the failure of the company may have been largely unrelated to the performance and capability of the executives, and the value they may provide to an acquirer in

the failure of the company may have been largely unrelated to the performance and capability of the executives, and the value they may provide to an acquirer in the future (individually or part of the system of the company). e.g. the outcome is influenced by a variety of factors, the outcome can still be terrible due to factors outside of control even if the decisions and execution by the people involved were flawless. on the other hand, you can say a similar thing about non-executive employees. it is perhaps just a question of how essential or replaceable they are perceived as being. also, the executives will likely have a lot more power than employees when negotiating a deal with a possible acquirer and major investors, so it isn't terribly surprising that they cut a deal that favours the powerful parties involved in the negotiation, at the cost of less powerful parties such as employees. this isn't to argue it is the right thing to do, it is to argue that it isn't surprising when it happens.