The former president of a credit union service organization (“Executive”) brought several state-law claims for breach of contract and misrepresentation against his employer in connection with an agreement to terminate an Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”).  The credit union had been in severe financial distress and had offered to partially vest the Executive’s benefit, terminate the Plan and pay the Executive a distribution of $234,068.18 in exchange for his agreement to the Plan termination.  Before the credit union could pay the Executive, it was placed into conservatorship.  The conservator repudiated the agreement with the Executive.  The Executive then terminated his employment and filed suit in Texas state court.  The credit union removed the case to a federal district court and filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the Executive’s state-law claims were preempted by ERISA.  The court analyzed whether the Plan is an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan.  In its analysis, the court determined that because the Plan involved a one-time lump-sum payment, there was no “ongoing administrative scheme” and thus, the Plan was not governed by ERISA.  While the credit union argued that the administrator of the Plan exercised discretion to determine whether triggering events under the Plan occurred, the court maintained that there were no other aspects of the Plan that would require an “ongoing administrative scheme.”  Accordingly, the court held that the Executive’s state-law claims are not preempted by ERISA.  Kirkindoll v. Texans Credit Union, No. 3:11-CV-1921-D (N.D. Tex. October 15, 2012).