적대적 M&A와 그 방어책에 관한 연구 — 주식관련 포이즌 필의 도입과 관련하여 —
A Study on the Defenses against Hostile Takeover
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Among the takeover defenses that have been developed over the past thirty years, the poison pill is by far the most important defense today. In Korea, it was permitted, many corporations used to hostile takeover in the year 1990's. And after the year 2000's, increase it. But the defenses are forbid. The problems of the hostile takeover is revealed on the corporate raider speculate on gambling, specially foreigners attack in waves. So economic organization as the Korean Chamer of Commerce and Industry and the Federation of Korean Industries has been demanded to legislate on the defenses against hostile takeover. The outstanding legal problem on the defenses against hostile takeover are permission of the defenses and agreement of interests between attacker and defender. A view in the affirmative insist on the target corporation of the manager as officer and director can defense against hostile takeover based on. business judgement. On the contrary, a opinion in the negative persist in object. I think that the defenses against hostile takeover have to permit with discretion, on condition that manager's act with fiduciary duty and business judgement rule. But it have to prohibit, is of private business for his own interest like a protecting for his corporate control right.
Abstract
Among the takeover defenses that have been developed over the past thirty years, the poison pill is by far the most important defense today. In Korea, it was permitted, many corporations used to hostile takeover in the year 1990's. And after the year 2000's, increase it. But the defenses are forbid. The problems of the hostile takeover is revealed on the corporate raider speculate on gambling, specially foreigners attack in waves. So economic organization as the Korean Chamer of Commerce and Industry and the Federation of Korean Industries has been demanded to legislate on the defenses against hostile takeover. The outstanding legal problem on the defenses against hostile takeover are permission of the defenses and agreement of interests between attacker and defender. A view in the affirmative insist on the target corporation of the manager as officer and director can defense against hostile takeover based on. business judgement. On the contrary, a opinion in the negative persist in object. I think that the defenses against hostile takeover have to permit with discretion, on condition that manager's act with fiduciary duty and business judgement rule. But it have to prohibit, is of private business for his own interest like a protecting for his corporate control right.
참고문헌 (36)
- 김화진, "기업인수합병" (2007), 박영사
- 전국경제인연합회 보고서, "해외투기자본 유입증가에 따른 적대적 M&A위협 및 대응방향, 2006.3", ~ (2006)
- 이형근, "일본의 적대적 M&A 방어지침과 시사점" (2006), 대외경제정책연구원
- 한국상장회사협의회, "외국자본의 국내진출과 적대적 M&A 방어전략", ~ (2004)
- 한정미, "적대적 M&A 관련 법제의 비교법적 연구" (2006), 한국법제연구원
- 권재열, "적대적 M&A에 대한 방법방법의 현실적 평가", 기업법연구, 19(2) (2005)
- 권종호, "적대적 M&A방어수단에 관한 일본의 최근 동향" (2005), 상장
- 권종호, "현행법상 M&A활성화의 법적 장애와 국내기업역차별제도", 비교사법, 12(3) (2005)
- 권종호, "적대적 M&A에 대한 방어수단의 국제비교와 시사점", 기업법연구, 20(1) (2006)
- 김두식, "M&A 법제의 개선방향 연구", 상장협, (50) (2004)
- 김범석, "국내기업에 대한 외국인 투자자의 경영개입과 시사점", 증권, (123) (2005)
- 김우찬, "독약증권(poison pill):우리나라에선 진짜 독", 경제개혁리포트, (6) (2008)
- 김재형, "미국의 poison pill에 관한 동향", 기업법연구, 20(1) (2006)
- 김태진, "미국 법제하에서의 적대적 M&A 방어방법의 한국 법제하에서의 활용 가능성", 증권법연구, 8(2) (2007)
- 김화진, "M&A법제의 현황과 과제", 저스티스, (101) (2007)
- 박재홍, "적대적 기업인수에 있어서 정보공시규제에 관한 법적 연구", 경성법학, 14(1) (2005)
- 송종준, "경영권 방어수단 도입의 전제조건", 기업법연구, 19(4) (2005)
- 송호신, "적대적 기업매수에 대한 방어행위의 법리", 한양법학, 통권 : 20 (2007)
- 이철송, "불공정한 자기주식거래의 효력 - 주식평등의 원칙과 관련하여", 증권법연구, 7(2), pp.1~25 (2006), 한국증권법학회
- 이형규, "상법개정안상 거부권부주식의 도입에 관한 검토", 상사법연구, 25(4) (2007)
- 정? 대, "적대적 M&A에 대한 대상회사의 방어행위의 적법성 판단기준에 관한 고찰", 기업법연구, 20(2) (2006)
- 정쾌영, "포인즌 필의 도입에 관한 입법론적 고찰", 기업법연구, 20(2) (2006)
- 최준선, "회사법 개정방향에 관한 연구" (2004), 한국상장회사협의회
- 山本浩二, "M&A法制の羅針盤" (2007), 靑林書院
- 末岡晶子, "EU企業買收指令における敵對的買收防衛策の位置づけとTOB規制", 商事法務, (1733) (2005)
- 大塚章男, "株式制度に關する商法改正の企業買收防禦策として活用”, 株式制度·株主總會のIT化等の理論と實務, 2002", ~ (2002)
- 太田洋, "ニツポン放送新株豫約權發行差止假處分申立事件決定とその意義(上)", 商事法務, (1722) (2005)
- 內藤良祐, "“報酬·賃金としての新株豫約權”, 酒卷俊雄先生古稀記念「21世紀の企業法制」, 商事法務, 2003", ~ (2003)
- Meredith M. Brown, "Takeovers: A Strategic Guide to Mergers and Acquisitions" (2001)
- Ronald J. Gilson, "The Law and Finance of Corporate Acquisitions" (1995), Foundation Press
- Guhan Subramanian, "Bargaining in the Shadow of Takeover Defenses", Yale.L.J, 113 (2003)
- Ian Ayres, "Analyzing Stock Lock:Do Target Tresury Sales Foreclose or Facilitate Takeover Auction?", Col.L.Rev, 90 (1990)
- Ivan Kuznetsov, "The Legalty of Golden Shares under EC Law", Hanse Law Review, 1(1) (2005)
- Jonathan R. Macey, "A Theoretical Analysis of Corporate Greenmail", Yale L.J, 95 (1985)
- Note, "Greenmail: Targeted Stock Repurchases and the Management-Entrenchment Hypothesis", Harv.L.Rev, 98 (1985)
- Joel Seligman, "Equal Protection in Shareholder Voting Rights:The One Common Share,One Vote Controversy", George Washington Law Review, 54 (1986)