Regarding the above, if you were to sell the assets or the shares of a company, how does this affect white price the owners would get?
Further are there any other potential issues in chosing one over the other to selling?
In an asset sale you can cherry-pick the assets that you will buy and the liabilities you will assume. It is less risky for the buyer because you limit any potential contingent and off-balance sheet liabilities which remain with the seller, and in some instances you can have a stepped-up basis in the acquired assets which gives you a tax benefit. Large deals can be difficult to structure as asset sales because of the difficulties in the legal transfer of various individual assets, like IP and other intangibles.
A stock sale can be good for the seller because you transfer all assets and liabilities associated with the corporation, and get rid of any contingencies and other claims. It is generally simpler to execute. In very simple terms, everything else equal - the purchase price in a stock deal would be potentially slightly less compared to an otherwise identical asset deal, because of the tax benefits to the buyer in an asset sale.
That being said, there are many exceptions and the answer to which is more advantageous depends on the purpose (acquiring all or some of the assets), and it is mostly driven by tax considerations - you need a tax advisor to determine the specifics. In general, the larger the deal the less likely it is that it can be structured as an asset sale.