黃金株(Golden Shares) 制度에 관한 硏究
Golden Shares
0
조회
0
다운로드
19
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Abstract
In the late 1980s a movement towards privatization swept through Western Europe, affecting many industries. The government role in the process was to protect national interests and preserve national independence. In an effort to do so, governments often retained some power and influence with regard to the newly privatized company. Golden shares were first used in the United Kingdom during privatization in the 1980s for companies in which the government wanted to maintain some influence. Many nations privatized important industries but reluctant to give up all control, implemented restrictive measures which allowed varying degrees of governmental control over the privatized company. A golden share vests special rights in the government vis-à-vis the privatized company. These control rights take many forms, and are often granted through the conversion of a regular share into a special share to which these special control rights attach. Alternatively, ministerial veto power can substitute for an actual share, or can be a supplement power along with the special share. The most common control rights, and those which have come under attack by the European Commission, are: ⑴ the right to restrict the acquisition of shares; ⑵ the right to appoint directors to the board; ⑶ the right to veto certain critical company decisions; and ⑷ the right to limit the number of foreign directors on the board of the company. This article reviews the characteristics and history of the golden share at first. It also analyzes golden share cases and laws of the European Court, the United States and Japan. Especially, it shows how golden share cases of the European Court have developed. This article discusses legal problems associated in introducing golden share system into Korea. It reviews the necessity of the introduction of the golden share into Korea, the method to adjust conflict of interests among shareholders, the relevance of one share one vote principles, and some legal issues with respect to listing golden shares on stock markets. Finally, it discusses the 2006 Revision to Korean Commercial Code and suggests to adopt golden shares for closed corporations.
참고문헌 (49)
- 곽관훈, "벤처기업에 있어서의 株主間 契約", 상사법연구, 22(1), pp.329~357 (2003), 한국상사법학회
- 권종호, "2006년 회사법개정시안의 주요내용 ― 자금조달관련사항을 중심으로 ―", 상사법연구, 25(2), pp.303~338 (2006), 한국상사법학회
- 김순석, "종류주식의 다양화와 자금조달의 유연성에 관한 법적 쟁점 분석", 상사법연구, 27(2), pp.9~50 (2008), 한국상사법학회
- 박철영, "종류주식의 확대와 주주간 이해조정", 상사법연구, 24(2) (2005)
- 이철송, "회사법강의" (2008), 박영사
- 이형규, "상법개정안상 거부권부주식의 도입에 관한 검토", 상사법연구, 25(4), pp.121~138 (2007), 한국상사법학회
- 임재연, "미국회사법" (2007), 박영사
- 전국경제인연합회, "상법개정 입법예고(안)에 대한 의견", ~ (2006)
- 정동윤, "회사법" (2001), 박영사
- 증권법학회 M&A법연구회, "적대적 M&A 방어수단 관련연구", ~ (2008), 2008.9
- 최준선, "회사법 개정방향에 관한 연구" (2004), 한국상장회사협의회
- 加藤貴仁, "株主間の議決權配分" (2007), 商事法務
- 江頭憲治郞, (2005), 有斐閣
- 江頭憲治郞, (2008), 有斐閣
- 江頭憲治郞ほか, "改正會社法セミナー株式編" (2005), 有斐閣
- 關西法律特許事務所, "詳解新會社法の理論と實務" (2006), (株)民事法硏究會
- 弥永眞生, "新會社法實務相談" (2006), 商事法務
- 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)
- 浜田道代, "黃金株", 法學敎室, (306) (2006)
- 山下友信, "種類株主間の利害調整―序說, in: 會社法と商事法務" (2008), 商事法務
- 森本 滋, "會社法の下における株主平等原則", 商事法務, (1825) (2008)
- 相澤哲, "株式(總則ㆍ株主名簿ㆍ株式の讓渡等)", 商事法務, (1739) (2005)
- 松尾健一, "種類株式Ⅱ, in: 新會社法の檢討 ―ファイナンス關係の改正―", 別冊 商事法務, (298) (2006)
- 松本眞輔, "新會社法ㆍ新證取法下における敵對的買收と防衛策" (2005), 稅務經理協會
- 神田秀樹, "新しい株式制度" (2002), 有斐閣
- 野村修也, "新會社法の意義と問題點 ― 株式の多樣化とその制約原理", 商事法務, (1775) (2006)
- 葉玉匡美, "議決權制限株式を利用した買收防衛策", 商事法務, (1743) (2005)
- 鈴木正貢, "株主間協定の法的諸問題", 商事法務, (1043) (1985)
- 前田 庸, (2008), 有斐閣
- ― 株式制度の見直しㆍ會社關係書類の電子化等 ―, "商事法務", 2001, ~
- "商事法務", 2002, ~
- 酒井太郞, "株式の內容と種類, in: 新しい会社法制の理論と実務" (2006), 經濟法令硏究會
- 中山龍太郞, "日本版ライツㆍプラン(ポイズンㆍピル)導入に係る法的課題, in: 敵對的M&A對應の最先端" (2005), 商事法務
- ABA Section of Business Law, "Model Business Corporation Act Annotated, 4th ed." (2008)
- Alice Pezard, "The Golden Share of Privatized Companies", Brook. J. Int’l L., 21, pp.85~ (1995)
- Andre A. Baev, "Is There A Niche for the State in Corporate Governance? Securitization of State-owned Enterprises and New Forms of State Ownership", Hous. J. Int’l L., 18, pp.1~ (1995)
- Cherry W. Gray, "Hungarian Legal Reform for the Private Sector", Geo. Wash. J. Int’l L. & Econ., 26, pp.294~ (1992)
- Christine O’Grady Putek, "Limited But Not Lost: A Comment on the ECJ’s Golden Share Decisions", Fordham L. Rev., 72, pp.2219~ (2004)
- Larry C. Backer, "The Private Law of Public Law: Public Authorities As Shareholders, Golden Shares, Sovereign Wealth Funds, and the Public Law Element in Private Choice of Law", Tul. L. Rev., 82, pp.1801~ (2008)
- "Case C-58", 59, Commission v. Italy, 2000 E.C.R. I-3811, 2000
- "Case C-367", 98, Commission v. Portugal, 2002 E.C.R. I-4731, 2002
- "Case C-483", 99, Commission v. France, 2002 E.C.R. I-4781, 2002
- "Case C-503", 99, Commission v. Belgium, 2002 E.C.R. I-4809, 2002
- "Case C-463", 00, Commission v. Spain, 2003 E.C.R. I-4581, 2003
- "Case C-98", 01, Commission v. United Kingdom, 2003 E.C.R. I-4641, 2003
- "Case C-267 & 268", 91, Keck & Mithouard, 1993 E.C.R. I-6097, 1993
- "Case C-282", 04 & 283, pp.2006, ~
- "Case C-112", 05, Commission v. Germany, 2007 ECJ (Oct. 23, 2007), 2007[DOI]
- "Cases C-463", 04 and 464, pp.2007, ~