Settling the Standard for Prudence? Fall Brings New Guidance for ESOP Trustees


Through a series of recent settlements, the US Department of Labor (DOL) has outlined the process steps fiduciaries should follow in connection with a transaction involving a purchase from, or sale to, an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). Largely based on the “fiduciary process steps” first introduced by the DOL in the 2014 settlement of Perez v. GreatBanc Trust Co., this new guidance has neither the force of law nor the ability to change any current laws or regulations. The recent settlements may, however, provide helpful insight into the DOL’s position regarding what is required to meet fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) when engaging in an ESOP transaction. 

Background

Approximately 90 percent of ESOPs hold stock of closely held corporations. The ESOP will purchase stock from one or more company owners at a price determined by an ESOP fiduciary. Because most ESOP fiduciaries are not valuation experts, ERISA generally requires the fiduciary to determine the stock’s fair market value by relying upon the work of an independent appraisal expert. If the fiduciary relies on an inadequate appraisal, however, the fiduciary can breach its duties and/or violate ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules.

ERISA requires that an ESOP’s fiduciaries—which generally include its trustees, the sponsoring employer, the individuals that sit on the sponsoring employer’s board of directors, and any employees involved in the administration and operation of the ESOP—establish and operate the ESOP for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to ESOP participants and beneficiaries, while defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan. This is a high standard that is often expressed as the idea that an ESOP fiduciary must act as a “prudent expert” would act. Given this “prudent expert” standard, ERISA permits, and may in fact require, the ESOP fiduciary to rely on an independent appraisal expert to assist the ESOP fiduciary in determining the value of closely held employer stock.

Process Steps

The DOL has not (in more than 20 years) promulgated formal rules addressing when a fiduciary may reasonably rely on a valuation provided by an independent appraisal expert. When the DOL settled GreatBanc Trust Co. in 2014, however, it noted that the ESOP industry would “do well to take notice” of the process steps it put in place. The recent settlements in Acosta v. First Bankers Tr. Servs., Inc., and Acosta v. BAT Masonry build on these process steps and provide guidelines that the DOL believes an ESOP fiduciary is required to follow to establish that the fiduciary’s reliance on an independent appraisal of closely held employer stock was reasonable.

These guidelines are outlined below. In all instances involving an institutional trustee, all employees of the institutional trustee involved in the process must also be identified and their participation documented.

Selecting an Appraisal Expert

Overseeing the Appraisal Expert

Requirements for Financial Statements

Fiduciary Review Process

Requirements Relating to Control

Insurance Coverage – Individual Trustee Only

Before agreeing to serve as a trustee or fiduciary in connection with any transaction for the purchase or sale of ESOP stock, an individual trustee should make a good faith effort to obtain insurance coverage under a non-wasting policy that is sufficient to provide coverage for liability under ERISA in connection with the proposed transaction.

In the event that the individual trustee is unable to obtain its own insurance after good faith efforts, the individual trustee must obtain a written agreement from the ESOP sponsor that that the individual trustee must be named as a covered individual under the ESOP sponsor’s insurance policy as a condition for the individual trustee to serve as trustee or fiduciary of the ESOP.

Conclusion

It is important to note that the recent DOL settlements discussed in this article do not specify all of a fiduciary’s obligations under ERISA, nor do they supersede such obligations in any way. Rather, such guidance provides additional detail as to the DOL’s expectations for fiduciaries to meet their obligations as ERISA fiduciaries. Ultimately, the fiduciary is the party responsible for understanding the full risks posed by a transaction involving a private company ESOP and for asking serious questions about any government audits or legal action, customer concentration, industry risk, and financial and legal disclosures. 


© 2025 McDermott Will & Emery
National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 310