한국의 M&A법제와 외국계펀드규제에 대한 일고찰
Consideration to Korean M&A Legislation and Foreign Speculative Fund Regulation
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Of course, domestic inflow of foreign capital after IMF was helpful not only to a diversification, a rule structural improvement, etc. of the national corporation but also to expand the demand base of stock markets and to contribute to financing of a company. However in the case of speculative foreign capital, employment structure and the secular growth nature of a national corporation are weakened in part by the impossible structural adjustment and impossible high dividend for short-term-investment profits maximization, onerous capital reduction, etc. Moreover speculative foreign capital are generated various problems such as hostile M&A. In the case of our country the defense means against hostile M&A is very inferior relatively compared with foreign legislation. It is not an overstatement although there is no defense method which the corporate management can choose against hostile M&A substantially. Therefore, it is necessary to consult foreign country’s M&A legislation and to legislate the defense method. Preparation of the rational system which can defend hostile M&A by a foreign speculative capital at least is required. Moreover, the system which can impose a tax rationally to the capital recovery using the so-called paper company of speculative capital must also be prepared. When legislating compared with examining investment of a foreigner by Exon Florio Act(U.S.), by Fair Trading Act(Britain) and by Foreign Exchange Carrying on Trade Act(Japan) etc., it is thought that the rationality is accepted. However, since withering of an investment by foreign investors is obstructed, it is necessary to limit the regulation on hostile M&A to an national infrastructure. Moreover like understanding through recently legislation of Japan, the general reexamination to an M&A rule is required. It is necessary to prepare an reasonable M&A rule for a purchaser and a seller can use respectively. The system where the main contents concerning M&A are disclosed by the general investor needs to be prepared. Takeover bid regulation, an extensive possession report system, and a problem like an timely disclosure must be revised for protection of the minority shareholders and a general investors of an M&A target company.
Abstract
Of course, domestic inflow of foreign capital after IMF was helpful not only to a diversification, a rule structural improvement, etc. of the national corporation but also to expand the demand base of stock markets and to contribute to financing of a company. However in the case of speculative foreign capital, employment structure and the secular growth nature of a national corporation are weakened in part by the impossible structural adjustment and impossible high dividend for short-term-investment profits maximization, onerous capital reduction, etc. Moreover speculative foreign capital are generated various problems such as hostile M&A. In the case of our country the defense means against hostile M&A is very inferior relatively compared with foreign legislation. It is not an overstatement although there is no defense method which the corporate management can choose against hostile M&A substantially. Therefore, it is necessary to consult foreign country’s M&A legislation and to legislate the defense method. Preparation of the rational system which can defend hostile M&A by a foreign speculative capital at least is required. Moreover, the system which can impose a tax rationally to the capital recovery using the so-called paper company of speculative capital must also be prepared. When legislating compared with examining investment of a foreigner by Exon Florio Act(U.S.), by Fair Trading Act(Britain) and by Foreign Exchange Carrying on Trade Act(Japan) etc., it is thought that the rationality is accepted. However, since withering of an investment by foreign investors is obstructed, it is necessary to limit the regulation on hostile M&A to an national infrastructure. Moreover like understanding through recently legislation of Japan, the general reexamination to an M&A rule is required. It is necessary to prepare an reasonable M&A rule for a purchaser and a seller can use respectively. The system where the main contents concerning M&A are disclosed by the general investor needs to be prepared. Takeover bid regulation, an extensive possession report system, and a problem like an timely disclosure must be revised for protection of the minority shareholders and a general investors of an M&A target company.
참고문헌 (54)
- "공정거래위원회 보도자료, 2006년 대규모기업집단 소유지배구조에 대한 정보공개" (2006)
- 구본관, "일본기업의 적대적 M&A 공방과 시사점", SERI 경제포커스, (164) (2007)
- 국제금융이슈, "최근 외국자본진출에 대한 자국보호주의확산동향", 주간금융브리프, 16(29) (2007)
- 권재열, "적대적 M&A에 대한 방어방법의 현실적 평가-우호적인 주주의 확보에 의한 경우를 중심으로-", 기업법연구, 19(2), pp.155~178 (2005), 한국기업법학회
- 權鍾浩, "적대적 M&A에 대한 방어수단의 국제비교와 시사점", 기업법연구, 20(1) (2006)
- 권종호, "한국의 M&A법제와 외국계펀드규제", 제2법학관 개관기념 국제학술대회 동북아지역에서의 M&A 실태와 외국자본의 규제 (2007), 부산대학교 법과대학·법학연구소
- 권종호, "현행법상 M&A활성화의 법적 장애와 국내기업역차별제도", 비교사법, 12(3) (2005)
- 金淳錫, "미국의 배당규제와 자기주식 제도", 비교사법, 통권 : 33 (2006)
- 김광록, "미국의 기간산업보호와 엑슨-플로리오법", 제2법학관 개관기념 국제학술대회 동북아지역에서의 M&A 실태와 외국자본의 규제 (2007), 부산대학교 법과대학·법학연구소
- 김화진, "M&A시장의 최근 동향과 정책 및 법적 과제", BFL, (6) (2004), 서울대 금융법센터
- 박재홍, "투기성 외국자본에 의한 적대적 M&A의 문제점과 입법 과제(국내자본에 대한 역차별요소는 없는가)", 경성법학, 15(1) (2006)
- 朴哲泳, "種類株式의 多樣化를 위한 法的 硏究", 박사, pp.2004
- 선우석호, "M&A 기업합병·매수구조의 재편" (2001), 법문사
- 성희활, "미국의 기간산업보호와 엑슨-플로리오법", 제2법학관 개관기념 국제학술대회 동북아지역에서의 M&A 실태와 외국자본의 규제 (2007), 부산대학교 법과대학·법학연구소
- 손영화, "LBO", MBO에 관한 법적 문제-이사의 책임 및 소수자주주보호의 관점에서-, 2007, pp.8(2), ~
- 송종준, "적대적 M&A방어를 위한 법적 과제", 기업법연구, 18(2) (2004)
- 梁炳燦, "外國資本 M&A의 法的 規制에 관한 硏究", 박사, pp.2006
- "국경간 M&A문제 : 경영권방어와 적대적 M&A 억제정책", 윤창현[URL]
- 이규수, "외국인투자에 대한 국가안보상 규제", 비교사법, 13(4) (2006)
- 이철송, "상호주소유의 규제법리", 증권학회지, 5 (1984)
- 이한영, "미국 엑슨-플로리오법의 특징 및 시사점 - 통신서비스 분야 적용사례를 중심으로", 규제연구, 15(2) (2006)
- 林在淵, "전정판 증권거래법" (2006), 박영사
- 최승재, "한국판 ‘엑슨-플로리어법’제정에 대한 연구 - 입법론을 중심으로", 증권법연구, 7(2), pp.311~363 (2006), 한국증권법학회
- 최현주, "적대적 M&A법제의 고찰", 외법논집, 24 (2006)
- 한정미, "M&A의 추이와 국내기업 역차별적 규제", 경영법률, 16(2) (2006)
- 高澤 美有紀, "M&Aの促進と敵?的企業買?防衛策", ISSUE BRIEF, 466 (2005)
- 企業?値?究, "?企業?値報告書~公正な企業社?のル?ル形成に向けた提案~?" (2005)
- 吉原和志, "自己株式取得規制の緩和に?する論点(二·完)", 民商法雜誌, 108(3) (1993)
- 奈良輝久, "M&A法制の羅針盤" (2007), 靑林書院
- 東京?券取引所, "買?防衛策の導入に係る上場制度の整備等に伴う 株券上場審査基準等の一部改正について" (2006)
- 磐城 裕子, "企業による買?防衛策導入と情報開示" (2006)
- 飯田一弘, "買收防衛策の導入に係る上場制度の整備", 商事法務, 1760 (2006)
- 石綿?, "相談室 ?社法務 敵?的企業買?に?する防衛策", 企業計, 55(12) (2003)
- 小塚莊一朗, "日本におけるM&A法制と外?系ファンドの規制", 제2법학관 개관기념 국제학술대회 동북아지역에서의 M&A 실태와 외국자본의 규제 (2007), 부산대학교 법과대학·법학연구소
- 新谷勝, "敵?的企業買?-原因と?策に?する法律問題のすべて-?" (2004), 株式?社
- 神田秀樹, "M&A法制の?際比較とわが?の?社法", 商事法務, 1731 (2005)
- 有田敏二, "企業內容等の開示に?する?閣府令の改正の?念", 商事法務, 1787 (2006)
- 伊藤靖史, "少?株主の締出しに?する規制のあり方について-ドイツにおける少?株主締出制度を?考に-", 同志社法, 56(4) (2004)
- 戶田, "米法?を中心とした公開買付制度の?討", 商事法務, 1732 (2005)
- 山 淳, "大量保有報告制度の見直し" (2006)
- 産業省, "産業政策局 産業組織課, “M&Aを巡る企業法制(買收防衛策を中心として" (2006)
- 産業省, "論点公開 ~公正な企業社?のル?ル形成に向けた提案~" (2005)
- "商事法務", 2004, ~
- 25, "Directive 2004", EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on Takeover Bids, OJ L 142, 30.4 2004
- Dmitry Tuchinsky, "The Takeover Directive and Inspire Art: Reevaluating the European Union’S Market for Corporate Control in The New Millennium" (2007), 51 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 689
- DTI, "Company of Law Implementation of the European Directive on Takeover Bids, A Counsultative Document" (2005)
- "Francis C. Amendola, J.D., Paul M. Coltoff, J.D., John Glenn, J.D., Anne Knickerbocker, J.D., Glenda K. Harnad, J.D., of the staff of the National Legal Research Group, Inc., John R. Kennel, II, J.D., of the staff of the National Legal Research Group, Inc"
- Guhan Subramanian, "Bargaining in the Shadow of Takeover Defenses" (2003), 113 YALE L.J. 621, 627
- Henry Hansmann, "The End of History for Corporate Law" (2001), 89 Geo. L.J. 439, 457-458
- Julian Velasco, "Just Do It: An Antidote to the Poison Pill", pp.856~868 (2003), 52 EMORY L.J. 849
- "Reporter of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on Issues Related to Takeover-Bids", ~ (2002)
- Ronald J. Gilson, "The Poison Pill in Japan: The Missing Infrastructure" (2004), 2004 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 21, 25
- Tyler Theobald, "Hostile Takeovers and Hostile Defenses: A Comparative Look at U.S. Board Deference and the European Effort at Harmonization" (2006), 15-WTR Currents: Int’l Trade L.J. 60, 61
- Zenichi Shishido, "Japanese Corporate Governance: The Hidden Problems of Corporate Law and Their Solution", pp.209~217 (2000), 25 Del. J. Corp. L. 189