敵對的 企業買收 防禦에 대한 小考 — 美國 Delaware州 判例를 中心으로 —
A Legal Study on Defensive Tactics against Hostile Takeover : Focusing on the Delaware Court's Jurisprudence
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Abstract
【Abstract】 A Legal Study on Defensive Tactics against Hostile Takeover : Focusing on the Delaware Court's Jurisprudence Kim Doo Hwan In the U. S. the Unocal test for determining whether a board of directors has met its burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of its actions as follows: First, a reasonableness test, which is satisfied by a demonstration that the board of directors had reasonable grounds for believing that a danger to corporate policy and effectiveness existed, and Second, a proportionality test, which is satisfied by a demonstration that the board of directors' defensive response was reasonable in relation to the threat posed. In itself, the Unocal test is a straightforward analysis of whether what a board did was reasonable. But Unocal's purpose and application have been cloaked in! a larger, rather ill-fitting doctrinal garment. Once the court applies the Unocal test, its job is, as a technical matter, not over. If, upon applying Unocal, the court finds that the defendants have met their burden of demonstrating the substantive reasonableness of their actions, the court must then go on to apply the normal review appropriate in cases that do not implicate Unocal. In essence, the court must reimpose on the plaintiffs the burden of showing " 'by a preponderance of the evidence' " that the business judgment rule is inapplicable. Of course, the business judgment rule exists in large measure to prevent the business decisions of a board of directors from being judicially examined for their substantive reasonableness - an eventuality that has, in the Unocal context, already taken place. With it refers from above, the author arranges, with critics, the discussion in the United States regarding the judgement standard of hostile corporate raid defensive act.
참고문헌 (20)
- 권재열, "적대적 M&A에 대한 이사의 방어행위기준", 상사판례연구, 18(2) (2005), 한국상사판례학회
- 김택주, "한국상사판례학회", 동아법학, (21) (1996), 동아대학교
- 맹수석, "적대적 M&A와 이사의 역할", 법학연구, 15(1) (2004), 충남대 법학연구소
- 박준, "적대적 M&A의 방어와 관련한 법적 규제", 인권과 정의, 통권 : 252 (1997), 대한변호사협회
- 송종준, "M&A에 대한 주요 방어대책", 상사법연구, 14(1) (1997), 한국상사법학회
- 유영일, "M&A에 대한 방어행위로써의 전환사채발행의 적법성", 상사판례연구, 8 (1997), 상사판례연구회
- 이옥래, "적대적 M&A에 대응한 이사의 방어행위에 대한 법적 평가", BFL, (12) (2005), 서울대 금융법센터
- 정태영, "공개매수제도에 관한 고찰 - 적대적 M&A에 대한 방어를 중심으로", 상사법연구, 24(3) (2005), 한국상사법학회
- American Law Institute (ALI), "Principle of Corporate Governance : Analysis and Recommendation" (1994)
- Edward B. Rock, "Saints and Sinners: How Does Delaware Corporate Law Work ?", Ucla. L. Rev., (44), pp.1009~ (1997)
- Ucla. L. Rev., "Some View on U. S. Corporate Governance", Colum. Bus. L. Rev., (1) (1998)
- R. Franklin Balotti, "Rejudging The Business Judgment Rule", Bus. Law., (48), pp.1337~ (1993)
- Joel Seligman, "The New Corporate Law", BROOKLYN L. REV., (59), pp.1~ (1993)
- Lyman Johnson, "The Modest Business Judgment Rule" (1999), manuscript at 10
- Marcel Kahan,, "Paramount or Paradox: The Delaware Supreme Court's Takeover Jurisprudence", J. CORP. L., (19), pp.583~ (1994)
- E. Norman Veasey, "The New Incarnation Of The Business Judgment Rule In Takeover Defenses", DEL. J. CORP. L., (11), pp.503~ (1987)
- Reiner Kraakman, "Taking Discounts Seriously : The Implications of 'Discounted' Share Prices as an Acquisition Motive", Colum. L. Rev., (88), pp.891~ (1988)
- Ronald J. Gilson, "Delaware's Intermediate Standard for Defensive Tactics: Is There Substance to Proportionality Review?", Bus. Law., (44), pp.247~ (1989)
- William Klein,, "Business Associations : Cases and Materials on Agency, 5th ed．" (2003), Partnerships, and Corporation
- William T. Allen, "Function over Form : A Reassesment of Standards of Review in Delaware Corporation Law", Bus. Law., (56), pp.1287~ (2001)