상법상의 소수주주 축출제도 -소수주식 강제매수제도와 교부금 합병제도를 중심으로-
Squeeze-out or Freeze-Out of Minority Shareholders under the Korean Commercial Code
0
조회
0
다운로드
35
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper is intended to discuss the controversial issue of the system of Squeeze-Out or Freeze-Out. Squeeze-Out or Freeze-Out is a term referring to the compulsory acquisition of the stakes of a small group of shareholders from a joint stock company by means of cash compensation. In Germany, a pool of shareholders owning at least 95% of a company's shares has the right to “squeeze out” the remaining minority of shareholders by paying them an adequate compensation. This procedure is based on the Securities Acquisition and Takeover Act (WpÜG). An alternative procedure is governed by Articles 327a-327f of the German Stock Corporation Ac (AktG), valid since January 1.st 2002. In the meantime, under the U.S. squeeze-outs are governed by State laws. For example, Delaware Corporation law permits a parent corporation owning at least 90% of the stock of a subsidiary to merge with that subsidiary, and to pay off in cash the minority shareholders. The consent of the minority shareholders is not required. They are merely entitled to receive fair value for their shares. In Korea, now, the squeeze-out system is introduced in Articles 24 of 360 - 26 of 360 under the amended Korean Commercial Code. According to new articles of amended law, controlling shareholders who own 95%of the stock issued by a company Compulsory purchase the stocks of minority shareholders who have under 5% of issued stocks of the company, so that controlling shareholders can squeeze out minority shareholders. Thus, under the new scheme of Korean law, the issues of ensuring the fairness or justice related the protection of minority shareholders become controversial. The most important thing is to guarantee fairness under the legal system. Also, it is necessary to arrange systematic and effective methods for a protection of minority shareholders. It is time when we should reconsider its legal system with great interest in order to harmonize with the protection of minority shareholders.
Abstract
This paper is intended to discuss the controversial issue of the system of Squeeze-Out or Freeze-Out. Squeeze-Out or Freeze-Out is a term referring to the compulsory acquisition of the stakes of a small group of shareholders from a joint stock company by means of cash compensation. In Germany, a pool of shareholders owning at least 95% of a company's shares has the right to “squeeze out” the remaining minority of shareholders by paying them an adequate compensation. This procedure is based on the Securities Acquisition and Takeover Act (WpÜG). An alternative procedure is governed by Articles 327a-327f of the German Stock Corporation Ac (AktG), valid since January 1.st 2002. In the meantime, under the U.S. squeeze-outs are governed by State laws. For example, Delaware Corporation law permits a parent corporation owning at least 90% of the stock of a subsidiary to merge with that subsidiary, and to pay off in cash the minority shareholders. The consent of the minority shareholders is not required. They are merely entitled to receive fair value for their shares. In Korea, now, the squeeze-out system is introduced in Articles 24 of 360 - 26 of 360 under the amended Korean Commercial Code. According to new articles of amended law, controlling shareholders who own 95%of the stock issued by a company Compulsory purchase the stocks of minority shareholders who have under 5% of issued stocks of the company, so that controlling shareholders can squeeze out minority shareholders. Thus, under the new scheme of Korean law, the issues of ensuring the fairness or justice related the protection of minority shareholders become controversial. The most important thing is to guarantee fairness under the legal system. Also, it is necessary to arrange systematic and effective methods for a protection of minority shareholders. It is time when we should reconsider its legal system with great interest in order to harmonize with the protection of minority shareholders.
참고문헌 (47)
- 강희갑, "지배주주의 충실의무", 상사법연구, 12 (1993)
- 金聖虎, "미국 회사법상 ＂소수주주 축출의 정당성＂에 관한 고찰", 기업법연구, 21(4), pp.297~316 (2007), 한국기업법학회
- 김재형, "미국에서 합병대가의 유연화와 소수주주축출에 관한 입법의 변천과 법원의 대응", 기업법연구, 18(1), pp.57~74 (2004), 한국기업법학회
- 김효신, "소수주주축출제도의 도입방안에 대한 검토", 선진상사법률연구, (50), pp.40~58 (2010), 법무부
- 김화진, "소수주식의 강제매수제도", 서울대학교 법학, 50(1), pp.321~350 (2009), 법학연구소
- 권기범, "현대회사법론" (2001), 삼지원
- 주요국가의 기업규제 개혁법제에 관한 비교법적 연구(Ⅲ) -영국, "노혁준", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2008)
- 유가증권발행시장의 공시제도, "서완석", 한국학술정보, ~ (2007)
- 서완석, "지배주주와 주주유한책임원칙", 상사법연구, 23(3), pp.407~462 (2004), 한국상사법학회
- 송옥렬, "상법강의" (2011), 홍문사
- 비상장주식 가치평가와 법. in: 세법·형법·회사법, "신석훈", 한국경제연구원, ~ (2011)
- 신석훈, "회사가치평가와 비상장주식의 공정가치" (2011), KERI Column
- 이철송, "회사법강의(제15판)" (2008), 박영사
- 안택식, "회사법 해설 법률지식 -개정2판-" (2000), 청림출판
- 장덕조, "지배주주의 충실의무", 민주법학, (18) (2000)
- 장영수, "헌법학, 제5판" (2010), 홍문사
- 최승재, "주식가치 평가와 공정한 가액에 대한 고찰 반대주주의 주식매수청구권을 중심으로", YGBL, 2(1) (2010), 연세대학교 글로벌 비즈니스와 법센터
- 마르쿠스 루터, "독일법에서의 주주의 충실의무", 서울대학교 법학, 38(1) (1997)
- 江頭憲治郞, "株式會社法(第二版)" (2008), 有斐閣
- 江頭憲治郞, "結合企業法の立法と解釋" (1995), 有斐閣
- 高橋英治, "ドイツと日本における株式会社法の改革" (2007), 商事法務
- 岡田昌浩, "少数株主締め出しと株式取得の対価の公正性の確保, In 森本 滋先生 還曆記念論文, 企業法の課題と展望" (2009), 商事法務
- 玉井利幸, "少数株主に対する取締役と支配株主の義務と責任少数株主の締出を中心に, In 川村正幸先生退職記念論文集(会社法·金融法の新展開)" (2009), (株)中央経済社
- 久保寬展, "少数株主の締出しの正?性と?利濫用, In 森本 滋先生 還曆記念論文, 企業法の課題と展望" (2009), 商事法務
- 片木晴彦, "企業組織再編対価の柔軟化と少数株主の保護, 会社法における主要点の評価" (2006), 中央経済社
- 太田洋, "レックス․ホールディングス事件東京地裁決定の検討", 商事法務, (1837) (2008)
- William T. Allen, "Commentaries and Cases on the law of business organization" (2007), Aspen Publishers
- Jeffrey D. Bauman, "Corporations Law and Policy 6th ed" (1994), Thompson West
- James D. Cox, "Cox & Hazen on Corporations" (2003), Wolters Kluwer
- William E. Knepper, "Liability of Corporate Officers and Directors 6th ed" (1998)
- Iman Anabtawi, "Fiduciary duties for activist shareholders", Stan. L. Rev, 60, pp.1255~ (2008)
- Rutherford B. Campbell, Jr., "A Positive Analysis of the Common Law of Corporate Fiduciary Duties", Ky. L.J, 84, pp.455~ (1995)
- Julian Javier Garza, "Rethinking Corporate Governance: The role of minority shareholders - A comparative study", St. Mary's L.J, 31, pp.613~ (2001)
- Franklin A. Gevurtz, "Squeeze-Outs and Freeze-Outs in limited liability companies", Wash. U. L.Q, 73, pp.497~ (1995)
- Ronald J. Gilson, "Doctrines and Markets: Controlling Controlling Shareholders", U. Pa. L. Rev, 152, pp.785~ (2003)
- Sandra K. Miller, "What Buy-Out Rights, Fiduciary Duties, and Dissolution Remedies Should Apply in the Case of the Minority Owner of a Limited Liability Company", Harv. J. on Legis, 38, pp.413~ (2001)
- Douglas K. Moll, "Shareholder Oppression in Close Corporations: The Unanswered Question of Perspective", Vand. L. Rev, 53, pp.749~ (2000)
- Leonardo Pinta, "The U.S. and Italy: Controlling shareholder's fiduciary duties in freeze out mergers and tender offers", N.Y.U. J. L. & Bus, 7, pp.931~ (2011)
- A.C. Pritchard, "Tender offers by controlling shareholders: the specter of coercion and fair price", Berkeley Bus. L.J, 1, pp.83~ (2004)
- John T. Richer, "When controlling shareholders squeeze out minority shareholders by reverse stock split in close corporations-a proposal for Kansas Courts", U. Kan. L. Rev, 50, pp.545~ (2002)
- Mary Siegel, "The Erosion of the Law of Controlling Shareholders", Del. J. Corp. L, 24, pp.27~ (1999)
- Mary Siegel, "Going Private: Three doctrines gone astray", N.Y.U. J. L. & Bus, 4, pp.399~ (2008)
- James M. Van Vliet Jr., "The evolving fiduciary duty solution for sareholders caught in a closely held corporation trap", N. Ill. U. L. Rev, 18, pp.239~ (1998)
- Marco Ventoruzzo, "Freeze-Outs: Transcontinental analysis and reform proposals", Va. J. Int'l L, 50, pp.841~ (2010)
- Angie Woo, "Appraisal rights in mergers of publicly-held Delaware corporations: something old, something new, something borrowed, and something B.L.U.E", S. Cal. L. Rev, 68, pp.719~ (1995)
- Hyeok-Joon Rho, "New squeeze-out devices as a part of corporate law reform in korea: what type of device is required for a developing economy", B.U. Int'l L.J, 29, pp.41~ (2011)
- Julie Gwyn Hudson, "The exclusivity of the appraisal remedy under the new north carolina business corporation act: deciding the standard of review for cash-out mergers", N.C. L. Rev, 69, pp.501~ (1991)