Importing Hazardous Substances from the United States?: The Poison Pill in Japan and Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The authors were motivated to write this article by South Korea’s steps to amend its corporate law to permit the use of the shareholder rights plan (poison pill). Poison pills are permitted in some of the world’s most sophisticated economies, and they have engendered strong opinions and changed the face of corporate law in the most well-established of jurisdictions. This article first looks back at the poison pill’s history in the United States and Japan, highlighting the advances and setbacks that might have predictive value for Korea. To accomplish this, we borrow a framework from Ronald Gilson and then look at case law precedent, existing and proposed legislation, strategies for the regulation and deployment of poison pills, and parties available to police its use. This article goes on to consider how a transplant of the poison pill doctrine into Korean M&A law could play out; focusing less on predicting the outcome and more on identifying the key success factors and potential pitfalls, and highlighting the importance of ongoing corporate governance reform.
Abstract
The authors were motivated to write this article by South Korea’s steps to amend its corporate law to permit the use of the shareholder rights plan (poison pill). Poison pills are permitted in some of the world’s most sophisticated economies, and they have engendered strong opinions and changed the face of corporate law in the most well-established of jurisdictions. This article first looks back at the poison pill’s history in the United States and Japan, highlighting the advances and setbacks that might have predictive value for Korea. To accomplish this, we borrow a framework from Ronald Gilson and then look at case law precedent, existing and proposed legislation, strategies for the regulation and deployment of poison pills, and parties available to police its use. This article goes on to consider how a transplant of the poison pill doctrine into Korean M&A law could play out; focusing less on predicting the outcome and more on identifying the key success factors and potential pitfalls, and highlighting the importance of ongoing corporate governance reform.
참고문헌 (46)
- Hyo-sik Lee, "Seoul to Adopt ‘Poison Pill’ Against Hostile M&A", Korea Times, ~ (2010)
- Eun-jung Kim, "Korea to Adopt Poison Pill System Against Hostile Takeovers", Korea Herald, 2~ (2010)
- Lucian Bebchuk, "Federalism and Corporate Law: The Race to Protect Managers from Takeovers", Colum. L. Rev, 99, pp.1168~ (1999)
- Lucian Bebchuk, "On Takeover Law and Regulatory Competition", Bus. Law, 57, pp.1047~ (2002)
- Lucian Bebchuk, "John Coats IV & Guhan Subramanian, The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence, and Policy", Stan. L. Rev, 54, pp.887~ (2002)
- Mark D. West, "The Puzzling Divergence of Corporate Law: Evidence and Explanations from Japan and the United States", U. Penn. L. Rev, 150, pp.527~ (2001)
- The Poison Pill in Japan: The Missing Infrastructure, "Ronald J. Gilson", Bus.L. Rev, 21~ (2004)
- Stephen M. Bainbridge, "Unocal at 20: Director Primacy in Corporate Takeovers", Del. J. Corp. L, 31, pp.769~ (2006)
- Ronald Gilson, "Unocal Fifteen Years Later (and What We Can Do About It)", Del. J. Corp. L, 26, pp.491~ (2001)
- Robert B. Thompson, "Toward a New Theory of the Shareholder Role:“Sacred Space” in Corporate Takeovers", Tex. L. Rev, 80, pp.261~ (2001)
- John Laide, "Poison Pill Policy", SharkRepellent.net, ~ (2005)
- Brett McDonnell, "Shareholder By-laws, Shareholder Nominations, and Poison Pills", Berkeley Bus. L.J, 3, pp.205~232 (2005)
- Renewed Focus on Takeover Defenses: Re-Tooling Advance Notice By-laws and the Return of the Stockholder Rights Plan, "Milbank, Tweed, Hadley", Client Alert, 2~ (2009)
- Poison Pill in Japan, "Satoshi Kawai", Colum. Bus. L. Rev, 11~ (2004)
- The Poison Pill in Japan: The Missing Infrastructu, "Ronald J. Gilson", Colum. Bus. L. Rev, 21~ (2004)
- Hostile M&A and the Poison Pill in Japan: A Judicial Perspective, "William B. Chandler III", Colum. Bus.L. Rev, 45~ (2004)
- Does Corporate Law Really Matter in Hostile Takeovers?: Commenting on Professor Gilson and Chancellor Chandler, "Hideki Kanda", Colum. Bus. L. Rev, 67~ (2004)
- Osugi, Kenichi, "What is Converging?: Rules on Hostile Takeovers in Japan and the Convergence Debate", Asian-Pacific L. & Policy J, 9, pp.143~158 (2007)
- The Core Fiduciary Duties of Outside Directors, "Bernard Black", Asia Bus. L. Rev, 3~27 (2001)
- Bliss B. Pak, "National Markets and New Defenses, The Case for an East-Asian Opt-in Takeover Law", Colum. J. Asian L, 20, pp.385~405 (2007)
- "2008", 139
- "English Translation provided by Nagoya University"[URL]
- Curtis J. Milhaupt, "Bulldog Sauce for the Japanese Soul? Courts, Corporations, and Communities - A Comment on Haley’s View of Japanese Law", Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev, 8, pp.345~352 (2009)
- Law and Capitalism, "Curtis J. Milhaupt", What Corporate Crises Reveal About Legal Systems and Economic Development Around the World, 87~107 (2008)
- Cristina Alger, "The Livedoor Looking Glass: Examining the Limits of Hostile Takeover Bids in Japan", NYU J. L. & Bus, 3, pp.309~321 (2007)
- Moore Corp. v., "Wallace Computer Services", F. Supp, 907, pp.1545~ (1995)
- Hostile Takeover Defense Measures, "Shintaro Takai", Intl. Fin. L.R.: Guide to Japan, ~ (2008)
- Reuters, "A First in Japan: Shareholders Block a Takeover", N.Y. Times, ~ (2007)
- Taiga Uranaka, "Japan’s Aeon to Double Stake in Drug Store Chain", Reuters, ~ (2008)
- Douglas G. Gruener, "Chilled to the Pill: The Japanese Judiciary’s Cool Reception of the Poison Pill and Potential Repercussions", U. Pitt. L. Rev, 67, pp.871~874 (2006)
- Curtis J. Milhaupt, "In the Shadow of Delaware? The Rise of hostile Takeovers in Japan", Colum. L. Rev, 105, pp.2171~2202 (2005)
- An American Perspective on Anti-Takeover Laws in the EU: The German Example, "Jeffrey N. Gordon", Company and Takeover Law in Europe, 541~556 (2004)
- Dan W. Puchniak, "Delusions of Hostility: The Marginal Role of Hostile Takeovers in Japanese Corporate Governance Remains Unchanged", Zeitschrift für Japanisches Recht, 28, pp.89~111 (2009)
- Jeong Seo, "Who Will Control Frankenstein?: The Korean Chaebol’s Corporate Governance", Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp. L, 14, pp.21~ (2006)
- James Jinho Chang, "Family Ownership and Performance in Korean Conglomerates", Pacific-Basin Fin. J, 15, pp.329~ (2007)
- Changes in Korean Corporate Governance: A Response to Crisis, "E. Han Kim", 47~ (2008)
- Hwa-Jin Kim, "Toward the “Best Practice” Model in a Globalizing Market: Recent Developments in Korean Corporate Governance", J. Corp. L. Stud, 2, pp.345~ (2002)
- Woochan Kim, "The Poison Pill Bill is not in Perspective", Kyunghyang.com, ~ (2009)
- Hwa-Jin Kim, "The Case for Market for Corporate Control in Korea", Oxford U. Comp.L. Forum, 10, pp.2~229 (2009)
- Korean Ministry of Justice, "Proposal for an Amendment of the Commercial Code", Annotations and Minute of Meetings (2010)
- Hyun Han Shin, "Stock Market Reactions to the Announcement of Adopting Poison-pills in Korea", Advanced Commercial L. Rev, 52, pp.53~ (2010)
- Stephen Choi, "The Future Direction of Takeover Law in Korea", J. Korean L, 7, pp.25~32 (2007)
- Marcel Kahan, "The Myth of State Competition in Corporate Law", Stan. L. Rev, 55, pp.679~711 (2002)
- Bernard Black, "The Role of Self-Regulation in Supporting Korea’s Securities Markets. in: Self-Regulation in the Korean Securities Market" (2002), Korean Securities Law Association