United States: Fifth Circuit Decision Includes Important Holdings For ESOP Fiduciaries

Christopher Buch is an Associate and Louis Joseph is Senior Counsel in Holland & Knight's Chicago office

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the holdings of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on numerous issues involving the sale of closely held stock from a company's owner to the company's employee stock ownership plan (ESOP).
  • The case, Perez v. Bruister, focused on whether the trustees of the ESOP breached their fiduciary duties to the ESOP by overpaying for the company stock.
  • The Fifth Circuit reviewed a number of important issues, including standing, shareholder status as a fiduciary, duty of loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), engaging in a prohibited transaction, equitable relief and determination of losses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed on May 3, 2016, the holdings of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on numerous issues involving the sale of closely held stock from a company's owner to the company's employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) in Perez v. Bruister, No. 14-60811 (5th Cir. 2016). Among the court's key rulings were the following:

  • ESOP participants may bring claims on behalf of the ESOP without proceeding as a class action, at least in cases where the U.S. Secretary of Labor also participates.
  • An ESOP trustee who is also the seller in an ESOP transaction may be found to have breached his fiduciary duties, even if he abstains from voting on the transaction.
  • Whether trustees violate their Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary responsibilities in an ESOP transaction is a function of whether they acted solely in the interest of the plan's participants; thus, a violation can occur even if the ESOP fortuitously paid no more than adequate consideration.
  • The burden of proving that an ESOP stock purchase meets the requirements for exemption from the ERISA prohibited transaction rules falls squarely on the plan fiduciaries, who must show that they arrived at their conclusion of fair market value by means of prudent investigation under the circumstances then prevailing.
  • Where an ESOP overpays for company stock, it is entitled to restitution for the difference between the amount paid and the stock's fair market value at the time of the transaction; the amount of restitution is not limited to the amount the ESOP has paid on its securities acquisition loan, nor is it affected by changes in value of the company stock subsequent to the transaction.

Perez v. Bruister focused on whether the trustees of the ESOP breached their fiduciary duties to the ESOP by overpaying for the company stock. The U.S. Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) and two plan participants brought separate civil actions, raising claims for 1) breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty under Section 404(a)(1)(A) of ERISA, as amended, 2) engaging in prohibited transactions in violation of Section 406 of ERISA, 3) failing to monitor investments as required by Section 404(a)(1)(A) of ERISA and 4) co-fiduciary liability under Section 405 of ERISA. The two cases were consolidated, and the District Court conducted a 19-day bench trial, during which it ruled in favor of the Secretary and the plan participants on all claims.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed a number of important issues, as discussed below:

Standing

Defendants argued that the District Court erred by allowing individual participants to bring a claim on behalf of the ESOP and its beneficiaries without seeking class certification or having the court provide safeguards for absent beneficiaries' interests. The Fifth Circuit found that because the private plaintiffs advanced the interests of the ESOP as a whole and did not make a claim for individual recovery, and because the Secretary had joined the case, there was no requirement that the private plaintiffs pursue their claims on a class action basis. The Fifth Circuit did note, however, that it might not have reached the same conclusion if the Secretary had not also joined the case.

Selling Shareholder Status as a Fiduciary

The Fifth Circuit recognized that there are three ways in which an individual may become a fiduciary under ERISA: 1) by being named as a fiduciary in the instrument establishing the plan, 2) by becoming a named fiduciary pursuant to a procedure specified in the plan or 3) by serving as a "functional" fiduciary pursuant to Section 3(21)(a) of ERISA.

The Fifth Circuit applied the "two hats" doctrine set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, stating that an individual is subject to fiduciary duties under ERISA only to the extent that such individual performs fiduciary functions with respect to a plan. In this case, the principal defendant wore two hats: selling shareholder and ESOP trustee. In an apparent effort to avoid an impermissible conflict in his role as trustee, the defendant did not vote on any matters items related to the ESOP transaction. Despite his abstention, the Fifth Circuit found that the seller/trustee was still a functional fiduciary with respect to the transactions because he 1) fired the original ESOP appraiser, 2) hired a new ESOP appraiser, 3) influenced the outcome of the second appraiser's valuations, 4) made his personal preferences regarding the transaction known to other ESOP trustees and 5) actively participated in trustee meetings considering the transaction.

The Secretary, citing an earlier Fifth Circuit case, had argued that the seller/trustee was obligated to remove himself completely from the fiduciary decision-making process. In a footnote, the Fifth Circuit stated that while, in this case, the seller/trustee stepped over the line by taking an active role in setting the purchase price paid by the ESOP, this fact does not establish a rule of law that a conflicted fiduciary must remove himself completely from the decision-making process. The court did not, however, elaborate on what it believed the permissible scope of involvement by a conflicted fiduciary in such a situation might be.

Duty of Loyalty

The Fifth Circuit then turned to the question of whether the trustees breached their duty of loyalty to the ESOP. The trustees argued that they did not breach their duty of loyalty because the valuations prepared by the ESOP appraiser were similar to the valuations set forth by defendants' trial experts. The Fifth Circuit rejected this "all's well that ends well" argument, holding that, for liability to arise under ERISA, the critical question is whether there was a conflict of interest, and, if so, whether the conflict was avoided because the trustees' decisions were "made with an eye single to the interests of the participants and beneficiaries." Whether the ESOP paid no more than adequate consideration for the company stock is not dispositive of whether the trustees can be found to have breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA. The question of whether the ESOP actually overpaid goes to losses, not liability. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the fiduciary duty of loyalty was breached because 1) the trustees fired the ESOP's independent counsel, 2) the seller/trustee's personal lawyer influenced the appraiser's valuations to inflate the stock price, 3) valuation drafts were sent to sellers before being sent to the ESOP, 4) the ESOP's counsel was cut out of all valuation communications, 5) assumptions were adjusted to obtain a higher valuation for the seller and 6) trustees did not speak up for the ESOP participants.

While the Fifth Circuit found that the trustees breached their duty of loyalty and prudence in their conduct, the court noted that it was not approving nor relying upon an additional derivative theory of liability under ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(A). The District Court had held the seller/trustee individually liable for failing to monitor the activities of other ESOP trustees. While the Fifth Circuit ultimately found that the trustees in this case breached their duties of loyalty, it stated that this was not because of any derivative liability theory based upon a failure to monitor, a theory of which the court said it did not approve.

Engaging in a Prohibited Transaction

While a plan's purchase of company stock from a party in interest is, on its face, prohibited by ERISA, the transaction will be exempt from the prohibited transaction rules if the plan pays no more than adequate consideration (and certain other requirements are satisfied). However, the burden of showing that no more than adequate consideration was paid falls entirely on the plan fiduciaries. According to the Fifth Circuit, in order to sustain this burden, the fiduciaries must demonstrate that they had arrived at their conclusion of fair market value by way of a prudent investigation into the circumstances then prevailing. According to the appellate court, the ERISA exemption from the prohibited transaction rules is focused on the conduct of the fiduciaries, assessed in light of the overriding ERISA duty of care.

While fiduciaries may point to their use of an expert as evidence of a good faith investigation, here, the trustees 1) did not undertake a full investigation into the appraiser's background and qualifications, 2) overlooked communications that were aimed at increasing the value of the company as opposed to determining an objective fair market value, 3) failed to inform the appraiser of significant information and risk factors about the company and 4) failed to double check or review the appraiser's conclusions. The Fifth Circuit determined that the trustees did not act prudently, and therefore could not show that adequate consideration was paid so as to claim exemption from the prohibited transaction rules. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's holding that the trustees had caused the ESOP to engage in a prohibited transaction.

Equitable Relief and Determination of Losses

In the remedies portion of its decision, the Fifth Circuit initially addressed the Secretary's contention that the District Court should have ordered that the original ESOP stock purchases be rescinded. (This would have resulted in the defendants having to return the entire purchase price to the ESOP in exchange for return of the company stock from the ESOP; however, at that point, the company stock was worthless.) The Fifth Circuit agreed that rescission might be ordered in an appropriate case (e.g., where losses cannot be fairly determined), but indicated that ordinarily the focus should be on losses incurred by the ESOP as a result of the defendants' fiduciary breaches. In that connection, the Fifth Circuit held that losses are to be calculated based on the difference between the amount the ESOP paid for the shares and the actual fair market value of the shares at the time of the transaction. In so holding, the Fifth Circuit rejected the Secretary's argument that losses should be measured as the difference between the price paid by the ESOP in the original transactions and the currentvalue of the company stock, which, at that point, was zero.

However, the Fifth Circuit did determine that the ESOP's losses were not limited to the amount that the ESOP had actually expended in payment for the shares. A brief review of the underlying facts is helpful to an understanding of this holding. For one of the stock purchases, the ESOP agreed to pay $10.5 million for shares that the District Court determined to be worth $7.1 million at the time of the transaction. The District Court determined that this transaction resulted in a loss to the ESOP of approximately $3.4 million. The ESOP's purchase, however, was made entirely with borrowed funds, as to which the ESOP had repaid total principal and interest of approximately $762,000. The Fifth Circuit rejected the defendants' argument that the ESOP's losses could not exceed the $762,000 it actually expended in connection with the stock purchase, instead holding that the ESOP was entitled to recover the entire $3.4 million differential between the purchase price and the fair market value of the shares at the time of the transaction.

Finally, the Fifth Circuit held that a non-fiduciary party in interest entity (an affiliate of the seller/trustee) that had sold overpriced shares to the ESOP could be held liable under the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA, even though it had no duty to the ESOP under the substantive provisions of the statute. The Fifth Circuit therefore affirmed the District Court's decision, holding the non-fiduciary party in interest jointly and severally liable with the breaching fiduciaries for the losses incurred by the ESOP.

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.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions