Aviation ESOP Valuation and Adequate Consideration for FBOs, MROs, and Charter Operators

Abstract

1. Introduction: The Succession Problem on the Ramp

The founders who built the nation's fixed-base operators, independent repair stations, and charter certificates in the decades after deregulation are reaching retirement together, and for most of them the exit menu has two items on it.

The first is a sale to one of the private equity backed platforms that have consolidated the sector. Blackstone, Cascade Investment and Global Infrastructure Partners took Signature Aviation private in 2021 in a transaction valued at roughly $4.7 billion, a 53 percent premium to the pre-announcement price (Blackstone 2021). KKR acquired Atlantic Aviation from Macquarie Infrastructure the same year for $4.475 billion (KKR 2021), and combined it with Ross Aviation in 2022 to produce a network of more than one hundred locations (Atlantic Aviation 2022). Bain Capital entered the sector in January 2026 (Bain Capital 2026). The second option is a sale to the people who already run the business, through an employee stock ownership plan.

That second route is not theoretical in aviation. Bemidji Aviation Services, which operates a fixed-base operation, a Part 135 certificate and a Part 145 repair station at Bemidji Regional Airport, adopted an employee stock ownership plan in 2007 (Bemidji Aviation Services 2026). Heritage Aviation, a fixed-base operator and maintenance and avionics facility at Burlington International Airport, has been fully employee owned since 2015 (Heritage Aviation 2026). Corporate Eagle, the first operator certificated under Part 91 subpart K, became fully employee owned in 2024 (Thurber 2024). The model spreads because it solves the problem the consolidators cannot: it keeps the enterprise independent, rewards the workforce that built the value, and gives the departing owner liquidity on a defined timetable.

The scale of the succession problem behind that choice is documented, if imperfectly. The most recent federal data on owner age, from the 2019 Annual Business Survey covering 2018, found that 51 percent of the owners of United States employer businesses were aged 55 or older (United States Census Bureau 2020). Employee ownership itself is substantial but concentrated: Form 5500 filings for plan year 2023 record 6,609 plans at 6,411 companies holding more than $2.05 trillion in assets and covering 15.1 million participants, of which 6,098 plans at privately held companies account for 2.87 million of those participants (National Center for Employee Ownership 2026a). The 15 million figure belongs overwhelmingly to a few hundred public-company plans; the closely held population this paper addresses is an order of magnitude smaller.

Whatever its scale, the transaction that delivers employee ownership rests on a single load-bearing valuation. Under Section 3(18) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a plan that acquires employer securities from a party in interest, which in the founding transaction is almost always the selling owner, may do so only for adequate consideration. The purchase is a prohibited transaction under Section 406, rescued only by the exemption at Section 408(e), and that exemption is available only where the plan pays no more than adequate consideration and no commission is charged (Employee Retirement Income Security Act 2026a, 2026b, 2026c). If the plan overpays, the exemption evaporates, the purchase is prohibited, and the trustee has breached the duties of prudence and loyalty. The valuation is not documentation supporting a negotiated price. It is the legal condition on which the transaction depends.

The stakes are established. In Brundle v. Wilmington Trust (2019) the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court conclusion that fiduciary failures had caused a plan to overpay for stock by $29,773,250. The trustee had retained a national valuation firm and obtained a written opinion, and was held liable anyway, because it had not interrogated a contemporaneous valuation indicating a lower value, had accepted management projections without adequate scrutiny, and had permitted a control premium where the plan did not acquire control.

This paper contends that aviation service businesses occupy the high-risk end of the adequate-consideration spectrum, and that generic business valuation practice systematically overstates their defensible enterprise value. The reason is structural, and Section 3 develops it. Section 2 sets out the standard, the regulatory vacuum in which it operates, and what the litigation record actually holds. Sections 4 through 6 offer the paper's two frameworks and the process protocol that implements them. Sections 7 through 9 address enforcement, the empirical questions the frameworks raise, and a set of minimum practice standards. The recurring annual appraisal that follows the founding transaction, and the sector normalizations it turns on, are treated in the companion paper (Carter 2026c).

2. The Standard and the Regulatory Vacuum

2.1 The plan as an aviation succession vehicle

An employee stock ownership plan is a qualified defined-contribution retirement plan designed to invest primarily in the securities of the sponsoring employer. In the leveraged structure that characterizes most founding transactions, the plan borrows, uses the proceeds to purchase shares from the departing owner at fair market value, and repays the loan over time out of tax-deductible employer contributions, with shares released to participant accounts as the debt amortizes.

The structure suits the aviation service sector for reasons that are not merely tax-driven. The selling owner obtains liquidity and, where the transaction is structured under Section 1042 of the Internal Revenue Code, potential deferral of capital gains. The company deducts contributions used to repay both principal and interest. An S corporation plan owes no federal income tax on the ownership percentage the plan holds, which materially improves the cash flow of a labor-intensive service business. And the businesses themselves are labor-intensive and relationship-driven, so aligning the workforce's financial interest with the enterprise addresses an operational problem rather than only a tax one.

Federal policy has encouraged this. The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 established an Employee Ownership Initiative within the Department of Labor and authorized state grant funding rising from $4 million in fiscal 2025 to $16 million in fiscal 2029 (Worker Ownership, Readiness, and Knowledge Act 2022). The encouragement is more rhetorical than fiscal: Congress appropriated $2 million for those grants in February 2026, against $7 million authorized for the year (Employee Benefits Security Administration 2026a). The Main Street Employee Ownership Act of 2018 sought to open Small Business Administration lending to employee ownership transactions; the agency processed seventeen such loans between fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2021 and conceded in 2022 that the provisions had not produced the anticipated effect (National Center for Employee Ownership 2026b).

2.2 Adequate consideration as a two-part test

Section 3(18)(B) defines adequate consideration, for an asset other than a security with a generally recognized market, as "the fair market value of the asset as determined in good faith by the trustee or named fiduciary pursuant to the terms of the plan and in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary" (Employee Retirement Income Security Act 2026a). The definition contains two requirements that the courts and the Department of Labor have consistently treated as distinct. The first is substantive: the price must equal fair market value, the willing-buyer and willing-seller standard articulated for closely held securities in Revenue Ruling 59-60 (Internal Revenue Service 1959). The second is procedural: that value must be determined in good faith, which the Fifth Circuit established is an objective inquiry rather than an inquiry into sincerity. "This is not a search for subjective good faith," the court held; "a pure heart and an empty head are not enough," and fiduciaries carry their burden "by showing that they arrived at their determination of fair market value by way of a prudent investigation in the circumstances then prevailing" (Donovan v. Cunningham 1983). The Sixth Circuit adopted the same formulation (Chao v. Hall Holding Co. 2002).

The prongs are not redundant. A price can equal fair market value and still fail the good-faith prong where the fiduciary reached it through an uncritical or conflicted process. A scrupulous process cannot rescue a price above fair market value, because the Section 408(e) exemption is unavailable for a transaction that is not for adequate consideration in the first instance. Nor is the burden neutral. The Section 408 exemptions are affirmative defenses that "must be pleaded and proved by the defendant who seeks to benefit from them" (Cunningham v. Cornell University 2025), so the fiduciary must establish both that the price satisfied the ceiling and that a rigorous process produced it.

This is what makes an employee ownership valuation categorically different from most valuation assignments. In an ordinary transaction the appraisal informs a price the parties are free to negotiate. Here the appraisal establishes a legal ceiling.

2.3 The regulation that has not arrived

The Secretary of Labor has never promulgated the regulation Section 3(18) contemplates. In May 1988 the Department proposed 29 CFR 2510.3-18, which elaborated the two-prong structure and described the good-faith process in terms practitioners have relied on since (Department of Labor 1988). It was never finalized and never formally withdrawn, leaving the only regulatory text interpreting the standard in a peculiar limbo.

The SECURE 2.0 Act addressed the gap. Its Section 346 directed the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to issue guidance on "acceptable standards and procedures to establish good faith fair market value for shares of a business to be acquired by an employee stock ownership plan" (Worker Ownership, Readiness, and Knowledge Act 2022). The statutory language is about good faith fair market value rather than about defining adequate consideration, a distinction worth preserving even though the agency treats the provision as the mandate for the adequate-consideration rulemaking.

The response arrived on 16 January 2025, when the Employee Benefits Security Administration publicly released an unpublished proposed regulation under RIN 1210-AC20 together with a companion proposed prohibited transaction class exemption (Employee Benefits Security Administration 2025). The proposed regulation restated the two-part test and elaborated process expectations including the prudent selection and ongoing oversight of an independent appraiser and explicit accounting for the dilutive effect of warrants in leveraged structures. The companion exemption was more prescriptive. It would have applied only to an initial acquisition of non-publicly traded common stock, barred warrants, stock appreciation rights and synthetic equity to any party, required any seller loan to the employer to be on terms identical to the plan's own loan, imposed information barriers between the sellers and the trustee's work product, required a separate monitoring fiduciary with authority to halt the transaction, capped the independent trustee's and the independent appraiser's compensation from all transaction participants at 2 percent of prior-year gross revenue, prohibited indemnification of the trustee by the plan, employer or sellers, and required the trustee to hold resources sufficient to make the plan whole, for which the Department proposed that fiduciary liability insurance covering losses of at least 20 percent of the purchase price would suffice (Employee Benefits Security Administration 2025). That 20 percent figure was solicited for comment rather than settled, but it indicates the agency's own estimate of the magnitude of overpayment exposure.

Neither instrument survived. Federal Register publication was scheduled for 22 January 2025; the regulatory freeze imposed on 20 January intervened, the documents were pulled from the public inspection queue, and they were never proposed in the legal sense (Morgan Lewis 2025). As of the Unified Agenda published in July 2026, RIN 1210-AC20 remains at the proposed rule stage with a target notice date of November 2026 (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 2026).

Two developments since then change the enforcement environment without changing the standard. In January 2026 the agency removed employee stock ownership plans from its national enforcement project list (Plan Sponsor Council of America 2026). In April 2026 it issued a field assistance bulletin instructing that "until EBSA complies with the Congressional directive to provide 'acceptable standards and procedures to establish good faith fair market value for shares of a business to be acquired by an employee stock ownership plan,' all pending and proposed ESOP valuation investigations must be reviewed against this guiding principle of fairness" (Employee Benefits Security Administration 2026b). Separately, the Senate passed the Retire Through Ownership Act by unanimous consent in October 2025, which would permit a fiduciary to rely in good faith on an independent appraiser applying Revenue Ruling 59-60; the House companion cleared committee and has not received a floor vote (Plan Sponsor Council of America 2025).

For the aviation appraiser the practical significance is unchanged. The standard against which a valuation will be judged is defined not by regulation but by the accreted expectations of case law and enforcement practice, which reward documented rigor and punish shortcuts.

2.4 The process agreements as the operative standard

Into that vacuum the Department's enforcement settlements have supplied the operative process standard. The agreement practitioners work from is the one reached with GreatBanc Trust Company on 2 June 2014, the Agreement Concerning Fiduciary Engagements and Process Requirements for Employer Stock Transactions, which arose from the agency's suit over the Sierra Aluminum Company plan and settled for $5.25 million (Department of Labor 2014; Employee Benefits Security Administration 2014). Five further agreements followed between 2017 and 2020, with First Bankers Trust Services, James F. Joyner III, Alpha Investment Consulting Group, Lubbock National Bank, and Farmers National Bank of Danville (Department of Labor 2017). Each formally binds only its signatory. Practitioners treat the terms as the operative standard of care because a trustee who follows them is better positioned to defend a transaction than one who does not.

The requirements cluster in three places. On appraiser selection and oversight, the trustee must investigate the valuation advisor's qualifications, ensure the advisor receives complete, accurate and current information, confirm the advisor is free of disqualifying relationships, know the individual performing the work rather than the firm, document the selection rationale, and re-vet periodically. On the substance of the valuation, the trustee must examine projections critically against historical performance, compare the analysis to available market data, prefer audited financial statements and document any reliance on unaudited figures, and address how the plan's terms and participant demographics bear on the repurchase obligation and on the fairness of the price. On structure, the trustee must assess the reasonableness of the debt the company takes on and ensure that a control price is paid only where the plan actually acquires control. Throughout, the trustee must document its work and be prepared to stop the transaction if its professionals harbor doubt.

Section 6 adapts and extends this framework to the aviation context. The salient point here is that an enforcement settlement has become the yardstick, and that its requirements are almost entirely procedural.

2.5 What the litigation record shows

The dominant risk is overpayment in the founding transaction, and Brundle is the paradigm. The Constellis Group sold its stock to a newly formed plan in December 2013. Wilmington Trust served as transactional trustee and retained a national valuation firm. A participant sued, and the district court identified a series of failures: the trustee had not adequately investigated a contemporaneous valuation indicating a materially lower per-share value; it had accepted management's forward projections without sufficient scrutiny despite management's incentive to present favorable numbers; it had permitted a control premium supported by a single sentence of justification, even though the selling interests retained the power to appoint a majority of the board and the plan documents required the trustee to vote its shares as the board directed; and it had tolerated a pattern of rounding that favored the sellers. The Fourth Circuit affirmed a conclusion that the plan had overpaid by $29,773,250, holding that expert advice "is not a magic wand that fiduciaries may simply wave over a transaction to ensure that their responsibilities are fulfilled" (Brundle v. Wilmington Trust 2019, quoting Donovan v. Cunningham 1983).

Brundle does not stand alone. In Perez v. Bruister (2016) the Fifth Circuit affirmed that trustees had breached the duties of loyalty and prudence across four stock purchases, where they failed to investigate the appraiser's qualifications, supplied him incomplete information, allowed the seller's side to comment on drafts, and did not scrutinize his conclusions. In Chesemore v. Fenkell (2016) the Seventh Circuit affirmed liability against a fiduciary who effectively controlled both sides of a leveraged transaction, and held that ERISA permits indemnification among co-fiduciaries according to relative culpability. In Vinoskey the district court found that a plan had paid $406 per share against a fair market value of $278.50, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the selling shareholder's liability as a knowing participant in a prohibited transaction while reducing the damages award (Pizzella v. Vinoskey 2019).

One proposition frequently attributed to this line of cases is not supported by it. It is sometimes said that the appraiser, as well as the trustee, can be held liable as a knowing participant in a fiduciary breach. The successful knowing-participant claims have been against selling shareholders. In Bruister the appraiser's valuations were found not credible and his process compromised, but he was not a defendant on appeal and liability fell on the trustees for unreasonable reliance. In Halperin v. Richards (2021) the Seventh Circuit held that ERISA preempts state-law aiding-and-abetting claims against an ESOP appraiser and noted that relief against a non-fiduciary participant is limited to equitable relief. The appraiser's exposure is real, but it runs through professional liability, reputational consequence, and the destruction of the trustee's defense rather than through a settled theory of knowing-participant liability.

The Department's own record is not one of uniform success. In Walsh v. Bowers (2021) the court entered judgment for the selling shareholders after trial, finding that the government's valuation expert had treated roughly $10 million of subconsultant fees as company expenses when they were pass-through costs billed to clients and had relied on inaccurate and incomplete information, declining to treat a rejected nonbinding indication of interest as a benchmark of value, and attributing the post-transaction decline in share value to "the debt needed to do the deal" rather than to overpayment. The trustee in that matter had settled by consent judgment before trial, so the decision vindicates the valuation rather than the trustee's process. The through-line of the case law is that adequate consideration is adjudicated on the quality of the valuation and the rigor of the process behind it. For aviation service businesses, whose value drivers are more assumption-laden and less transferable than those of the companies in most reported cases, the exposure is correspondingly greater.

3. Why Aviation Service Businesses Are Different

The analytical claim of this paper is that the enterprise value of an aviation service business is fragile, encumbered and person-dependent to a degree that a valuation methodology calibrated on generic service-company comparables cannot see. Five value drivers, each with a direct adequate-consideration consequence, distinguish it.

3.1 Certificates that do not transfer

A repair station's airframe and powerplant work is authorized by a Part 145 certificate, a charter operator's revenue flights by a Part 135 certificate, and a fixed-base operation's fueling and ground handling by the airport's minimum standards authority. These certificates are the legal predicate for the enterprise's revenue, and they share a characteristic ordinary intangibles do not: they cannot be sold. The repair station rule is explicit that "if the holder of a repair station certificate sells or transfers its assets and the new owner chooses to operate as a repair station, the new owner must apply for an amended or new certificate" (Code of Federal Regulations 2026a). A Part 135 certificate is issued to a specific person, and no person may operate as a direct air carrier or commercial operator without an appropriate certificate and operations specifications issued to that person (Code of Federal Regulations 2026b). The only route on a change of ownership is amendment of the existing holder's certificate, which the responsible Flight Standards office must find that safety in air commerce and the public interest allow (Code of Federal Regulations 2026c). Practitioners describe the resulting practice as buying the entity rather than the certificate (Goldberg 2023).

The valuation consequence is decisive rather than technical. In a stock sale to a plan the operating entity continues, so the certificate does not lapse at closing. But the earnings a certificate authorizes are only as durable as the compliance posture and the certificated personnel that sustain it. A Part 135 operator must maintain a director of operations, a chief pilot and a director of maintenance, must ensure that those individuals and anyone in a position to exercise control over operations are qualified, and must notify the responsible office within ten days of any change in those positions (Code of Federal Regulations 2026d). A guideline-company analysis implicitly assumes a hypothetical buyer could acquire the earnings stream and continue it. In aviation that assumption holds only where the certificate's human and regulatory scaffolding remains intact. Certificate-derived earnings are properly treated as person-dependent and fragile, not as a durable, freely transferable intangible.

3.2 The ground lease and the reversion

Most aviation service businesses do not own the land beneath their operations. They occupy airport property under a ground lease from a sponsoring authority, and that leasehold carries two features generic real estate assumptions miss. The first is the reversion: at expiration the improvements, the hangars, the ramp, the fuel farm and the terminal, typically revert to the sponsor without compensation, so the leasehold has a terminal value that trends toward zero as expiration approaches (Carter 2026a, 2026b). The second is the consent and control constraint. Airport leases and minimum standards commonly require the authority's consent to a change of control or assignment, impose operating requirements, and reserve the sponsor's rights over the premises, and the sponsor's own latitude is limited by its grant assurances, which bar it from selling, leasing, encumbering or otherwise transferring any part of its interest in airport property without the Secretary's approval (Federal Aviation Administration 2025). The Federal Aviation Administration instructs its field offices not to consent to lease terms exceeding fifty years and treats thirty to thirty-five years as sufficient to retire a tenant's initial financing (Federal Aviation Administration 2026).

Both features bear directly on adequate consideration. The reversion means the real property component of enterprise value is a wasting leasehold rather than a durable fee and must be valued as such. The consent and control constraint bears on whether a plan acquiring the company's stock has acquired the control a control-level price assumes, which Section 5.1 develops.

3.3 Cyclicality and concentration

Business aviation activity is cyclical, and the service businesses that depend on it experience earnings volatility exceeding that of the diversified service companies from which guideline multiples are drawn. The magnitude is documented in the industry's own shipment data and is larger than practitioners generally assume.

Table 1. General aviation airplane shipments and billings, peak to trough to current

Source: General Aviation Manufacturers Association, 2010 General Aviation Statistical Databook and Industry Outlook, and 2025 Year-End Shipment Report.

Two features of that record matter for valuation. The peak-to-trough decline in unit shipments was 52.8 percent over three years, which is the order of magnitude an appraiser normalizing across a cycle must contemplate. And in 2025, with billings at a nominal record of $31.0 billion on 3,230 airplanes including 854 business jets, unit volumes remained 24.4 percent below the 2007 peak (General Aviation Manufacturers Association 2011, 2026). The industry recovered in dollars and never recovered in units. That divergence is consequential for a service business, because a fixed-base operation's fuel volume, a repair station's shop throughput and a charter operator's flight activity track units and cycles rather than the price of new aircraft.

Compounding the volatility is concentration. A charter and management operator may derive a large share of revenue from a handful of aircraft owners or a single fractional program, and a repair station may depend on authorizations from a small number of manufacturers. The empirical literature establishes that customer-base concentration affects supplier-firm performance and how capital markets price it (Patatoukas 2012), which is the footing for treating concentration as a risk attribute rather than a rhetorical flourish. No sector-level quantification of customer concentration among Part 135 operators was located for this paper, so the analysis must be performed on the subject's own revenue records rather than benchmarked.

High volatility and high concentration both argue for lower multiples and higher discount rates than generic comparables imply, and both make the normalization of sustainable earnings error-prone. An appraiser who capitalizes a cyclical peak, or who treats concentrated revenue as diversified, produces the kind of inflated conclusion Brundle condemned.

3.4 Key-person and skilled-labor concentration

The value of an aviation service enterprise is concentrated in people who are difficult and slow to replace. The certificated management personnel discussed above are the acute case, but the concentration extends to the technical workforce. Experienced airframe and powerplant mechanics, avionics technicians and inspection-authorized personnel are in structural short supply: the Aviation Technician Education Council reports slightly more than 9,000 new mechanic certificates issued in 2024, with graduates from certificated schools down 5 percent from 2023, and projects a 10 percent shortage of certificated mechanics in 2025 narrowing to 7 percent by 2035, still roughly 10,000 mechanics short from commercial air transport demand alone (Aviation Technician Education Council 2025). Maintenance labor rates rose 5.5 to 6.0 percent across most categories in 2025, roughly double the pre-pandemic rate, and two-thirds of surveyed operators found hiring technicians moderately to very challenging (Sargent, Prentice, and Costanza 2026). A departure can impair both revenue capacity and the certificate itself.

This cuts both ways in an employee ownership valuation, and the discipline is to weigh both effects rather than one. Key-person dependence ordinarily warrants a discount, and the Tax Court has allowed enterprise-level key-person discounts where dependence was established (Nielsen 2024). But the plan is itself a retention mechanism, aligning the workforce's financial interest with the enterprise, which is among the principal operational arguments for employee ownership. An appraiser must neither ignore the fragility key-person concentration creates nor double-count a discount the ownership structure is designed to mitigate.

3.5 Environmental and contingent liabilities

Aviation service operations handle fuel, solvents and de-icing fluids, and frequently occupy sites with decades of accumulated contamination and a history of fluorinated firefighting foam. The resulting exposure is a contingent claim on enterprise value that a generic valuation may not price at all, and the regulatory position has hardened rather than softened.

The Environmental Protection Agency's 2024 national primary drinking water regulation set enforceable limits for several per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (Environmental Protection Agency 2024a), and its designation of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Environmental Protection Agency 2024b) is what converts legacy contamination into a balance-sheet contingency, because it exposes a site owner or operator to response cost liability. That designation was challenged and upheld: the District of Columbia Circuit denied the petitions for review on 18 August 2026 (Chamber of Commerce v. Environmental Protection Agency 2026). Two proposals published on 20 May 2026, one rescinding the standards for four other substances and one extending compliance for the two principal substances from 2029 to 2031, remain pending after a comment period that closed on 20 July 2026 (Environmental Protection Agency 2026a, 2026b). As of September 2026 the two principal limits and the hazardous substance designation are in force.

For adequate consideration the significance is twofold. These liabilities reduce the value a plan should pay, and a failure to investigate them is both a valuation error and a lapse in the prudent investigation the good-faith prong requires. The prudent process treats environmental diligence as a value input rather than a real estate appendix.

4. The Aviation ESOP Value Architecture

4.1 Design

The Aviation ESOP Value Architecture adapts the going-concern separation logic developed for fixed-base operator real property appraisal to the different purpose of a fair value determination for an employee stock ownership plan. The purposes differ in a way that matters. In a real property appraisal the objective is to isolate the value of the realty from the business operating within it. Here the objective is to value the equity of the whole enterprise, but to do so in a manner that recognizes which components are durable and transferable, which are encumbered, and which are person-dependent and fragile, because those attributes determine what a prudent, fully informed hypothetical buyer would pay.

Table 2. Component decomposition and the encumbrance on each

Source: Author's framework, applying 14 CFR 145.57, 119.5(g), 119.41 and 119.69 and the ground-lease authorities in Section 3.2.

4.2 Enterprise value, equity value and the debt overlay

The valuation must conclude to the fair market value of the equity, and in a leveraged founding transaction the relationship between enterprise value and equity value is where a consequential error is made. The plan purchases the stock with borrowed money, and the debt incurred to fund the purchase sits on the company's balance sheet immediately after closing. A valuation that concludes to an enterprise value, subtracts pre-transaction debt, and prices the equity accordingly, while ignoring the acquisition debt the transaction itself creates, produces a price the company cannot support and leaves the equity underwater on the first day.

The fair market value that governs adequate consideration must be determined as of the transaction and must reflect the transaction's own effect on the capital structure. For aviation service businesses, whose cyclical cash flows make debt service more perilous than guideline comparables suggest, the debt overlay deserves particular scrutiny. The enterprise's capacity to service acquisition debt through a downcycle is both a valuation input and a solvency question bearing on the prudence of the transaction. Chesemore illustrates the failure mode: a transaction priced at $45 million and funded with $36 million of debt left the stock worthless within two years (Chesemore v. Fenkell 2016).

4.3 The transferability haircut

The intangible component is where these valuations most often go wrong, because it is where guideline-company analysis misleads. A multiple derived from transactions in generically comparable service firms embeds an assumption that the target's intangible earnings are durable and transferable, that a buyer acquires them and continues them. In an aviation service enterprise those earnings rest on certificates that cannot be sold, that depend on specific approved individuals, and that persist only while compliance is maintained.

The architecture therefore prescribes a transferability haircut: an explicit reduction to the intangible component's contribution to value, calibrated to the degree of person-dependence and regulatory contingency, documented as a distinct analytical step rather than buried in an unexplained multiple selection. The haircut is not a mechanical discount and no published figure supports one. It is the appraiser's reasoned estimate of how much of the observed earnings a hypothetical, fully informed buyer would treat as durable given the fragility of the assets producing them. Its explicit articulation is what separates a defensible valuation from one that borrows a multiple, and it is what a trustee can actually interrogate.

4.4 Normalizing cyclical earnings

Because the income approach dominates operating-company valuation, and because the multiple or capitalization rate is applied to a measure of sustainable earnings, normalization is the fulcrum on which the conclusion turns. For aviation service businesses it must be performed across the business aviation cycle rather than from a trailing period that may capture a peak. The architecture prescribes a through-the-cycle normalization: earnings examined over a full cycle where data permit, adjusted for non-recurring items, and tested against the concentration and volatility characteristics identified in Section 3.3.

Given a documented peak-to-trough decline of 52.8 percent in unit shipments between 2007 and 2010, and unit volumes still a quarter below the prior peak eighteen years later, a normalization window that begins after 2010 is not a cycle. It is a recovery. A valuation that normalizes to a cyclical high, which is the error a selling owner's wish to maximize proceeds invites, is the aviation analogue of the optimistic projections condemned in Brundle and is the likeliest single source of an overpayment finding.

5. ESOP-Specific Adjustments in the Aviation Context

Beyond the enterprise-value architecture, these valuations require adjustments specific to the ownership structure. Each interacts with aviation's economics in ways generic practice does not anticipate.

5.1 Control: does the plan actually control?

The control premium is a frequent subject of litigation, and a control-level price is defensible only where the plan actually acquires control. Practitioner guidance frames the test as control "in form and in substance" that will not be dissipated within a short period (National Center for Employee Ownership 2026c). The governance mechanics complicate the question even in a wholly employee-owned company: the board appoints the trustee, the trustee is the legal shareholder and votes the plan's shares, and those votes elect the board, with pass-through voting to participants required only for a defined set of corporate events such as mergers, recapitalizations, liquidations and sales of substantially all assets (Bushman 2018). A plan that owns 100 percent of the stock de jure may hold considerably less control de facto, particularly where selling shareholders retain board seats or management roles.

In aviation the question carries an additional layer with no analogue in other industries. Even where a plan acquires all of a company's stock, the enterprise's control over its core operating assets is shared. The airport sponsor's consent is required for changes of control and assignment, and the sponsor's own discretion is constrained by grant assurances. The certificates depend on approved management personnel the plan cannot unilaterally retain, and a change in those positions triggers a reporting obligation within ten days. An appraiser contemplating a control premium must therefore ask not only whether the plan controls the company but whether the company controls its premises and its certificates to the degree a control price assumes. Where the ground lessor retains approval rights, where certificated personnel constrain effective control, and where selling interests remain on the board, the case for a premium weakens considerably. An unsupported premium is precisely the error that produced the judgment in Brundle.

5.2 Marketability and the put option

Closely held shares ordinarily bear a discount for lack of marketability. Plan shares are a special case, because the Internal Revenue Code requires that a participant entitled to a distribution of securities not readily tradable on an established market have "a right to require that the employer repurchase employer securities under a fair valuation formula" (Internal Revenue Code 2026). That statutory put supplies a form of assured liquidity a wholly private interest lacks, and prevailing practice therefore applies a smaller discount to plan shares than to otherwise comparable private stock; Mercer Capital (2015) reports that most minority-interest plan appraisals reflect a discount of 5 to 10 percent, against a restricted-stock literature the Internal Revenue Service (2009) compiles at a 31.4 percent mean and 33 percent median.

The compression is conditional, and the condition is what matters in aviation. Menke (2011) argues that the put-option rationale is unsound as usually stated, because the put's value depends on the company's actual capacity to honor it, and gives a range of 5 to 20 percent that varies with that capacity. The National Center for Employee Ownership (2026c) reaches the same result from the other direction, noting that the discount should shrink toward little or nothing only to the extent the company has assets available or a credible funding plan. A cyclical aviation service business may find its obligation to repurchase shares colliding with a downcycle in which cash is scarce, which is precisely when departures rise. The marketability analysis must therefore be tethered to a realistic assessment of funding capacity across the cycle, which connects it to the obligation analyzed next.

5.3 The three-way liquidity claim

The repurchase obligation is the company's cumulative duty to buy back shares from departing participants exercising the put, at fair market value, over time. Its magnitude depends on plan demographics, the trajectory of share value, and the pace of departures. The prevailing view is that because the put is exercised at fair market value the obligation is not double-counted as a separate liability against per-share value, but that the company's capacity to fund it is a going-concern and prudence concern of the first order (Locke and Fjeld 2006; National Center for Employee Ownership 2026d).

The aviation context sharpens that concern into what this paper terms the three-way liquidity claim. An aviation service business generates cash that must, in a leveraged plan, simultaneously service acquisition debt, fund the lumpy and largely mandatory facility capital expenditure aviation operations require, hangar door systems, ramp rehabilitation, fuel system upgrades, tooling and shop modernization, and satisfy a growing repurchase obligation. These three claims compete for the same cyclical cash flow, and a downcycle brings them into direct conflict. No comparable collision exists in the typical non-aviation plan, where facility capital expenditure is neither as specialized nor as regulatorily driven.

The competition is not hypothetical. Gonza (2025) links capital structure and debt service to plan terminations, which is the failure mode when repurchase, debt and reinvestment cannot all be funded, and survey data place median annual repurchases at 5 percent of outstanding shares (National Center for Employee Ownership 2026d). A prudent aviation valuation models the three claims together and tests the enterprise's ability to satisfy all three across a plausible downcycle. A valuation that treats the repurchase obligation in isolation, or that ignores the capital intensity of aviation facilities, understates the risk and overstates the supportable price.

5.4 Summary of adjustments

Table 3. ESOP-specific adjustments and their aviation modification

Source: Author's framework, drawing on Mercer Capital (2015), Menke (2011), and National Center for Employee Ownership (2026c, 2026d).

6. The Adequate Consideration Process Protocol for Aviation ESOPs

6.1 Design

The process agreements established that adequate consideration is defended in practice through process. The protocol proposed here extends that framework with the diligence aviation service businesses require. It layers on top of, rather than substitutes for, the general expectations the case law and the agreements impose, and it proceeds in seven steps.

First, retain a valuation professional with demonstrated competence in both business valuation and aviation-specific real property and regulatory analysis, and document the basis for concluding the requirement is met.

Second, construct the component decomposition in Table 2, classifying enterprise value as transferable, encumbered or person-dependent, and document the transferability haircut applied to the certificate and relationship intangible.

Third, obtain and analyze the aviation-specific diligence inputs set out below, integrating each as a value input rather than a narrative appendix.

Fourth, normalize earnings across the business aviation cycle, documenting the cycle window, the non-recurring adjustments, and the treatment of concentration and volatility.

Fifth, model the three-way liquidity claim and stress-test the enterprise's capacity to satisfy acquisition debt service, mandatory facility capital expenditure and the repurchase obligation across a plausible downcycle.

Sixth, scrutinize each ownership-structure adjustment against the aviation modifications in Table 3, documenting the support for each.

Seventh, reconcile to a fair market value conclusion for the equity, disclose the analysis of each of the foregoing, and document the good-faith investigation in a form that would withstand adversarial review.

6.2 Aviation-specific diligence

Six inputs bear directly on defensible value and none is captured by a generic process.

Certificate transferability and durability. An assessment of the Part 145 and Part 135 certificates, the approved personnel on whom they depend, the compliance posture, and the durability of certificate-derived earnings under a change of ownership.

Ground lease reversion and consent. A review of the remaining term, the reversion provisions, renewal options and whether they are exercisable unilaterally, and the sponsor's consent and minimum-standards rights, with the leasehold valued as a finite-term wasting interest.

Environmental diligence. Phase I and, where indicated, Phase II assessments, including fuel-handling exposure and fluorinated foam liabilities, with contingent liabilities reflected in value rather than disclosed alongside it.

Key-person and workforce concentration. Identification of the certificated management personnel and critical technical staff, assessment of replacement difficulty against the certification pipeline and labor-rate evidence, and balanced treatment of the plan's own retention effect.

Customer, contract and authorization concentration. Quantification of revenue concentration among customers, managed aircraft and manufacturer authorizations, developed from the subject's own records, with the implications for multiple and discount-rate selection stated.

Facility capital expenditure forecast. A forward view of the specialized and largely mandatory facility spending aviation operations require, integrated into the three-way liquidity model rather than treated as a maintenance reserve.

6.3 Disclosures

The protocol requires that the report disclose the component decomposition and the transferability haircut applied; the cycle window and adjustments used in normalization; the three-way liquidity model and its downcycle results; the support for each ownership-structure adjustment, including any control premium; the aviation-specific diligence obtained and its effect on value; and any material value input that could not be obtained, with its potential effect on the conclusion. Explicit disclosure serves the good-faith prong directly, because it is the evidence of the prudent investigation the standard requires.

6.4 The competency requirement

Aviation valuation of this kind sits at the intersection of two specialties that rarely reside in one practitioner. Business valuation supplies command of income methods, guideline analysis and the ownership-structure adjustments. Aviation real property and regulatory analysis supplies command of ground leaseholds, certificates and sector dynamics. A business appraiser without aviation competence will misjudge the leasehold, the certificate intangible and the capital intensity. An aviation real property appraiser without business valuation competence will misapply the control, marketability and repurchase-obligation adjustments.

The defensible course is to combine the competencies, in a single dually qualified professional or through a documented collaboration, and to disclose how the requirement was satisfied. In the adversarial settings where these valuations are tested, demonstrated competence is itself part of a defensible determination, and the standard governing the admission of expert testimony now requires the proponent to show that an opinion "reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case" (Federal Rules of Evidence 2023).

7. Enforcement and Litigation Context

7.1 Enforcement and the process defense

The founding transaction draws sustained scrutiny, because it is where the incentive to overpay is structural. In the regulatory vacuum described in Section 2, the operative measure is the process standard embodied in the agreements and the case law. The enforcement posture has shifted, with plans removed from the national enforcement project list in January 2026 and investigations directed to be measured against a fairness principle pending the promised guidance (Employee Benefits Security Administration 2026b; Plan Sponsor Council of America 2026), but the standard itself has not moved and private participant litigation is unaffected by an agency's project list.

The practical defense remains a documented, rigorous process. A trustee who can demonstrate that it engaged a dually competent appraiser, obtained the aviation-specific diligence, modeled the three-way liquidity claim, scrutinized each adjustment and documented the investigation stands on firmer ground than one who obtained a report and approved a price.

7.2 The limits of reliance

A trustee cannot discharge its duty by relying mechanically on an appraiser's conclusion. It must interrogate the valuation, probe the assumptions, and reject a number it has reason to doubt. In the aviation context meaningful interrogation requires that the trustee understand the sector's value drivers well enough to ask the right questions: whether the intangible earnings were reduced for transferability, whether the leasehold was valued as a wasting interest, whether earnings were normalized across a genuine cycle rather than a recovery, and whether the repurchase obligation was modeled alongside debt service and facility capital expenditure. A trustee who cannot evaluate those judgments cannot meaningfully interrogate the valuation, which is an argument for extending the competency requirement to the trustee's own advisory team.

7.3 Who bears liability

The allocation of exposure is narrower than practitioner commentary sometimes suggests, and the distinction is worth stating precisely because it affects how parties structure their protections. The trustee bears the primary exposure and the burden of proof. A selling shareholder can be held liable as a knowing participant in a prohibited transaction where the shareholder had actual or constructive knowledge of the circumstances making it unlawful, which is what the Fourth Circuit affirmed in Vinoskey. A co-fiduciary who effectively controlled both sides can be required to indemnify less culpable fiduciaries according to relative culpability (Chesemore v. Fenkell 2016).

The appraiser's position is different. No decision located for this paper has held an employee ownership appraiser liable as a knowing participant in a fiduciary breach, and the Seventh Circuit has held that ERISA preempts state-law aiding-and-abetting claims against one, noting that relief against a non-fiduciary is limited to equitable relief (Halperin v. Richards 2021). That is not comfort. In Bruister the appraiser's valuations were found not credible and his process compromised, and the consequence was that the trustees who relied on him lost (Perez v. Bruister 2016). The appraiser's real exposure runs through professional liability, reputational consequence, and the destruction of the client's defense rather than through a settled theory of participant liability.

7.4 Insurance, indemnification and price adjustment

Prudent transactions increasingly incorporate risk-allocation mechanisms: fiduciary liability insurance, seller indemnification, escrow, and price-adjustment provisions that recalibrate consideration if key assumptions prove unfounded. The withdrawn January 2025 exemption would have required the independent trustee to hold resources sufficient to make the plan whole and proposed that fiduciary liability insurance covering at least 20 percent of the purchase price would suffice, while prohibiting indemnification of the trustee by the plan, the employer or the sellers (Employee Benefits Security Administration 2025). Even absent a final rule, that combination indicates where the agency believes the risk should sit.

One structural tension deserves attention because it is specific to these transactions and is frequently discovered late. Escrow and price adjustment are not neutral risk-allocation devices in an employee ownership deal. Amounts escrowed at closing are excluded by the plan's valuation advisor from the consideration payable to the plan for fairness-opinion purposes, and a trustee may resist a proposed escrow on the ground that it jeopardizes a favorable opinion; pursuing claims against plan assets raises prohibited transaction concerns of its own (Witt et al. 2026). The buyer's indemnity protection and the trustee's fairness opinion are therefore in direct tension, and the tension is sharper in a cyclical, assumption-laden aviation business where a normalized-earnings or transferability judgment is more likely to be contested later. Representation and warranty insurance, which might otherwise relieve the pressure, is a large-deal product: the average North American transaction placing such cover in 2025 had an enterprise value of $412 million (Marsh 2026), well above the scale at which aviation service transactions are done.

8. A Research Agenda

The frameworks above generate testable propositions, and the state of the literature makes testing them worthwhile. The empirical research on employee ownership is substantial and studies performance, survival, employment stability and risk (Chaplinsky and Niehaus 1994; Beatty 1995; Faleye, Mehrotra, and Morck 2006; Kim and Ouimet 2014; Bova et al. 2015; O'Boyle, Patel, and Gonzalez-Mule 2016; Kurtulus and Kruse 2018). A search of the indexed literature for this paper located no peer-reviewed study of the price plans pay relative to third-party buyers, or of the determinants of overpayment findings. The question on which the entire adequate-consideration standard turns has not been studied empirically, which is a gap worth naming.

Five propositions follow from the architecture.

The first is that overpayment risk increases in the share of enterprise value attributable to certificate and relationship intangibles, because intangible-heavy valuations are more assumption-sensitive and less anchored to transferable assets.

The second is that the defensible marketability discount is a function of cyclical repurchase-funding capacity, so that the put option's discount-reducing effect diminishes as cash-flow volatility and repurchase intensity rise.

The third is that control premiums are disproportionately likely to be challenged and disallowed where the airport sponsor retains change-of-control consent rights or where approved personnel constrain the plan's effective control.

The fourth is that leveraged aviation transactions carry elevated adequate-consideration risk relative to non-aviation plans of comparable size, because the three-way liquidity claim competes for cyclical cash flow in a manner without close analogue outside the sector.

The fifth is that uncritical application of general-industry guideline multiples overstates adequate consideration for these businesses relative to a framework applying a transferability haircut and valuing the leasehold as a wasting interest, and that the overstatement increases with fuel or certificate dependence and with proximity to ground lease expiration.

Testing these requires data that standard sources do not hold. Three routes are available. The record of litigation and enforcement, including complaints, expert reports produced in discovery and reported decisions, provides a corpus from which recurring valuation errors in specialized-asset transactions can be coded. Transaction data collected by trade and research organizations, supplemented by the disclosures of employee-owned aviation enterprises, can support comparison of aviation parameters against non-aviation benchmarks. And structured interviews with trustees, valuation professionals and aviation transaction advisors can document the range of current practice on the certificate intangible, the leasehold and the repurchase obligation. The work should proceed in stages: qualitative documentation of current practice, comparative analysis of aviation against non-aviation parameters, and, where data permit, a controlled comparison of conclusions reached under generic methodology against the framework proposed here.

9. Recommended Practice Standards

Pending that empirical work, and in the continuing absence of a final regulation, seven minimum standards follow.

The valuation should be performed by, or with the documented participation of, a professional competent in both business valuation and aviation-specific real property and regulatory analysis, with the basis for that conclusion disclosed.

Enterprise value should be decomposed into transferable, encumbered and person-dependent components, with an explicit transferability haircut applied to certificate and relationship intangibles rather than embedded in an unexplained multiple.

The leasehold interest in airport property should be valued as a finite-term wasting interest reflecting the reversion, not as fee-simple industrial real estate.

Earnings should be normalized across the business aviation cycle, with the window, the adjustments and the treatment of concentration disclosed, and with a window that captures a trough as well as a peak.

The repurchase obligation should be modeled together with acquisition debt service and mandatory facility capital expenditure as competing claims on cyclical cash flow, and capacity to satisfy all three should be stress-tested.

Any control premium should be supported by an analysis of the plan's effective control, expressly accounting for sponsor consent rights, certificated-personnel constraints, the trustee-board governance loop, and residual seller board control.

The good-faith investigation should be documented sufficiently to withstand adversarial review, including the aviation-specific diligence obtained and any material input that could not be obtained.

These standards do not resolve the empirical questions only transaction data can answer. They define a floor: a process and an architecture that convert a vulnerable number into a determination a prudent fiduciary can stand behind.

10. Conclusion

The employee stock ownership plan offers the aviation service sector something the consolidation platforms cannot: a succession path that preserves independence and rewards the workforce that built the enterprise. The transaction that delivers it rests on a valuation that ERISA treats not as advice but as a legal condition, and the case law demonstrates that trustees who misjudge it face exposure measured in the tens of millions while the appraisers they relied on lose the argument that mattered.

Aviation service businesses sit at the high-risk end of that standard. Their value is entangled with certificates that cannot be sold and that depend on individuals the plan cannot unilaterally retain, leaseholds that revert without compensation, unit volumes that remain a quarter below their 2007 peak after eighteen years, workforces drawn from a certification pipeline that is contracting, and environmental liabilities that a federal court confirmed in August 2026 are not going away. A methodology calibrated on generically comparable service firms will overstate the adequate consideration for these businesses and hand the trustee a conclusion that cannot withstand the scrutiny these transactions attract.

The two remedies proposed here are a framework and a process. The value architecture reorganizes enterprise value around the durability and transferability of its components, prescribing an explicit transferability haircut for the fragile certificate intangible and the valuation of the airport leasehold as a wasting interest. The process protocol extends the Department's de facto standard with the diligence a defensible aviation transaction requires, and centers the three-way liquidity claim that distinguishes these transactions from every other. Neither is a substitute for the regulation that has not arrived. Until it does, the appraiser's protection lies in the rigor of an explicit framework and a documented process, and the trustee's protection lies in being able to interrogate both.

Questions This Paper Answers

Can an FBO, MRO, or charter operator be sold to employees through an ESOP?

Yes, and there are working examples. An employee stock ownership plan lets a founder sell to the workforce on a defined timeline, keep the business independent, and access tax advantages including Section 1042 gain deferral and, for an S corporation plan, exemption from federal income tax on the plan-owned share. Bemidji Aviation Services adopted a plan in 2007 across a fixed-base operation, a Part 135 certificate and a Part 145 repair station. Heritage Aviation has been fully employee owned since 2015. Corporate Eagle, a Part 91 subpart K fractional operator, completed its transition in 2024.

What is adequate consideration in an ESOP transaction?

Under ERISA Section 3(18), a plan may pay no more than adequate consideration, meaning fair market value determined in good faith by the trustee. It is a two-part test: the price must equal fair market value, and it must come from a prudent, documented process measured objectively rather than by the fiduciary's sincerity. Overpayment is not a pricing error. It is a prohibited transaction and a fiduciary breach, and the trustee carries the burden of proving the exemption applies.

Why do aviation ESOP valuations carry more risk than other businesses?

Because value rests on assets a generic appraisal treats as durable but which are not. Federal Aviation Administration certificates cannot be sold and depend on specific approved personnel. Airport ground leases revert to the sponsor without compensation and require sponsor consent on a change of control. Unit volumes in the sector fell by more than half between 2007 and 2010 and have not returned to the prior peak. Technician supply is contracting. And legacy fuel and firefighting foam contamination is now a hazardous substance liability. A multiple borrowed from generic service firms overstates defensible value.

What was Brundle v. Wilmington Trust?

A 2019 Fourth Circuit decision affirming a district court conclusion that fiduciary failures caused a plan to overpay for Constellis stock by $29,773,250. The trustee had retained a national appraisal firm and obtained a written opinion and lost anyway, because it accepted a control premium supported by one sentence of justification where the sellers retained board control, and accepted management projections without scrutiny. The court held that expert advice is not a magic wand a fiduciary can wave over a transaction.

Is there a Department of Labor regulation defining ESOP valuation?

No final regulation exists. The only regulatory text is a 1988 proposal that was never adopted. A new proposal and a companion class exemption were released in unpublished form in January 2025 and withdrawn before Federal Register publication. As of September 2026 the rulemaking remains at the proposed stage with a target notice date of November 2026, and the agency has instructed its investigators to measure pending valuation matters against a fairness principle in the meantime. Valuations are judged by case law and the process agreements, not a finalized rule.

How should an FBO or MRO be valued for an ESOP?

With a framework that separates transferable value from encumbered and person-dependent value, applies an explicit transferability haircut to certificate and relationship intangibles, values the airport leasehold as a wasting interest, normalizes earnings across a cycle window that includes a trough, and models acquisition debt service, mandatory facility capital expenditure and the repurchase obligation together across a downcycle. Sections 4 through 6 set that framework out.

References

Atlantic Aviation. 2022. "Atlantic Aviation and Ross Aviation Complete Business Combination and Acquire Three Former TAC Air FBOs." Atlantic Aviation, 12 July. https://www.atlanticaviation.com/news/atlantic-aviation-and-ross-aviation-complete-business-combination/

Aviation Technician Education Council. 2025. 2025 Pipeline Report. Aviation Technician Education Council. https://www.atec-amt.org/pipeline-report

Bain Capital. 2026. "Bain Capital Enters Fixed-Base Operator Sector With Acquisition of APP Jet Center." Bain Capital, 27 January. https://www.baincapital.com/news/bain-capital-enters-fixed-base-operator-sector-acquisition-app-jet-center

Beatty, A. 1995. "The Cash Flow and Informational Effects of Employee Stock Ownership Plans." Journal of Financial Economics 38 (2): 211-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(94)00812-F

Bemidji Aviation Services. 2026. "Company." Bemidji Aviation Services, Inc. https://bemidjiaviation.com/company/

Blackstone. 2021. "Blackstone, Cascade and Global Infrastructure Partners Announce Terms of a Recommended Offer for Signature Aviation plc." Blackstone, 5 February. https://www.blackstone.com/news/press/blackstone-cascade-and-global-infrastructure-partners-signature-aviation/

Bova, F., K. Kolev, J.K. Thomas, and X.F. Zhang. 2015. "Non-Executive Employee Ownership and Corporate Risk." The Accounting Review 90 (1): 115-145. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50860

Brundle v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. 2019. 919 F.3d 763 (4th Cir.), affirming 258 F. Supp. 3d 647 (E.D. Va. 2017). https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171873.P.pdf

Bushman, A. 2018. "Who Controls an ESOP-Owned Company?" RSM US LLP, updated July 2018. https://rsmus.com/insights/services/business-tax/who-controls-an-esop-owned-company.html

Carter, C.W. 2026a. "Ground-Lease Reversion Risk: Why a Hangar Can Be Worth Less Than It Cost to Build." Aeronautical Valuation Research Series, Valuation Takes Flight LLC. https://valuationtakesflight.com/research/ground-lease-reversion-risk.html

Carter, C.W. 2026b. "Grounded Assets and Appropriable Rents: Hold-Up Risk in Hangar Ground Leases." Aeronautical Valuation Research Series, Valuation Takes Flight LLC. https://valuationtakesflight.com/research/grounded-assets-and-appropriable-rents.html

Carter, C.W. 2026c. "What Makes an Annual Aviation ESOP Valuation Defensible." Aeronautical Valuation Research Series, Valuation Takes Flight LLC. https://valuationtakesflight.com/research/aviation-esop-valuation-defensible.html

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Environmental Protection Agency. 2026. No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir., 18 August 2026). https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/Opinion-Chamber-of-Commerce-v.-EPA-D.C.-Circuit.pdf

Chao v. Hall Holding Co. 2002. 285 F.3d 415 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1168 (2003). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/777104/chao-v-hall-holding-company-inc/

Chaplinsky, S., and G. Niehaus. 1994. "The Role of ESOPs in Takeover Contests." The Journal of Finance 49 (4): 1451-1470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1994.tb02461.x

Chesemore v. Fenkell. 2016. 829 F.3d 803 (7th Cir.), affirming Chesemore v. Alliance Holdings, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (W.D. Wis. 2012). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/15-3740/15-3740-2016-07-21.html

Code of Federal Regulations. 2026a. 14 CFR 145.57, Amendment to or transfer of certificate. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-145.57

Code of Federal Regulations. 2026b. 14 CFR 119.5(g), Certifications, authorizations, and prohibitions. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-119.5

Code of Federal Regulations. 2026c. 14 CFR 119.41, Amending a certificate. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-119.41

Code of Federal Regulations. 2026d. 14 CFR 119.69, Management personnel required for operations conducted under part 135. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-119.69

Cunningham v. Cornell University. 2025. 604 U.S. 693. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/604us2r26_7m48.pdf

Department of Labor. 1988. "Proposed Regulation Relating to the Definition of Adequate Consideration." 53 Fed. Reg. 17,632 (17 May 1988), proposed 29 CFR 2510.3-18. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/fedreg/fr053/fr053095/fr053095.pdf

Department of Labor. 2014. Agreement Concerning Fiduciary Engagements and Process Requirements for Employer Stock Transactions (GreatBanc Trust Company), 2 June 2014. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-ebsa/our-activities/enforcement/esop-agreement-appraisal-guidelines-greatbanc.pdf

Department of Labor. 2017. Agreement Concerning Process Requirements for Employee Stock Ownership Plan Transactions (First Bankers Trust Services, Inc.), filed 21 September 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-ebsa/our-activities/enforcement/esop-agreement-appraisal-guidelines-first-bankers.pdf

Donovan v. Cunningham. 1983. 716 F.2d 1455 (5th Cir.). https://openjurist.org/716/f2d/1455/donovan-v-r-cunningham-lj-w-f

Employee Benefits Security Administration. 2014. "US Labor Department Reaches Landmark Agreement with GreatBanc Trust Company." News release 14-1043-NAT, 3 June 2014. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20141043

Employee Benefits Security Administration. 2025. "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Relating to Application of the Definition of Adequate Consideration" and companion proposed class exemption, 16 January 2025, RIN 1210-AC20 and Z-RIN 1210-ZA35 (withdrawn before Federal Register publication). U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20250116

Employee Benefits Security Administration. 2026a. "Employee Ownership Initiative." U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/programs-and-initiatives/employee-ownership-initiative

Employee Benefits Security Administration. 2026b. Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2026-01: Guiding Principles for EBSA Enforcement Priorities, 14 April 2026. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/field-assistance-bulletins/2026-01

Employee Retirement Income Security Act. 2026a. Section 3(18)(B), 29 U.S.C. 1002(18)(B). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1002

Employee Retirement Income Security Act. 2026b. Section 406, 29 U.S.C. 1106. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1106

Employee Retirement Income Security Act. 2026c. Section 408(e), 29 U.S.C. 1108(e). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section1108

Environmental Protection Agency. 2024a. "PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation." Final rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 32,532 (26 April 2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/26/2024-07773/pfas-national-primary-drinking-water-regulation

Environmental Protection Agency. 2024b. "Designation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid as CERCLA Hazardous Substances." Final rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 39,124 (8 May 2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/08/2024-08547/designation-of-pfoa-and-pfos-as-cercla-hazardous-substances

Environmental Protection Agency. 2026a. "Proposed PFAS Rescission Rule." Proposed rule, 20 May 2026, docket EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/proposed-pfas-rescission-rule

Environmental Protection Agency. 2026b. "Proposed PFOA and PFOS Compliance Extension Rule." Proposed rule, 20 May 2026. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/proposed-pfoa-and-pfos-compliance-extension-rule

Faleye, O., V. Mehrotra, and R. Morck. 2006. "When Labor Has a Voice in Corporate Governance." Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 41 (3): 489-510. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109000002519

Federal Aviation Administration. 2025. Airport Sponsor Assurances, April 2025 edition. Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/assurances-airport-sponsors-2025

Federal Aviation Administration. 2026. Order 5190.6C, Airport Compliance Manual, 20 February 2026, ch. 12. Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/order-5190-6c-compliance-chapter-12

Federal Rules of Evidence. 2023. Rule 702, Testimony by Expert Witnesses, as amended effective 1 December 2023. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702

General Aviation Manufacturers Association. 2011. 2010 General Aviation Statistical Databook and Industry Outlook. General Aviation Manufacturers Association. https://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/books-online/GamaDatabookOutlook.pdf

General Aviation Manufacturers Association. 2026. 2025 Year-End Aircraft Shipment and Billings Report, 18 February 2026. General Aviation Manufacturers Association. https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2025ShipmentReport_02-18-2026.pdf

Goldberg, R. 2023. "Plane Talk: How to Obtain an FAA Part 135 Certificate Without Having to Apply (and Wait Years) for a New Certificate." The Air & Space Lawyer 35 (2): 10-12. American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/air_space_lawyer/v35n2/goldberg.pdf

Gonza, T. 2025. "Sustainability of Employee Ownership: The Role of Capital Structure in ESOP Plan Terminations." Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership 8 (1-2): 16-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpeo-07-2024-0014

Halperin v. Richards. 2021. 7 F.4th 534 (7th Cir.). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-20-02793/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-20-02793-0.pdf

Heritage Aviation. 2026. "Careers." Heritage Aviation. https://flyheritage.com/careers/

Internal Revenue Code. 2026. Section 409(h) and (o), 26 U.S.C. 409(h), (o). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section409

Internal Revenue Service. 1959. Revenue Ruling 59-60, 1959-1 C.B. 237. https://mobile.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDownloadDocument?documentID=753444

Internal Revenue Service. 2009. Discount for Lack of Marketability Job Aid for IRS Valuation Professionals, 25 September 2009. Engineering/Valuation Program, Internal Revenue Service. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-lbi/dlom.pdf

Kim, E.H., and P. Ouimet. 2014. "Broad-Based Employee Stock Ownership: Motives and Outcomes." The Journal of Finance 69 (3): 1273-1319. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12150

KKR. 2021. "KKR to Acquire Atlantic Aviation from Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation." Business Wire, 7 June. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210607005386/en/

Kurtulus, F.A., and D. Kruse. 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship between Employee Ownership and Employment Stability in the US: 1999-2011." British Journal of Industrial Relations 56 (2): 245-291. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12254

Locke, D.H., and W.D. Fjeld. 2006. "Effect of the ESOP Repurchase Obligation on Company Value." Business Valuation Review 25 (3): 115-120. https://doi.org/10.5791/0882-2875-25.3.115

Marsh. 2026. Transactional Risk Insurance Report, 2025 data, published 9 April 2026. Marsh LLC. https://www.marsh.com/en/services/transactional-risk.html

Menke, J.D. 2011. "ESOP Marketability Discounts: Is the 'Put Option' Argument Fallacious?" The Menke Group, 22 September. https://www.menke.com/esop-archives/esop-marketability-discounts-put-option-argument-fallacious/

Mercer Capital. 2015. Valuation Discounts and Premiums in ESOP Valuation: Appraisal Review Practice Aid for ESOP Trustees. Memphis: Mercer Capital Management, Inc. https://mercercapital.com/media/no1nunft/mercer-capital-esop-trustee-practice-aid-valuation-discounts.pdf

Morgan Lewis. 2025. "Long-Awaited ESOP Proposals Issued and Then Quickly Withdrawn." ML BeneBits, March. https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/mlbenebits/2025/03/long-awaited-esop-proposals-issued-and-then-quickly-withdrawn

National Center for Employee Ownership. 2026a. "Employee Ownership by the Numbers." NCEO. https://www.nceo.org/research/employee-ownership-by-the-numbers

National Center for Employee Ownership. 2026b. "SBA Says Main Street Employee Ownership Act Has Not Produced Many ESOP Loans." NCEO. https://www.nceo.org/employee-ownership-blog/sba-says-main-street-employee-ownership-act-has-not-produced-many-esop-loans

National Center for Employee Ownership. 2026c. "Valuation Discounts in ESOPs." NCEO. https://www.nceo.org/articles/valuation-discounts-esops

National Center for Employee Ownership. 2026d. "ESOP Repurchase Obligation Liability: Buying Back Employees' Shares." NCEO. https://www.esop.org/articles/esop-repurchase-obligation-liability.php

Nielsen, J.M. 2024. "Key Person Considerations When Valuing Private Companies in a Gift and Estate Tax Context." Perspectives, Willamette Management Associates, January. https://www.willametteinsights.com/assets/files/Key_Consid_Valuing_Priv_Comp.pdf

O'Boyle, E.H., P.C. Patel, and E. Gonzalez-Mule. 2016. "Employee Ownership and Firm Performance: A Meta-Analysis." Human Resource Management Journal 26 (4): 425-448. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12115

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 2026. "Worker Ownership, Readiness, and Knowledge: Proposed Regulation Relating to the Definition of Adequate Consideration." Unified Agenda entry, RIN 1210-AC20, July 2026. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?RIN=1210-AC20

Patatoukas, P.N. 2012. "Customer-Base Concentration: Implications for Firm Performance and Capital Markets." The Accounting Review 87 (2): 363-392. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10198

Perez v. Bruister. 2016. 823 F.3d 250 (5th Cir.), affirming 54 F. Supp. 3d 629 (S.D. Miss. 2014). https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-60816-CV0.pdf

Pizzella v. Vinoskey. 2019. 409 F. Supp. 3d 473 (W.D. Va.), affirmed in relevant part sub nom. Walsh v. Vinoskey, 19 F.4th 672 (4th Cir. 2021). https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201252.P.pdf

Plan Sponsor Council of America. 2025. "Senate Passes Two Pro-ESOP Bills." PSCA, October. https://www.psca.org/news/psca-news/2025/10/senate-passes-two-pro-esop-bills/

Plan Sponsor Council of America. 2026. "What Does EBSA's Enforcement Priorities Mean for ESOPs?" PSCA, January. https://www.psca.org/news/psca-news/2026/1/what-does-ebsas-enforcement-priorities-mean-for-esops/

Sargent, S., B. Prentice, and D. Costanza. 2026. "The New MRO Supply Paradigm: Labor and Material Constraints Offset by AI and Tech." Oliver Wyman, 13 April. https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2026/apr/aviation-mro-labor-and-material-supply-chain-paradigm.html

Thurber, M. 2024. "Corporate Eagle Now 100 Percent Employee-Owned." Aviation International News, 17 June. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2024-06-17/corporate-eagle-now-100-employee-owned

United States Census Bureau. 2020. "Business Owners' Ages: Over Half of U.S. Business Owners Were Age 55 and Over." Annual Business Survey, reference year 2018. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2020/comm/business-owners-ages.html

Walsh v. Bowers. 2021. 561 F. Supp. 3d 973 (D. Haw., 17 September 2021), Civil No. 18-00155 SOM-WRP. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_18-cv-00155/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_18-cv-00155-6.pdf

Witt, J.P., G.H. Dooge, A.R. Vorbrodt, and Z.M. Ulewicz. 2026. "Practical Considerations for a Private Equity Buyer Contemplating an Acquisition of an ESOP-Owned Company." Foley & Lardner LLP. https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/considerations-private-equity-buyer-esop/

Worker Ownership, Readiness, and Knowledge Act. 2022. SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, sec. 346, Pub. L. No. 117-328, div. T, tit. III, codified at 29 U.S.C. 3228. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section3228

This paper is research and general information for ESOP trustees, ERISA counsel, aviation business owners, and valuation professionals. It is not legal, tax, or valuation advice, and it does not create an engagement. Legal authorities and agency positions are stated as of September 2026. The adequate-consideration regulation has never been finalized, and the frameworks proposed here are analytical, not authority.