Replying to Since everyone's so damn political

Maybe you can give me some ideas here solving a political problem. I have to draft a statute. Like a law. Here's the gist:

If your company is going bankrupt or is about to, you hire a trustee (who is hired privately but licensed by the government and considered an officer of the court) to run your business short-term until its fate is decided (ie, another company buys it).
So here's the problem: When managing a company that's floundering as trustees do, sometimes it helps to lay off some employees or do other things to trim down costs. But under BC labour laws the trustee is regarded exactly the same way a new owner would be. So if the company coffers don't have enough money to pay for pensions or severance pay for the laid-off workers, or any other costs that might come up while the trustee is running the business, he is personally liable to pay the balance.

Since trustees are a good thing and keep businesses afloat, we want to promote them being able to do their job without having to worry about being stuck with the costs of keeping a business afloat without getting the benefits (which go to whoever ends up buying it, usually). BUT we also don't want trustees to be completely unaccountable for what they do, either (i.e. that they fire all the employees without any cost and screw those employees over completely with regard to severance payments).

So I need a solution that takes both sides of this into account: doesn't put trustees' financial survival on the line, but also supports labour. What do you all think?