. In reaching its decision, the district court concluded that both Sun Funds were engaged in a "trade or business" and that the two Sun Funds constituted a "partnership-in-fact," thereby allowing aggregation of their ownership of Scott Brass for purposes of ERISA's "common control" test.


At the time it entered bankruptcy in 2008, Scott Brass was owned by Scott Brass Holding Corp. ("Holdings"), which itself was owned by Scott Brass, LLC (the "LLC"). The LLC had been formed by the two Sun Funds, Sun Capital Partners III, LP ("Fund III"), which owned 30% of the LLC, and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP ("Fund IV"), which owned 70% of the LLC.2 The general partner of Fund III was Sun Capital Advisors III, LP and the general partner of Fund IV was Sun Capital Advisors IV, LP. Each general partner had a limited partnership committee consisting of two individuals who were associated with the general partners and who were also the Co-CEOs of Sun Capital Advisors, Inc. ("Sun Advisors"). In a not uncommon fund structure, Sun Advisors advised the Sun Funds and also provided management consulting and employees to the portfolio companies owned by the Sun Funds.3

In October of 2008, a month before it declared bankruptcy, Scott Brass withdrew from the Multiemployer Plan, and the Multiemployer Plan demanded Scott Brass pay withdrawal liability in the amount of $4,516,539.4 Shortly thereafter, the Multiemployer Plan determined that the Sun Funds were "trades or businesses" that had entered into a joint venture or partnership that placed them in "common control" with Scott Brass. As a result, the Multiemployer Plan asserted that the Sun Funds were common employers that were jointly and severally liable with Scott Brass for the withdrawal liability.5

ERISA's withdrawal liability rules are complex, but a key aspect of these rules is that "trades or businesses" under "common control" at the time of a withdrawal from a multiemployer pension plan are jointly and severally liable for any withdrawal liability triggered in connection with the withdrawal. The determination, then, of common employer status was key to resolving any obligation that the Sun Funds might owe to the Multiemployer Plan.

In June of 2010, the Sun Funds filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that they were not "employers" liable for the withdrawal liability, and the Multiemployer Plan counterclaimed, asserting the opposite.

In its first ruling on the matter in October of 2012, the district court held that the Sun Funds were not liable because they were not involved in a "trade or business."6 Further, because the district court determined that the Sun Funds were not involved in a "trade or business," the court did not find it necessary to make a decision as to whether the Sun Funds were involved in a joint venture or partnership that would place them under "common control" with Scott Brass.7 On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Sun II, found that Fund IV was a "trade or business" and remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether Fund III was a "trade or business" and whether the Sun Funds were in "common control" with Scott Brass.8

The Sun Funds Were Involved in a "Trade or Business"

As noted above, an employer is responsible for withdrawal liability when it withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan and, pursuant to § 4001 of ERISA, all "trades or businesses" under common control with the employer will be treated as a single employer (and, therefore, will be jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability). Because the term "trade or business" has not been defined in applicable ERISA regulations or by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals chose to apply an "investment plus" test in order to determine whether the Sun Funds' investment was a passive investment, or whether the Sun Funds were engaged in a trade or business associated with making the investment.9

Under this fact-specific "investment plus" analysis, the Court of Appeals found that Fund IV was involved in a "trade or business" because, along with Fund III, Fund IV was actively involved in the management and operation of Scott Brass and controlled two of the three director positions at Scott Brass.10 In addition, the Court of Appeals concluded that Fund IV's involvement in Scott Brass provided it with a direct economic benefit that an ordinary passive investor would not derive as it was able to offset the management fees it owed to its general partner with its pro rata portion of the management fees Sun Capital Partners Management IV, LLC ("Management") received from Scott Brass.11

The Court of Appeals was unable in its 2013 decision to determine whether Fund III received a similar economic benefit from the fee offset and, therefore, it remanded the case back to the district court to make that determination. (The district court notes, however, that the First Circuit's holding was based on an erroneous interpretation of the facts, and it was actually Fund III that received the economic benefit of the management offset. Therefore, the district court "felt obligated" to evaluate whether Fund IV was truly engaged in a "trade or business.") Upon remand, the district court concluded that Fund IV was involved in a "trade or business" based on an analysis of management-related activities provided to Scott Brass and the benefits derived by Fund IV from management fee offsets and "carry-forwards" that would not have been available to "an ordinary, passive investor" that does not engage in management activities.12

The Sun Funds Were Under "Common Control" with Scott Brass

Applicable ERISA regulations provide that organizations are under "common control" if they are part of a chain of organizations connected through a parent organization in which a "controlling interest" (defined as an 80% equity interest by vote or value) in each organization (other than the parent) is owned by one or more of the other organizations. There was no question in the case that Scott Brass was fully owned by Holdings, and that Holdings was fully owned by the LLC. However, neither of the Sun Funds owned 80% of the LLC such that it would be considered under "common control" with Scott Brass for purposes of ERISA, although the two Sun Funds collectively owned 100% of the LLC.13 The Multiemployer Plan, however, argued that the Sun Funds were involved in a joint venture or partnership-in-fact that sits above the LLC and which had complete control of the LLC. Therefore, if the joint venture or partnership-in-fact was a "trade or business," it would be jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, and would pass that liability on to the Sun Funds as its partners. The Sun Funds countered that they had intentionally chosen to invest through an LLC (rather than a partnership) and the district court should not deprive them of the benefits of their chosen organizational form.

The district court, however, did not agree with the contention of the Sun Funds that ERISA requires strict adherence to organizational formalities, and stated that the question of organizational liability must reflect the economic realities of the business entities created for the acquisition of Scott Brass.14 In a somewhat disturbing departure from the conventional understanding of how ERISA operates, the district court noted that a choice of business organization under state law is not necessarily determinative of treatment under federal law and "[e]ven where an express agreement is determinative under state law, 'such an agreement is but one factor in determining whether a partnership exists for tax purposes.'"15 Applying this reasoning, the district court found that the LLC was nothing more than a vehicle to coordinate the activities of the two Sun Funds and avoid liability, and was not an independent entity.16

After determining that it could ignore the Sun Funds' choice of business entity, the district court set out to determine if the Sun Funds had in fact formed a partnership prior to the formation of LLC. The district court noted that the Sun Funds' motivations for the 70/30 split were that: (1) Fund III was nearing the end of its investment cycle while Fund IV was earlier in its cycle, (2) a preference for investment diversification and (3) a desire to keep each Sun Fund below 80% to avoid withdrawal liability. Other than the preference for income diversification, the district court found that these reasons demonstrated coordination and joint action and a decision to allocate responsibilities jointly.17 Therefore, the district court concluded that the Sun Funds did in fact form a partnership prior to forming the LLC. Finally, because the district court had determined that each Sun Fund engaged in activities that made it a "trade or business," and there was substantial overlap between those activities and the activities of the partnership-in-fact, the Court determined that the partnership-in-fact was a "trade or business."18

The Significance of the Ruling

In Sun II, the Court of Appeals introduced the idea that a private equity fund could be operated as a "trade or business" and aggregated with a portfolio company for purposes of ERISA. That decision made it more difficult for single funds to own a greater than 80% interest in companies with pension plan liabilities, particularly when the fund would be engaging in the common practice of providing management services to the portfolio company. The district court's ruling in Sun III takes the Court of Appeals ruling even further by eliminating a popular technique used to structure around the 80% test, particularly when one or more funds are providing management services.

The district court's ruling has three immediate implications for private equity fund sponsors: First, it may no longer be advisable for fund sponsors to rely on formal legal structuring among related funds when investing in portfolio companies that have meaningful unfunded or contingent pension liabilities. Second, funds will likely be found to be engaged in a trade or business for purposes of ERISA when they provide management and other services to portfolio companies from which they derive an economic benefit. Third, pre-formation activities of fund sponsors in establishing and managing their funds appears to be relevant to determining whether a partnership-in-fact will be treated as the common owner of the equity position of each fund in any portfolio company held in common by related funds. This will undoubtedly lead to a "rethink" of structuring alternatives when funds make investments in portfolio companies with significant pension exposures, and may lead to funds taking smaller positions in these companies or structuring their investments with other, unaffiliated investors.

The novelty of the rulings in the case may lead to contrary holdings by other appellate courts and, longer term, we hope will result in a more reasonable resolution of these important legal questions by the Supreme Court.

To read the full article please click here.


1 For a discussion of Sun II, including the implications of its "trade or business" analysis, please see our client publication, "Private Equity Funds May Be on the Hook for the Pension Liabilities of Portfolio Companies," available at: http://www.shearman.com/~/media/Files/NewsInsights/Publications/2013/08/Private-Equity-Funds-May-Be-on-the-Hook-for-the-__/Files/View-full-memo-Private-Equity-Funds-May-Be-on-th__/FileAttachment/PrivateEquityFundsMayBeontheHookforthePensionLia__.pdf.

2 As noted in the attached chart, although Fund III was actually two separate entities operating as parallel funds, the Court treated them as one entity, as they shared a general partner and invested together in a fixed proportion.

3 A structure chart illustrating the ownership of Scott Brass is attached to this publication as Appendix A.

4 See 29 USC § 1381 (providing that an employer that withdraws from a multiemployer plan must pay to the plan its allocable amount of unfunded vested benefits as determined under the statute).

5 See 29 USC § 1301 (providing that another entity will be liable for the withdrawal liabilities of an employer, if it is (1) a "trade or business" and (2) under "common control" with the employer). See also 29 C.F.R. § 4001.3 (providing that the meaning of "common control" is determined under § 414(c) of the Internal Revenue Code; under § 414(c), a subsidiary is under common control with its parent if the parent owns 80% of the vote or value of the subsidiary. 26 C.F.R. § 1.414(c)-2(b)). 6 See Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Multiemployer Plan, 903 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D. Mass. 2012) ("Sun I").

7 Sun I, 903 F. Supp. 2d at 118.

8 Sun II, 724 F.3d at 149.

9 Sun III, No. 10-10921-DPW, at 2 (quoting Sun II, 724 F.3d at 141).

10 Sun II, 724 F.3d at 141-143. The Court did not address whether the Sun Funds were "trades or businesses" as a result of being engaged in the development, promotion and sale of companies because the argument was presented by the Multiemployer Plan too late in the case. (Id. at fn. 26.)

11 Id. at 3 (quoting Sun II, 724 F.3d at 143). Management, a subsidiary of Sun Capital Advisors IV, LP, was party to a management agreement with Holdings pursuant to which Management would provide management and consulting services to Holdings and Scott Brass for a fee. The fee was then allocated to Fund III and Fund IV pro rata based on their ownership of the LLC (30% to Fund III and 70% to Fund IV) as either an offset of the management fee each Sun Fund owed to its general partner, or if greater than the management fee, as a "carry-forward" against future management fees.

12 Id. at 6. The district court found that although the general partner of Fund IV waived its management fees from 2007 – 2009, the management fee "carry-forward" still provided an economic benefit to the fund. The district court rejected the Sun Funds' argument that, because there were no management fees to offset, and because there was no guarantee that the "carry-forwards" would be used in the future, there was no "direct economic benefit" from the "carry-forward." According to the district court, the "investment plus" test does not require benefits that are the equivalent of immediately recognizable income. Further, in Sun II, the First Circuit noted that "[t]he services paid for by Scott Brass were the same services that the Sun Funds would otherwise have paid for themselves to implement and oversee an operating strategy at Scott Brass." (Sun II, 724 F.3d at 148 (italics in original)).

13 Id. at 7. ("Thus, in the absence of some mechanism by which the ownership interests of [Funds] III and IV would be aggregated, withdrawal liability would not extend to the [Sun Funds] themselves under these rules.")

14 Id. at 8. ("The MPPAA is a statute that allows for, and may in certain circumstances require, the disregard of such formalities.")

15 Id. (quoting Estate of Kahn v. Commissioner, 499 F.2d 1186, 1189 (2d Cir. 1974)).

16 Id. The district court noted that LLC was nothing more than a "passive holding company" for Holdings (with no office or employees) while the Sun Funds themselves were "intimately involved in the management and operation of Scott Brass."

17 Id. at 11. ("Entities set up with rolling and overlapping lifecycles and coordination during periods of transition offer advantages to the Sun Funds group as a whole, not just to each fund. And the choice to organize Sun Scott Brass, LLC, so as to permit each of the Sun Funds coinvesting to remain under 80% ownership, is like a choice that shows an identity of interest and unity of decision-making between the Sun Funds rather than independence and mere incidental contractual coordination.")

18 Id. at 12. (Highlighting the facts that the Sun Funds jointly investigated companies for acquisition prior to the formation of the LLC, and that the Sun Funds enabled Sun Advisors to appoint board members to Scott Brass, rather than each Fund independently appointing one member.)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.