적대적 M&A에 있어 방어행위의 적법요건 - Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. 사건을 중심으로 -
The Legitimacy of a Defense Tactic Against a Hostile Tender Offer chosen by the Target's Board - Primarily Presenting Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. -
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Nowadays there are hot discussions in Korea on the response of the target's boardroom against a hostile tender offer. Korea has opened its takeover-market after the financial crisis in 1997-1998. The possibility of a hostile tender offer was extremely enhanced, since the number of foreign investors and the volume of their investment gradually increase in Korean market. Delaware Chancery and Supreme Court developed through the case of Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. in 1985 a useful criterion for the legal evaluation of a defensive tactic chosen by the target's board. Those are the "reasonableness test" and the "proportionality test". With these tests, an efficient analysis is guaranteed for almost any public contest for a corporate control through unsolicited tender offer. In Unocal, the Delaware Supreme Court made clear that the board of directors of a target corporation is not a passive one, but an active defender of the corporation and its shareholders. The needed power of the board can be derived from the sections 161(a), 141(a) DGCL and the fundamental duty of directors toward the corporation. Regarding the reasonableness test, the court says, "...directors must show that they had reasonable grounds for believing that a danger to corporate policy and effectiveness existed because of another person's stock ownership." Regarding the proportionality test, the court says, "if a defensive measure is to come within the ambit of the business judgment rule, it must be reasonable in relation to the threat posed." The Unocal is famous also internationally. Japan imported the Unocal tests for its companies. In September 2004, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry convened a group of experts and business representatives - the Corporate Value Study Group - to propose a governmental response to the hostile takeovers. In May 2005 the Japanese Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry jointly promulgated the "Guidelines Regarding Takeover Defense for the Purpose of Protection and Enhancement of Corporate Value and Shareholders' Common Interest", which follows Delaware case law by allowing Japanese boards to adopt a defense tactic, and requiring that defenses be necessary and reasonable in relation to the threat posed. By using the above tests in Korean courts, it is recommendable, that the special characteristics surrounding the Korean business environment should be considered.
Abstract
Nowadays there are hot discussions in Korea on the response of the target's boardroom against a hostile tender offer. Korea has opened its takeover-market after the financial crisis in 1997-1998. The possibility of a hostile tender offer was extremely enhanced, since the number of foreign investors and the volume of their investment gradually increase in Korean market. Delaware Chancery and Supreme Court developed through the case of Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. in 1985 a useful criterion for the legal evaluation of a defensive tactic chosen by the target's board. Those are the "reasonableness test" and the "proportionality test". With these tests, an efficient analysis is guaranteed for almost any public contest for a corporate control through unsolicited tender offer. In Unocal, the Delaware Supreme Court made clear that the board of directors of a target corporation is not a passive one, but an active defender of the corporation and its shareholders. The needed power of the board can be derived from the sections 161(a), 141(a) DGCL and the fundamental duty of directors toward the corporation. Regarding the reasonableness test, the court says, "...directors must show that they had reasonable grounds for believing that a danger to corporate policy and effectiveness existed because of another person's stock ownership." Regarding the proportionality test, the court says, "if a defensive measure is to come within the ambit of the business judgment rule, it must be reasonable in relation to the threat posed." The Unocal is famous also internationally. Japan imported the Unocal tests for its companies. In September 2004, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry convened a group of experts and business representatives - the Corporate Value Study Group - to propose a governmental response to the hostile takeovers. In May 2005 the Japanese Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry jointly promulgated the "Guidelines Regarding Takeover Defense for the Purpose of Protection and Enhancement of Corporate Value and Shareholders' Common Interest", which follows Delaware case law by allowing Japanese boards to adopt a defense tactic, and requiring that defenses be necessary and reasonable in relation to the threat posed. By using the above tests in Korean courts, it is recommendable, that the special characteristics surrounding the Korean business environment should be considered.
참고문헌 (15)
- 적대적 M&A의 방어방법에 관한 연구, "권재열", 코스닥상장법인협의회, ~, pp.05-1 (2005)
- 권종호, "일본의 적대적 M&A 현황과 방어수단에 관한 최근 동향", 상장협, (52) (2005)
- 김두식, "M&A법제의 개선방안연구", 상장협, (50) (2004)
- 송종준, "바람직한 경영권방어수단 마련을 위한 전제조건", 자본시장의 변화 어떻게 대응해야 하나? -기업지배권관련제도 도입을 위한 대응과제 세미나 (2005), 전경련 세미나
- 유영일, "주식공개매수에 관한 연구 : 방어행위의 적법성에 관한 미국회사법상의 논의를 중심으로", 박사, pp.1994
- 유진희, "유럽연합의 기업인수 규제 -공개매수 지침을 중심으로-", 기업법연구, 19(3), pp.259~288 (2005), 한국기업법학회
- 정 대, "적대적 M&A에 대한 대상회사의 방어행위의 적법성 판단기준에 관한 고찰", 기업법연구, 20(2)통권 : 25
- Allen, "Commentaries and Cases on the Law of Business Organization, 2nd ed" (2007), Wolters Kluwer
- Charles E. Simon, "Corporate Anti-Takeover Defenses : The Poison Pill Device, Securities Law Handbook Series", pp.2008, Thomson
- Choper, "Cases and Materials on Corporations, 7th ed" (2008), Wolters Kluwer
- Easterbrook, "The Proper Role of A Target's Management in Responding to A Tender Offer", Harv. L. Rev., 94, pp.1173~ (1981)
- Lipton, Martin, "Takeover Bids in the Target's Boardroom", Bus. Law, 35, pp.101~ (1979)
- Moore II, Andrew G. T, "The Birth of Unocal - A Brief History", Del. J. Corp. L, 31, pp.865~
- Pollock, "Exclusionary Tender Offers : A Reasonably Formulated Takeover Defense or A Discriminatory Attempt to Retain Control?", Ga. L. Rev, 20, pp.627~
- 송종준, "M&A에 대한 주요방어대책", 상사법연구, 14(1) (1995)
