본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

일본 금융상품거래법상 강제공개매수제도의 제유형과 그 법적 시사점

Types of Mandatory Takeover Bids in the Japanese Financial Product Exchange Act and Some Legal Implications.

0

조회

0

다운로드

14

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The rules on Tender Offer in the Japanese Financial Product Exchange Act have frequently been reformed since its first introduction in 1971, which was based on the pro-rata rule, modeled after that of the American 1934 Securities Exchange Act. The most reformative change was so called one-third rule, firstly introduced in the 1990 revision of the Act, in which any who acquires more than one-third of all outstanding shares with voting right has to mandatorily buy it by a tender offer even in the privately negotiated control transactions being made out of the open market. Since 1990, the one-third rule has been extended to the after-hours trading of stocks in the exchange market, the controlling shareholder already owning more than one-third trying to buy more than 5% of the target's all of outstanding shares during a third party's tender offer period and a speedy and creeping acquisition of more than one-third of all the shares, in which more than 10% has to be bought in both open market and out of the market and also more than 5% has to be bought in the out-of market and by after-hours trading in the exchange market. Moreover, any who owns more than two-thirds after closing of tender offer has to buy all tendered shares exceeding over the projected quantity to buy. After implementation of various mandatory tender offers, Japanese tender offer legal system has become closer to that of the U.K, but is quitely different. It is peculiar and unique with comparison to the international takeover legislation trends. This paper analyses and reviews all types of Japanese Mandatory Tender Offers in legally comparative perspectives and suggests some legislative recommendations. In short, Japanese one-third rule has to be introduced in the private sale of controlling shares, which means private transaction with less than 10 shareholders within six months out of the exchange market under the current Korean Capital Market Act, and also the rule has to be subject to the pro rata basis. The Japanese mandatory duty to buy all the shares more than two-thirds tendered is to be changed to the right of compulsory acquisition, in which tender offeror has to buy all the shares tendered and not tendered under the condition that more than 95% shares are tendered, no matter the quantity of shares to buy. But, the Japanese current controlling shareholder's duty to buy more than 5% by the tender offer is not recommended, because it seems to be illegitimate. In conclusion, the above recommending suggestions are expected to vitalize the market for the corporate control and contribute to enhancing the management control by regulating the privately negotiated control transactions. More important thing is that Korean Capital Market Act functions to effectively regulate both private and public control transactions being made out of exchange market by a single tender offer rule and also to reasonably balance the conflicts of interests between majority and minority shareholders in the control shift.

Abstract

The rules on Tender Offer in the Japanese Financial Product Exchange Act have frequently been reformed since its first introduction in 1971, which was based on the pro-rata rule, modeled after that of the American 1934 Securities Exchange Act. The most reformative change was so called one-third rule, firstly introduced in the 1990 revision of the Act, in which any who acquires more than one-third of all outstanding shares with voting right has to mandatorily buy it by a tender offer even in the privately negotiated control transactions being made out of the open market. Since 1990, the one-third rule has been extended to the after-hours trading of stocks in the exchange market, the controlling shareholder already owning more than one-third trying to buy more than 5% of the target's all of outstanding shares during a third party's tender offer period and a speedy and creeping acquisition of more than one-third of all the shares, in which more than 10% has to be bought in both open market and out of the market and also more than 5% has to be bought in the out-of market and by after-hours trading in the exchange market. Moreover, any who owns more than two-thirds after closing of tender offer has to buy all tendered shares exceeding over the projected quantity to buy. After implementation of various mandatory tender offers, Japanese tender offer legal system has become closer to that of the U.K, but is quitely different. It is peculiar and unique with comparison to the international takeover legislation trends. This paper analyses and reviews all types of Japanese Mandatory Tender Offers in legally comparative perspectives and suggests some legislative recommendations. In short, Japanese one-third rule has to be introduced in the private sale of controlling shares, which means private transaction with less than 10 shareholders within six months out of the exchange market under the current Korean Capital Market Act, and also the rule has to be subject to the pro rata basis. The Japanese mandatory duty to buy all the shares more than two-thirds tendered is to be changed to the right of compulsory acquisition, in which tender offeror has to buy all the shares tendered and not tendered under the condition that more than 95% shares are tendered, no matter the quantity of shares to buy. But, the Japanese current controlling shareholder's duty to buy more than 5% by the tender offer is not recommended, because it seems to be illegitimate. In conclusion, the above recommending suggestions are expected to vitalize the market for the corporate control and contribute to enhancing the management control by regulating the privately negotiated control transactions. More important thing is that Korean Capital Market Act functions to effectively regulate both private and public control transactions being made out of exchange market by a single tender offer rule and also to reasonably balance the conflicts of interests between majority and minority shareholders in the control shift.

참고문헌 (41)

  1. 김정수, "자본시장법원론" (2011), SFL그룹
  2. 송종준, "M&A판례노트" (2012), 진원사
  3. 정동윤, "회사법" (2001), 법문사
  4. 이준섭, "EU은행․증권법" (1996), 박영사
  5. 임재연, "미국기업법" (2012), 박영사
  6. 강희갑, "기업의 매수․합병(M&A)과 지배주식의 양도", 상사법연구, 9 (1991), 한국상사법학회
  7. 孫晋華, "會社支配權 賣買에 관한 硏究 : 미국법상 지배권 프레미엄의 규제를 중심으로", 석사, 법학, pp.1985
  8. 송종준, "소수주식 전부취득제의 입법의도와 해석방향", 기업법연구, 26(1), pp.79~106 (2012), 한국기업법학회
  9. 송종준, "지배권 프리미엄의 공유 문제와 의무공개매수제도", 경제법연구, 11(2), pp.29~58 (2012), 한국경제법학회
  10. 서완석, "상법상의 소수주주 축출제도 -소수주식 강제매수제도와 교부금 합병제도를 중심으로-", 상사법연구, 30(2), pp.385~443 (2011), 한국상사법학회
  11. 육태우, "개정 상법상 소수주주축출제도에 관한 소고", 2011년 한국기업법학회․한국경영법률학회 추계공동학술대회 (2011)
  12. 이병기, "개정상법상 지배주주에 의한 소수주식의 전부취득", BFL, (51) (2012), 서울대 금융법센터
  13. 최민용, "지배주주의 주식매도청구권의 운용과 관련된 몇 가지 제언", 경영법률, 21(4), pp.361~389 (2011), 한국경영법률학회
  14. 황현영, "강제매수제도의 합리적 운용을 위한 개선방안", 경영법률, 22(3), pp.59~98 (2012), 한국경영법률학회[DOI]
  15. 長島, "金融商品取引法" (2009), 商事法務
  16. 吉本健一, "新株發行のメカニズムと法規制" (2007), 中央經濟社
  17. 淸原 健, "公開買付けの實務" (2007), 中央經濟社
  18. 近藤光男, "金融商品取引法入門" (2011), 商事法務
  19. 日野正晴, "金融商品取引法" (2008), 中央經濟社
  20. 池田唯一, "新しい公開買付制度と大量保有報告制度" (2007), 商事法務
  21. 山村正行, "金融商品取引法" (2008), 中央經濟社
  22. 金融審議會金融分科會 第一部會, "公開買付制度等 ワ-キング․グループにおける論点の整理", ~ (2005)
  23. 兼田克幸, "公開買付制度の意義及び諸問題", 經濟學硏究, 58(1) (2008), 北海道 大學
  24. 仮屋廣鄕, "企業買收法制のあり方と今後の展望-制度設計への視座", 一橋法學, 11(1) (2012)
  25. 神田秀樹, "上場會社に關する會社法制の將來", 金融法務事情, (1909) (2010)
  26. 飯田秀總, "カオボウ少數株主損害賠償請求事件最高裁判の檢討", 商事法務, (1923) (2011)
  27. A. A. Berle, "The Price of Power : Sale of Corporate Control", Cornell L. Q, 50, pp.628~ (1965)
  28. Andreas Cahn, "Comparative Company Law-Text and Cases on the Laws Governing Corporations in Germany" (2010), the UK and the USA
  29. Andrew Johnston, "Takeover Regulation : Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on the City Code", Cambridge L. J, 66(2) (2007)
  30. Brenda Hannigan, "Company Law" (2009)
  31. Derek French, "Stephen Mayson & Christopher Ryan, Company Law" (2008)
  32. A New Look at the Debate about the Takeover Directive, "Eddy Wymeersch", DOCTRINE, ~, pp.RTDF No 2-2012
  33. F.H. Easterbrook, "The Proper Role of a Target's Management in Responding to a Tender Offer", Harv. L. Rev, 94, pp.1161~ (1981)
  34. Len Sealy, "Sealy's Cases and Materials in Company Law" (2010)
  35. Lewis D. Solomon, "Corporations" (1994), Foundation Press
  36. Luca Enriques, "The Mandatory Bid Rule in the Proposed EC Takeover Directive : Harmonization as Rent-Seeking?" (2004), Reforming Company and Takeover Law in Europe
  37. Mads Andenas, "European Comparative Company Law" (2009)
  38. Paul Davies, "Introduction to Company Law" (2010)
  39. Tomotaka Fujita, "The Takeover Regulation in Japan : Peculiar Developments in the Mandatory Offer Rule", UT Soft L. Rev, 3, pp.24~ (2011)
  40. Scott Mitnick, "Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions in Europe : Reforming Barriers to Takeovers", Colum. Bus. Rev, 1, pp.683~ (2001)
  41. W. D. Andrews, "The Stockholders Right to Equal Opportunity in the Sale of Shares", Harv. L. Rev, 78, pp.506~ (1965)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)