United States: Sun Capital Update: Court Of Appeals Reverses District Court's Finding Of Constructive Partnership Between Private Equity Funds

On November 22, 2019, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held in Sun Capital Partners III, LP, et al. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, 1 that two private equity funds, Sun Capital Partners III, LP ("Fund III") and Sun Capital Partners IV, LP ("Fund IV", and together with Fund III, the "Funds") were not liable for approximately $4.5 million in multiemployer pension plan withdrawal liability of their bankrupt portfolio company. The First Circuit reversed a 2016 District Court decision finding that the Funds had created an implied partnership-in-fact.

Although the First Circuit found in favor of the Funds, its opinion suggests that courts might imply a partnership-in-fact, and private equity funds could be found liable for the pension obligations of their portfolio companies, depending on the relevant facts and circumstances. 2 While the decision relates to a private equity fund, and thus has several important implications for private equity firms as discussed in more detail below, the issues at play could also have implications for other alternative investment managers, including venture capital funds, family offices and sovereign wealth funds.


Sun Capital Advisors, Inc. ("SCAI"), a private equity firm, established both Funds. In 2006, the Funds acquired Scott Brass, a brass and copper manufacturing business which was a participant in the New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, a multiemployer pension plan (the "Pension Plan"). The Funds completed the Scott Brass acquisition by forming and financing a limited liability company, Sun Scott Brass, LLC ("SSB LLC"), with Fund III owning 30% and Fund IV owning 70% of SSB LLC. SSB LLC then formed and financed a wholly-owned subsidiary holding company, Scott Brass Holding Corporation, which purchased all of the outstanding stock of Scott Brass.

In 2008, Scott Brass filed for bankruptcy and subsequently withdrew from the Pension Plan, incurring withdrawal liability. A dispute arose as to whether the Funds were members of Scott Brass' controlled group, 3 such that they could be held jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"). The analysis of that dispute by the District Court centered around whether the Funds had formed, through their actions even if not through legal documentation, a general partnership (the so-called "partnership-in-fact") that could be said to hold their respective interests in SSB LLC. If they did, that partnership-in-fact would be the common parent entity of a controlled group, and its partners, the Funds, would be liable for its obligations as its general partners under partnership law.

The dispute was litigated in the U.S. District and Circuit Courts for several years. 4 In 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the Funds were liable for Scott Brass' obligations to the Pension Plan, concluding that the Funds' coordinated efforts in forming SSB LLC resulted in the Funds having formed a partnership-in-fact that was engaged in a "trade or business" under ERISA. The Funds appealed the District Court's decision.

The First Circuit's Decision

The First Circuit examined the question of whether, in spite of their "express corporate structure", the Funds had created a partnership-in-fact which was the parent entity in the Scott Brass controlled group. 5 The Court looked to Federal tax law in its analysis, ultimately finding that no partnership-in-fact existed between the Funds.

Furthermore, the Court noted that it was reluctant to impose withdrawal liability on private investors because it lacked a "firm indication of congressional intent to do so and any further formal guidance from the [Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation]." 6 The Court did not address the question of whether the Funds were engaged in a trade or business. (A failure to find that the Funds were engaged in a trade or business would have been separate grounds for finding no liability under ERISA.)

The Luna Factors

The First Circuit's analysis turned on the application of a multi-factor partnership test adopted in 1964 by the Tax Court in Luna v. Commissioner ("Luna"). 7 Notably, the Court indicated that the Luna factors applied because "[m]erely using the corporate form of a limited liability corporation cannot alone preclude courts recognizing the existence of a partnership-in-fact". 8 In other words, the fact that the Funds formed SSB LLC as their acquisition vehicle did not necessarily mean that they had not formed a partnership to engage in the acquisition (indirectly through SSB LLC).

The Court examined the following eight Luna factors in order to determine whether a partnership existed between the Funds:

  1. The parties' agreement and their conduct in executing the agreement;
  2. Each party's contributions to the venture (if any);
  3. The parties' control over income, capital and their rights to make withdrawals;
  4. Whether each party was a principal and co-proprietor, sharing a mutual proprietary interest in the net profits and having an obligation to share losses, or whether one party was the agent or employee of the other, receiving contingent compensation for services in the form of a percentage of income;
  5. Whether the parties conducted business in their joint names;
  6. Whether the parties filed Federal partnership returns or otherwise represented that they were joint venturers;
  7. Whether separate books of account were maintained for the venture; and
  8. Whether the parties exercised mutual control over and assumed mutual responsibilities for the enterprise.

Facts Weighing in Favor of a Partnership-in-Fact

The Court indicated that certain facts weighed in favor of a partnership between the Funds. Specifically:

  • Control. The Court noted that prior to incorporating SSB LLC, the Funds worked together to identify potential portfolio companies in need of intervention so that they could provide such intervention, and developed, among other things, restructuring and operating plans for such companies prior to acquiring the companies through LLCs. This behavior constituted evidence of the Funds exercising mutual control over, and assuming mutual responsibility for, the enterprise of identifying, acquiring and selling portfolio companies.Furthermore, the Court indicated that if the Funds had formed a partnership through these pre-incorporation activities, merely creating SSB LLC would not, as a matter of law, end that partnership.

    In addition, the Court indicated that the organizational control over the Funds and Scott Brass weighed in favor of a finding of a partnership-in-fact. The Court noted that the co-founders of SCAI controlled the Funds' general partners and "essentially ran things" for both the Funds and Scott Brass. 9 In particular, at the SCAI co-founders' discretion, the Funds placed SCAI employees in two of three director positions at Scott Brass, effectively allowing SCAI to control the company. Moreover, the fact that resources and expertise were pooled in SCAI, including with respect to providing management consulting and employees to portfolio companies, was cited as evidence tending to show a partnership.
  • Conduct. The Court noted that there was no record of disagreement between the Funds over the operation of SSB LLC, which suggested a partnership between the Funds.

Facts Weighing Against a Partnership-in-Fact

Despite the facts noted above, the Court found that, on balance, the majority of the facts and circumstances indicated that no partnership existed. In particular:

  • Disclaimer of Partnership.The Court emphasized that the Funds had expressly disclaimed the existence of a partnership between them, which suggested that (i) there was no agreement between the Funds to act as partners, (ii) business was not conducted in the Funds' joint names, and (iii) the Funds did not represent that they were joint venturers.
  • Creation of an LLC. The Court found that the Funds' creation of an LLC through which they acquired Scott Brass reflected a lack of intent to form a partnership.Specifically, the Court recognized that the formation of the LLC prevented the Funds from conducting business in their joint names and limited the ways in which they could exercise mutual control and responsibility for managing the portfolio company.
  • Distinct Limited Partners and Separation of Accounts.The Court stated that the majority of the entities or individuals who were limited partners in Fund IV were not limited partners in Fund III, and the Funds filed separate tax returns, kept separate books and maintained separate bank accounts.These facts implied that the Funds were operated as separate entities.
  • No Parallel Operations.The Funds had different portfolios; they did not invest in the same companies in parallel, which denoted independence in the Funds' activities and structure.

Key Takeaways

The scenario in which the Sun Capital case arose is not unique; private equity fund sponsors often use one or more entities to acquire a portfolio company target. Despite its finding in favor of the Funds in this case, the First Circuit's decision suggests that a partnership-in-fact may be implied depending on the relevant facts and circumstances. While acquisitions by separate funds of the same private equity sponsor are most likely to raise concerns about the existence of a deemed partnership, that issue can also arise in connection with fund sponsors and co-investors, or different fund sponsors in club deals.

Nonetheless, private equity fund sponsors confronting pension plan liabilities 10 at the portfolio company level can take several steps to mitigate the risk of a court inferring a partnership-in-fact and thus potentially subjecting their funds to pension plan liability. Strategies for mitigating risk are outlined below.

Structural Considerations

The structural remedies outlined below should be evaluated in light of tax and other structuring considerations.

  • Single Fund Acquisition of a Portfolio Company.
    • If one fund is acquiring, or entering into a binding agreement to acquire, a portfolio company with pension plan liabilities, consideration should be given to maintaining the fund's ownership percentage below 80%. 11
    • If that limitation is inconsistent with the business objectives, consider using an alternative investment vehicle ("AIV") to acquire and hold the portfolio company.While an AIV may be liable for pension underfunding, such a structure may effectively silo the liability to the assets of the AIV. 12
  • Acquisition of a Portfolio Company by Multiple Entities.
    • In the event that a fund and one or more other entities acquires a portfolio company where ownership, if aggregated, would equal or exceed 80%, consider using a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), such as a fund aggregator or acquisition vehicle, to make the investment or to acquire and hold the target company.The SPV should probably be formed as a limited liability company or a limited liability partnership. 13]To the extent practicable, any SPV should be formed once a target portfolio company is identified, and the SPV should be utilized when conducting diligence and related activities (including for contracts with consultants, valuation firms and other advisors related to the transaction).Alternatively, an SPV could be put in place prior to any deal sourcing activities, the purpose of which would be to source, diligence and develop operating plans for potential portfolio companies.Regardless, it would be advisable for such SPV to be formed, and for the respective capital allocations of the funds to be determined, prior to entering into any binding transaction documents and such SPV should be the entity utilized to enter into such documents where possible. 14
    • Ensure that appropriate corporate formalities are followed, including by filing separate tax returns, maintaining separate bank accounts and keeping separate books and records from those filed, maintained or kept by the SPV's limited partners or members and any entities in which the SPV holds an interest.
    • In certain circumstances, it may be desirable to put in place an SPV for parallel fund vehicles and/or co-investors.


Ensure that the governing documentation of the SPV contains explicit disclaimers of partnership/joint venture in order to avoid an inference that the owners of that SPV intended to form a partnership through which they hold the SPV.

Such a disclaimer might read as follows:

"The [Members/Limited Partners] did not intend to, and disclaim any inference to the effect that they had, formed a partnership in fact or joint venture in connection with or related to the investment to be made by the Company, and such activities should not be construed as such. Further, from and after the date of formation of this entity, the [Members/Limited Partners] intend to and shall conduct their activities related to the underlying purchase and oversight of [the target company] through this [limited liability company/limited partnership], and any activities that may have been conducted before the formation of this [limited liability company/limited partnership] shall immediately cease."

Other Strategies for Mitigating Exposure

  • Diligence. In the event a portfolio company maintains or contributes to a defined benefit pension plan, rigorous diligence should be conducted in order to understand the scope of potential liability and its potential impact on the value of the target being acquired.For example, if a target company contributes to a union-sponsored multiemployer pension plan, require the target to provide updated withdrawal liability estimates from the union in diligence, and if the provision of such estimates is impractical due to timing considerations, review all publicly-available information about the funded status of the plan. 15
  • Acquisition of a Portfolio Company from Another Private Equity Fund or in a Carveout Transaction.
    • If a credit-worthy seller will remain, a single-employer defined benefit pension plan and related liabilities should be left with the seller, and indemnities should be required to cover any funding obligations triggered by the transaction.
    • If acquiring a target company with unionized employees who participate in a union pension plan, consider structuring alternatives (or negotiate with the union a cessation of contributions to the plan) to trigger withdrawal liability at closing for the seller's account (e.g., an asset sale will generally trigger withdrawal liability unless the parties take specific steps to avoid this result).

Although the establishment of new pension plans is on the decline, the potential for private equity sponsors to be held liable for pension plan obligations of their portfolio companies will continue to be a significant issue in the merger and acquisition space, particularly in certain industries where legacy pensions are prevalent. Given the well-publicized underfunding of these plans, acquirors will need to be diligent and thoughtful about potential risks and mitigation strategies when engaging in transactions.


1 No. 16-1376 (1st Cir. Nov. 22, 2019) ("Sun Capital").

We note that the Sun Capital ruling is currently only binding in the First Circuit. It remains to be seen whether other Circuit Courts or Congress will follow the First Circuit's approach.

3 Controlled group status is generally assessed at the time of an event triggering pension funding obligations, such as a withdrawal from, or termination of, a plan. If, however, a principal purpose of a transaction is to evade or avoid liability, the transaction may be disregarded when determining controlled group status. Significantly, a "principal purpose" need not be the sole purpose. See Sherwin-Williams Co. v. N.Y. State Teamsters Pension Fund, 158 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 1998) cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1017 (1999). See also our discussion at note 10.

4 For a detailed analysis of the factual and procedural history, see our prior alerts "First Circuit Puts the 'Fund' in Pension Underfunding", available at https://www.clearygottlieb.com/on-pdfs/first-circuit-puts-the-fund-in-pension-underfunding.pdf; "U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Review Sun Capital Decision", available at https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news-and-insights/publication-listing/us-supreme-court-declines-to-review-sun-capital-decision35; and "Most Recent Sun Capital Decision Expands Reach of Controlled Group Liability Under ERISA", available at https://www.clearymawatch.com/2016/04/most-recent-sun-capital-decision-expands-reach-of-controlled-group-liability-under-erisa/.

5 Sun Capital at 3.

6 Id. at 25.

7 42 T.C. 1067 (1964).

8 Sun Capital at 18.

8 Id. at 21.

10 While the Sun Capital dispute concerned multiemployer pension liability, the same controlled group analysis would apply in the context of single-employer defined benefit pension plan underfunding liability. Although not at issue in Sun Capital, we note that ERISA includes anti-avoidance provisions for both single-employer and multiemployer pension plans. Interestingly, Section 4069 of ERISA, concerning single-employer plans, addresses "transactions . . . to evade liability" and contains a five year look-back period, but Section 4212 of ERISA, concerning multiemployer plans, addresses "transactions . . . to evade or avoid liability" and does not contain a similar look-back provision. It is also noteworthy that last week U.S. Senators Grassley and Alexander released a White Paper discussing their Multiemployer Pension Recapitalization and Reform Plan, an indication of the depth of the funding crisis facing multiemployer pension plans. Needless to say, the prospects for passage of legislation are uncertain.

11 The 80% ownership test looks to vote or value of corporations, and in the case of partnerships, to capital or profits interests, and takes into account certain (not always common-sense) attribution rules. We note that management team equity generally would not be aggregated for purposes of determining the 80% ownership threshold in both a single fund acquisition and in the context of an acquisition by more than one fund.

12 In the event an AIV structure is used, consideration should be given to waiving monitoring fees and/or avoiding management fee offsets, or potentially even "disaggregating" carried interest calculations between the AIV and the main fund vehicles. In finding that the Funds constituted a "trade or business" in an earlier Sun Capital decision, the First Circuit found that management fees and fee offsets were not helpful factors.

13 Tax and other considerations will be relevant in selecting the type of entity, and potentially the jurisdiction, of the SPV. For example, using a limited liability company (LLC) will provide for limited liability, but may adversely affect treaty qualifications for a reduction in dividend withholding tax rates. Using a limited partnership will often avoid that issue, but it will require an entity to serve as general partner, which will have general liability (including, for example, with respect to withdrawal liability), so the fund's general partner generally should not serve in that capacity. A corporation may also serve, although it may be subject to an additional level of tax.

14 Effort should be made in this context to avoid having one or more funds or other investors commit or agree to acquire an interest of 80% or more in a target pending an allocation among other funds or investors. Those facts could suggest that a subsequent reduction in the acquiror's interest was in furtherance of an effort to avoid controlled group liability. In earlier Sun Capital decisions, neither the District Court nor the First Circuit found an intent to evade, with both courts noting that the Funds did not enter into any binding transaction documents to acquire Scott Brass until after they determined the respective ownership split of the Funds.

15 We note that prior knowledge of existing pension plan liabilities can raise jurisdictional issues. In PBGC v. Asahi Tec Corp., 979 F.Supp.2d 46 (D.D.C. 2013), the U.S. District Court found that a foreign parent corporation with limited U.S. contacts was subject to the District Court's jurisdiction. The suit was brought by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to collect unfunded pension liabilities of a U.S. subsidiary the foreign parent had acquired. The Court found that the foreign parent had directed its activities at the U.S. by hiring a U.S. company to diligence pension plan obligations, and that the foreign parent was aware of the underfunded pension plan, knew that the plan was subject to ERISA and knew that ERISA provided for controlled group liability.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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.


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.


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