Up to now, many firms could not conceive of a succession plan as being subject to ERISA.
Fortunately, the Fifth Circuit, in Cantrell v. Briggs&VeselkaCo., confirmed a 2-1 decision after a rehearing and held that deferred compensation provisions in two employment contracts did not constitute a plan under ERISA. This decision does not preclude the possibility of such classification under a different set of facts or under the analysis of the dissent.
There are several issues common to employment contracts and shareholder agreements, particularly non-compete and claw-back provisions designed to protect the employer from having to make payments to a former employee engaged in direct competition.
How does an employment contract with deferred compensation provisions rise to the level of an ERISA plan? Why would a litigant want ERISA status?
Carol Cantrell is an attorney and CPA, and a noted speaker and author on taxation. Eleven years earlier, Carol and her husband, Patrick Cantrell, also an attorney, merged their accounting practice into Briggs&VeselkaCo. (Briggs). The agreement called for a series of payments upon retirement (four times W-2 salary) payable over ten years and a small redemption payment for stock.
Her husband left the accounting firm of four years before she announced she was leaving Briggs to practice law with her husband. The Briggs firm terminated the husband’s payments and refused to pay her. The Cantrells sued in state court and Briggs sought to remove the litigation to federal court on the grounds that the deferred compensation arrangement was an ERISA plan.
Why would Briggs or anyone for that matter want ERISA to apply?
The answer is that, under ERISA, a plan administrator’s decision to pay or not pay claims is given a great deal of deference.
Briggs contended the plan was a “top hat” plan which meant the Briggs firm could act as the “decision maker” without violating ERISA. 29 U.S.C. 1101 (a) exempts top hat plans from oversight, reporting and fiduciary duties under ERISA and forfeiture of benefits for cause is a common provision. If federal law applied, the state law claims cannot be successfully asserted by Cantrell.
What would it take to become an ERISA plan? An ERISA plan would require the employer to engage in an ongoing administrative scheme that requires particularized administrative discretionary analysis. There are several factors that should be considered and firms should review their agreements to ascertain whether they are close to satisfying the requirements set out in this and other decisions. Qualifying for ERISA status would require additional administrative responsibility, a burden that many firms that have reluctant to accept or assumed did not apply.
The dissenting opinion in Cantrell stated that the ability to terminate an employee for cause was a sufficient administrative scheme to invoke ERISA. No doubt, this argument will be made again, perhaps in another circuit, by a firm seeking to terminate payments of deferred compensation.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Is Your Shareholder Succession Plan Subject to ERISA or Not?
Author: James F. McDonough
Up to now, many firms could not conceive of a succession plan as being subject to ERISA.
Fortunately, the Fifth Circuit, in Cantrell v. Briggs&VeselkaCo., confirmed a 2-1 decision after a rehearing and held that deferred compensation provisions in two employment contracts did not constitute a plan under ERISA. This decision does not preclude the possibility of such classification under a different set of facts or under the analysis of the dissent.
There are several issues common to employment contracts and shareholder agreements, particularly non-compete and claw-back provisions designed to protect the employer from having to make payments to a former employee engaged in direct competition.
How does an employment contract with deferred compensation provisions rise to the level of an ERISA plan? Why would a litigant want ERISA status?
Carol Cantrell is an attorney and CPA, and a noted speaker and author on taxation. Eleven years earlier, Carol and her husband, Patrick Cantrell, also an attorney, merged their accounting practice into Briggs&VeselkaCo. (Briggs). The agreement called for a series of payments upon retirement (four times W-2 salary) payable over ten years and a small redemption payment for stock.
Her husband left the accounting firm of four years before she announced she was leaving Briggs to practice law with her husband. The Briggs firm terminated the husband’s payments and refused to pay her. The Cantrells sued in state court and Briggs sought to remove the litigation to federal court on the grounds that the deferred compensation arrangement was an ERISA plan.
Why would Briggs or anyone for that matter want ERISA to apply?
The answer is that, under ERISA, a plan administrator’s decision to pay or not pay claims is given a great deal of deference.
Briggs contended the plan was a “top hat” plan which meant the Briggs firm could act as the “decision maker” without violating ERISA. 29 U.S.C. 1101 (a) exempts top hat plans from oversight, reporting and fiduciary duties under ERISA and forfeiture of benefits for cause is a common provision. If federal law applied, the state law claims cannot be successfully asserted by Cantrell.
What would it take to become an ERISA plan? An ERISA plan would require the employer to engage in an ongoing administrative scheme that requires particularized administrative discretionary analysis. There are several factors that should be considered and firms should review their agreements to ascertain whether they are close to satisfying the requirements set out in this and other decisions. Qualifying for ERISA status would require additional administrative responsibility, a burden that many firms that have reluctant to accept or assumed did not apply.
The dissenting opinion in Cantrell stated that the ability to terminate an employee for cause was a sufficient administrative scheme to invoke ERISA. No doubt, this argument will be made again, perhaps in another circuit, by a firm seeking to terminate payments of deferred compensation.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
