particular, is likely to provoke controversy and call for judgments based on information well beyond the employee’s date of hiring and termination.”); Blair, 158 F.Supp.2d at 659-60 (remark as employees are terminated, which necessarily requires some ongoing administration. See Ebenstein v. Ericsson Internet Applications, Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 636, 642 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (“Notably, the Ericsson agreement applies to all employees and was not drafted for a single event such as a plant closing. As such, the plan can reasonably be interpreted as an ongoing commitment on the part of the Company.”). The remaining factors do not implicate an ERISA plan. Once an employee is determined qualified under the SAP, a single lump-sum payment is made to the employee. See, e.g., Donovan, 220 F.Supp.2d at 565 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Defendant has no long-term
holding the payment of benefits at the occurrence of a single event an indicium of lack of an administrative scheme holding that the employer did not have a plan under erisa where no administrative scheme was required to pay the annuity benefit holding the lumpsum payment of a severance benefit to be evidence of lack of an administrative scheme holding that a lumpsum restitution order is valid where it does not specify the source of the restitution or direct liquidation of specific assets and the defendant may have other sources of payment holding that the discovery of evidence of crimes in the course of an otherwise proper administrative inspection does not render that search illegal or the administrative scheme suspect