§ 779.416(c). The parties disagree as to whether Defendant’s compensation plan fits into either of these examples. As to the first example, Plaintiffs argue that their commissions seldom or never equaled or exceeded the amount of their draw, which settles their pay structure in the first example of what a bona fide compensation plan is not. Defendant, however, contends that Plaintiffs commissions exceeded their draw on a more frequent basis than seldom, removing Defendant’s pay plan from the first example. This Court agrees. For a commission to be based on a bona fide commission rate, 29 C.F.R. § 779.416(c) requires the commissions to exceed the guarantee on a more frequent basis than “seldom.” See e.g., Herman v. Suwannee Swifty Stores, Inc., 19 F.Supp.2d 1365, 1369 (M.D.Ga.1998) (<HOLDING>). The Regulations do not define “seldom,” but
holding that because a party was not a bona fide purchaser the recording statute availed him not holding section 365d4 inapplicable to saleleaseback arrangement because not true and bona fide lease holding plan was not bona fide because the employees never earned more than the guaranteed hourly wage holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions