私人股本公司通常把自己定位为投资工具，而不是实际的业务经理。但今年3月，美国马萨诸塞州地区法院的道格拉斯·伍德洛克法官推翻了这一想法。在一项关于Sun Capital Partners III、LP、Sun Capital Partners III QP、LP和Sun Capital Partners IV、LP、v。新英格兰卡车司机和卡车运输业养老基金case, Judge Woodlock found that a private equity firm met the test for being considered a trade or business.
This decision, which leaves Sun Capital Partners on the hook for retiree pensions at one of its portfolio companies, makes general partners liable for such businesses in many of the same ways that CEOs are. It could also have an impact on pension plans at other private equity firm–owned companies.
太阳资本对此裁决不予置评。这家总部位于佛罗里达州博卡拉顿（Boca Raton）的公司自2013年以来一直在法庭上为避免支付罗得岛金属制造商Scott Brass的养老金债务而斗争。圣路易斯律师事务所Schlichter-Bogard&Denton的创始管理合伙人Jerome Schlichter代表工会处理就业福利案件，他说，其他退休人员可以把这个案件作为自己索赔的模式。
“The lesson we should learn from this case is that the court isn’t just looking at the form of a private equity transaction,” Schlichter notes. “They’re looking at the substance of that deal.”
为了确定谁控制一家投资组合公司，法官要同时考虑所有权和谁在企业中活跃；后者取决于交易和公司的结构。私人股本公司通过让首席执行官留任，或安装一个更符合普通合伙人利益的新首席执行官，避免了在投资组合公司中表现活跃的现象。但联邦ERISA立法包括所谓的“投资加成”标准：即使私人股本公司依赖传统的投资基金结构，在控制权问题上，无论结构如何，法院都会考虑哪一方最为活跃。
When $9.1 billion Sun Capital bought Scott Brass in 2006, the metals maker was required to contribute to the New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, but it stopped doing so in 2008, triggering a withdrawal liability under federal retirement rules. The Teamsters argued that, as the company’s owner, Sun Capital should cover the pension payments.
2013年，美国第一巡回上诉法院（U.S.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit）站在工会一边，认为如果私募股权公司的任何基金从其投资中获得经济利益，则私募股权公司可以作为行业或企业对其投资组合公司的退出责任承担责任。从那以后，此案一直在上诉。今年3月，伍德洛克法官表示，Sun Capital构建Scott Brass交易的方式使其成为“事实上的伙伴关系”，符合主动控制的投资附加测试。
投资的基本结构是常见的private equity: Sun Capital spread it across two funds and used a holding company to make the purchase. Beyond the acquisition Sun Capital’s funds offset the management fees that they owed to the holding company by taking other fees from Scott Brass. Given that two funds joined forces to look for deals and set up fee offsets, the structure met the investment-plus test, the judge ruled.
Schulte Roth&Zabel律师事务所驻纽约合伙人兼就业和员工福利组联席主管Ronald Richman说：“由于共同控制原则的可能应用，共同投资的直接投资者需要注意他们的组织和运作方式。”。共同控制原则是法院确定谁真正拥有和控制一个实体的法律标准。”全球定位系统应该考虑到这里的所有影响，”Richman总结道。
总部位于加州圣地亚哥的私募股权咨询公司TorreyCove Capital Partners的总裁兼首席执行官范恩（David Fann）表示，一个主要后果可能是估值下降。当私人股本公司审视潜在的投资组合公司时，任何养老金负债现在都可以作为现金流风险反映在资产负债表上，范恩说他警告说：“我认为交易团队必须考虑风险，但投资者也一样。”如果估值较低，将影响回报。”
The notion that private equity is purely an investment gets harder to support as general partners create internal consulting outfits and advisory groups and become organizations that are in the business of buying and selling companies, Richman observes. “It is definitely possible that other courts will use the investment-plus test, or even a more rigorous test, to find that private equity firms are trades or businesses,” he says, adding that he wouldn’t be surprised to see more such cases, especially in industries under financial stress.
施利希特律师也同意这一观点：“当私人股本进入一家陷入困境的公司时，要求私人股本在扭亏为盈中发挥积极作用，这使得法院更容易说‘这是一项业务’，”他指出。太阳资本的裁决也为像联邦银行这样的球员铺平了道路养老保险公司. 更积极地针对私募股权所有者支付未支付的养老保险费；同样，如果普通合伙人达成了类似于Scott Brass收购案的交易，这也有助于PBGC确定应由谁支付养老金负债。如果美国国税局采纳了法院对私人股本的观点，它可能会改变这种做法附带权益is treated in the tax code, which could have material implications for firms and their investors.
Broadly speaking, private equity firms market themselves as active investors, TorreyCove’s Fann explains. “But many of the investment standards in these rules treat investments as purely passive vehicles, so there is a tension there,” he says of ERISA and other legislation, predicting that it will get tougher for firms to claim a passive role. “It’s a symptom of a maturing industry, and the industry may have to change.”