Asset Purchase Agreement Employee Benefits

Another type of performance plan that can be problematic during an acquisition is an employee share ownership plan (ESOP). EDPs are qualified pension schemes that must invest primarily in employers` shares. Therefore, a transaction involving an employer that holds an ESOP has a direct impact not only on buyers and sellers, but also on the pension benefits of the seller`s employees participating in the ESOP. The fact that the postponement of a corporate merger inherits the performance commitments of the acquired company, but that the buyer assumes in an asset purchase deal only the benefit commitments expressly defined in the Asset Purchase Agreement, has long been an exceptional general rule. This general rule was interrupted by a recent decision of the Third Court of Appeal, which concluded that, under the Employment Social Security Act 1974, as amended (ERISA), a buyer of assets may, in certain circumstances, be held liable for late contributions to pension plans as beneficiaries in the interest of the seller of those assets. The nature of the benefits and risks associated with mergers and acquisitions depends largely on the form of the transaction. Sometimes an agreement starts as an asset deal, but turns into a share sale for reasons that have nothing to do with workers` benefits. Such a change can significantly increase a buyer`s risks and liabilities for the employee`s performance after conclusion, as outlined below. Defined benefit plans are qualified pension plans in which benefits are defined on the basis of a formula defined in the plan. The benefit formula is generally based on factors such as years of service, earnings and/or age. In its decision, the Third Circuit cited the common law doctrine of estate liability, which had been extended by federal courts to impose liability on successor buyers when necessary to protect important employment directives. This expansion began with the Supreme Court decision of Golden State Bottling Co.

v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973) (finding that the buyer of a business may be held liable for the unlawful dismissal of an employee by the seller under the National Labor Relations Act, if the buyer was aware of the unfair labour practice and continued without interruption or substantial modification. B. the predecessor`s business) and was created by the Third Circuit on Title VII The Employment Discrimination Remedy at Brzozowski v. Corr. Physician Servs., Inc., 360 F.3d 173 (3rd Cir. 2004) (notes that the successor employer had the opportunity to isolate itself from liability during the bargaining process and, in fact, the contract of sale contained a indemnification clause excluding the successor`s liability for certain actions). The presence of an ESOP generally increases the complexity and cost of a transaction. Although the ESOP trustee is the shareholder of the shares held by ESOP, Section 409(e) of the Internal Income Code requires, in certain situations, the transfer of voting rights to participants. .

. .