In re TOUSA, Inc., Nos. 10-60017-CIV/Gold, 10- 61478, 10-62032, 10-62035, and 10-62037 Slip Op. (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has recently held in Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, No. 12-2312 (July 24, 2013), a case of first impression at the Circuit Court level, that a private equity fund that exercises sufficient control over a portfolio company may be considered a “trade or business” for purposes of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
On July 24, 2013 the First Circuit Court of Appeals, applying an “investment plus” test, concluded that a Sun Capital private equity investment fund was engaged in a “trade or business” for purposes of determining whether the fund could be jointly and severally liable under ERISA for the unfunded pension withdrawal liability of the portfolio company.1 Two Sun Capital investment funds, conveniently named Sun Capital Partners III, LP (“Fund III”) and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP, (“Fund IV”) (the “Sun Funds”) collectively owned 100 percent of Scott Brass, Inc.
Oregon’s $29 million corporate excise tax claim against the taxpayers’ parent company was held to violate both the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Oregon claimed that Washington Mutual, Inc. (WMI) was liable for its subsidiaries’ tax because WMI had (as the parent corporation) filed consolidated corporate tax returns on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries and therefore could be held jointly and severally liable for the tax due.
On October 18, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that two private equity investment funds managed by Sun Capital Partners, Inc. were not liable for their bankrupt portfolio company's multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability (Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund, Civ. Action No. 10-10921-DPW (D. Mass. Oct. 18, 2012)).
A federal court recently held that two investment funds are not jointly and severally liable for a bankrupt portfolio company’s withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension plan disagreeing with a 2007 opinion by the Appeals Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”). The Massachusetts U.S. District Court ruled there was no liability because the investment funds are not “trades or businesses” for purposes of ERISA’s joint and several liability rules.
Sleep better at night knowing that the loan you made to your borrower is supported by collateral from the borrower’s subsidiaries? You may want to keep one eye open. On May 15, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a bankruptcy court opinion that reinforces lender liability for fraudulent transfers in subsidiary-supported loans. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida in In re TOUSA, Inc., and overruled a contrary opinion by the U.S. District Court.
A recent New York bankruptcy case holds that shareholders, directors and officers who dissolve a corporation to avoid paying a judgment against the business may be jointly and severally liable for a non-dischargeable debt in their personal bankruptcies.
The Bottom Line:
When entrepreneurs decide to embark upon a new endeavor, they must first decide the form of entity to be used in conducting their business. Do they want to incorporate the business, and if so should they elect Subchapter S status? Would they be better served by forming a limited liability company, a limited liability partnership, or a general partnership? Each of these entities has its own beneficial characteristics when considering tax consequences, ease of operation, and potential liabilities of the individual entrepreneurs.