I've been following this with some bemusement - I mean, what was he thinking, and what screwball lawyer wrote this up? (or is this a hoax, but how is this any fun?!) I suppose the proverbial ERISA attorney route is the way to go, but I can see why you posted it here.
I think it's worth noting that the original post says the money goes the company's defined benefit plan, which no longer exists. IMO, it's more than a stretch to say that it should go to the qualified replacement plan - the word "replacement" does not mean it is a continuation of the same plan. Original intent (misguided as it may have been) may have been to assure adequate funding of the DB plan; this is a whole 'nother result.
There's a very strange mix of precision and vagueness in all of this...