강제매수제도의 합리적 운용을 위한 개선방안
Improvements in the Squeeze-Out for the Rational Application
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Squeeze-out system, introduced by the revised commercial law in 2011, is globally common as it improves management efficiency, but it also has many problems with protection of minority shareholders. After the controversy concerning its introduction, the system will need to be operated with effectiveness, and the present paper contemplated ways to resolve the problems with squeeze-out system in the revised commercial law. The important point in squeeze-out system is to compensate minority shareholders for the shares properly and ensure a fair process of the squeeze-out. For it, the phrase ‘business purpose’ in the law should be deleted and, instead, the ‘entire fairness standard’ of the Delaware Court of the US that requires proof of ‘fair transaction’ and ‘fair price.’ Then, while the squeeze-out shall be decided by the vote of entire shareholders, minority shareholders should be able to separately determine whether to accept the decided price through an additional vote. also, all transactions regarding squeeze-out must be clearly made public by requiring registering the vote in a share holders’ meeting, and it should be used as evidence in case of dispute, contributing to ensuring the fairness of transaction. Next, the method and procedure of determining the share price must be specifically improved so that minority shareholders who are expelled against their will can be sufficiently compensated. Although, in squeeze-out, the share price is basically decided according to value evaluation when dissident shareholders exercises stock purchase right, as defined by the revised commercial law, the synergy effect, expected profit of the company, and minority discount must be reflected on the price, given the particularity of squeeze-out. Lastly, the main body that appoints an appraiser and post-squeeze- out supervision process must be specified in the commercial law in order to ensure fairness in price determination process. Also, the burden of proof on pricing should be on the majority shareholder and the cost for determining the share price should be paid by them as well, to reduce the burden of minority shareholders. In addition, opportunistic endeavor of majority shareholders must be prevented in advance by clearly stating the basic date of share pricing. The research also suggested introduction of duty of loyalty of majority shareholders, to prevent abuse or unfairness of squeeze-out and make it serve as basis for indemnity.
Abstract
Squeeze-out system, introduced by the revised commercial law in 2011, is globally common as it improves management efficiency, but it also has many problems with protection of minority shareholders. After the controversy concerning its introduction, the system will need to be operated with effectiveness, and the present paper contemplated ways to resolve the problems with squeeze-out system in the revised commercial law. The important point in squeeze-out system is to compensate minority shareholders for the shares properly and ensure a fair process of the squeeze-out. For it, the phrase ‘business purpose’ in the law should be deleted and, instead, the ‘entire fairness standard’ of the Delaware Court of the US that requires proof of ‘fair transaction’ and ‘fair price.’ Then, while the squeeze-out shall be decided by the vote of entire shareholders, minority shareholders should be able to separately determine whether to accept the decided price through an additional vote. also, all transactions regarding squeeze-out must be clearly made public by requiring registering the vote in a share holders’ meeting, and it should be used as evidence in case of dispute, contributing to ensuring the fairness of transaction. Next, the method and procedure of determining the share price must be specifically improved so that minority shareholders who are expelled against their will can be sufficiently compensated. Although, in squeeze-out, the share price is basically decided according to value evaluation when dissident shareholders exercises stock purchase right, as defined by the revised commercial law, the synergy effect, expected profit of the company, and minority discount must be reflected on the price, given the particularity of squeeze-out. Lastly, the main body that appoints an appraiser and post-squeeze- out supervision process must be specified in the commercial law in order to ensure fairness in price determination process. Also, the burden of proof on pricing should be on the majority shareholder and the cost for determining the share price should be paid by them as well, to reduce the burden of minority shareholders. In addition, opportunistic endeavor of majority shareholders must be prevented in advance by clearly stating the basic date of share pricing. The research also suggested introduction of duty of loyalty of majority shareholders, to prevent abuse or unfairness of squeeze-out and make it serve as basis for indemnity.
참고문헌 (49)
- 주요국가의 기업규제 개혁법제에 관한 비교법적 연구〔Ⅳ〕- 일본 -, "권종호", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2008)
- 박준, "회사법 제3판" (2012), 박영사
- 노혁준, "주요국가의 기업규제 개혁법제에 관한 비교법적 연구〔Ⅲ〕- 영국 -", 한국법제연구원 (2008)
- 송종준, "적대적 M&A의 법리" (2008), 도서출판 개신
- 최병규, "회사법" (2011), 박영사
- 이철송, "2011 개정상법 : 축조해설" (2011), 박영사
- 이철송, "회사법강의(제19판)" (2011), 박영사
- 정찬형, "상법강의(상)(제15판)" (2012), 박영사
- 지원림, "민법강의(제7판)" (2009), 홍문사
- 최준선, "2011 개정상법 회사편 해설서", 한국상장회사협의회, ~ (2011)
- 최준선, "회사법 제7판" (2012), 삼영사
- 강희갑, "지배주주의 충실의무", 상사법연구, 12 (1993), 한국상사법학회
- 김건식, "소수주주의 보호와 지배주주의 성실의무 - 독일법을 중심으로 -", 서울대법학, 32(3) (1991), 서울대학교 법학연구소
- 金聖虎, "미국 회사법상 ＂소수주주 축출의 정당성＂에 관한 고찰", 기업법연구, 21(4), pp.297~316 (2007), 한국기업법학회
- 김성호, "독일 주식법상의 소수주주축출제도와 그 시사점", 상사법연구, 24(3), pp.83~112 (2005), 한국상사법학회
- 김성호, "상법개정시안에서의 소수주주축출에 관한 고찰", CG Review, (48) (2010), 한국기업지배구조원
- 김재형, "미국 델라웨어주법상 합병시의 소수파주주 보호", 비교사법, 9(4), pp.~22 (2002), 한국비교사법학회
- 김재형, "M&A대가의 유연화와 현금지불합병", 비교사법, 10(4), pp.349~372 (2003), 한국비교사법학회
- 김재형, "미국에서 합병대가의 유연화와 소수주주축출에 관한 입법의 변천과 법원의 대응", 기업법연구, 18(1), pp.57~74 (2004), 한국기업법학회
- 김홍식, "개정상법상 소수주식의 강제매수제도에 관한 연구", 안암법학회 춘계학술대회 (2011), 안암법학회
- 김효신, "소수주주축출제도의 도입방안에 대한 검토", 선진상사법률연구, (50), pp.40~58 (2010), 법무부
- 김화진, "소수주식의 강제매수제도", 서울대학교 법학, 50(1), pp.321~350 (2009), 법학연구소
- 김화진, "상장회사를 어떻게 규제할 것인가?", 서울대학교 법학, 49(1), pp.159~230 (2008), 법학연구소
- 노혁준, "소수주주 축출제도의 도입에 관한 연구 － 도입형태와 가격산정을 중심으로－", 상사법연구, 26(4), pp.231~271 (2008), 한국상사법학회
- 서완석, "상법상의 소수주주 축출제도 -소수주식 강제매수제도와 교부금 합병제도를 중심으로-", 상사법연구, 30(2), pp.385~443 (2011), 한국상사법학회
- 송종준, "소수주주 강제퇴출법제의 국제적 신조류와 그 입법론적 수용 가능성 -미국,영국,독일법의 비교분석을 중심으로-", 증권법연구, 6(1), pp.1~38 (2005), 한국증권법학회
- 송종준, "소수주식 전부취득제의 입법의도와 해석방향", 한국기업법학회･전북대학교 법학연구소･백제법무법인 동계공동학술대회 (2012), 한국기업법학회･전북대학교 법학연구소･백제법무법인
- 육태우, "개정상법상 소수주주축출제도에 관한 소고", 한국경영법률학회․한국기업법학회 2011 추계공동학술대회 (2011), 한국경영법률학회․한국기업법학회
- 정병덕, "주식 강제매수제도와 소수주주의 보호", 한국상사판례학회 및 연세대 글로벌비즈니스와 법센터 2011년 추계학술대회 (2011), 한국상사판례학회 및 연세대 글로벌비즈니스와 법센터
- 최민용, "지배주주의 주식매도청구권의 운용과 관련된 몇 가지 제언", 경영법률, 21(4), pp.361~389 (2011), 한국경영법률학회
- 최병규, "독일의 squeeze-out제도에 관한 연구", 한독법학, (14) (2003), 한독법률학회
- 법무부, "상법개정특별분과위원회 회의록〔회사편〕", ~ (2006)
- 상법 일부개정법률안 심사보고서, "법제사법위원회", ~ (2011)
- 한국경제신문, "삼성전자서비스 소액주주, 지분 0.67% 4만주 ‘알박기’", ~ (2010)
- Barbara Grunewald, "in Münchener Kommentar zum Aktiengesetz" (2010)
- Begründung zum RegE-WpÜG, "Gesetz zur Regelung von öffentlichen Angeboten zum Erwerb von Wertpapieren und von Unternehmensübernahmen", All-Teil
- Götz Hueck, Fortgef, "Gesellschaftsrecht, 21. Aufl" (2008)
- Holger Fleischer, "Das neue Recht des squeeze out", Zeitschrift für Unternehmens und Gesellschaftsrecht (2002)
- Matthias M. Siems, "Die Konvergenz der Rechtssysteme im Recht der Aktionäre : ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Corporate Gorvernance in Zeiten der Globaliserung" (2005), Mohr Siebeck
- Lambertus Fuhrmann, "Der Ausschluss von Minderheit- saktionären", WM (2002)
- Thomas Raiser, "Recht der Kapitalgesellschaften, 5. Aufl" (2010)
- Elliott J. Weiss, "The Law of Take out Mergers: A Historical Perspective", N. Y. L. Rev, 56 (1981)
- G. Morse, "Charlesworth’s company Law(13th ed.)" (1987), stevens & sons
- Guhan Subramanian, "Fixing Freezeouts", Yale L. J, 115 (2005)
- 中東正文, "企業買收․組織再編と親會社․關係會社の法的責任", 法時, 79(5) (2007)
- 相浮 哲, "合併等対価の柔軟化の実現に至る経緯", 商事法務, (1861) (2007), 商事法務硏究會
- 久保寛展, "少数株主の締出しの正当性と権利濫用, In 企業法の課題と展望" (2009), 商事法務
- 岡田昌浩, "少数株主締め出しと株式取得対価の公正性の確保, In 企業法の課題と展望" (2009), 商事法務
- 玉井利幸, "少数株主に対する取締役と支配株主の義務と責任--少数株主の締出を中心に, In 川村正辛先生退任記念論文集(會社法․金融法の新發展)" (2009), 中央經濟社