Hello,
I have attempted to search for an answer to this question on this site and elsewhere and found nothing - apologies if I am missing the obvious. It seems very strange to me that a sale of all assets requires a pass through vote, but a sale of all stock that accomplishes effectively the same thing does not. Is there a good reason for this I am missing?
My other question is if there is relevant law clarifying which plan participants a trustee is expected to act in the best interest of, and the meaning of best interest. A sale that multiplies the stock value is obviously in the financial interest of those close to retirement that likely have the most shares. The further from retirement an employee is, the more uncertain this is. The sale will certainly provide a short term financial benefit, but the long term effects depends on what the future growth of the company would have been without a sale. I saw a claim that in a situation where an offer was made for 10 times the ESOP's value where the purchaser built in a plan to lay off all of the employees (who are plan participants), a trustee is required to ignore the layoff aspect because they are only acting in the best interest of plan participants, not employees. I can see the logic, but this seems like a very peculiar definition of "best interest" and "plan participant" that stretches credulity.
First time poster here, didn't see any pinned rules to avail myself of - please let me know if I have made any faux pas!
Thanks!
