본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

미국법상의 LBO(Leveraged Buyout)에 대한 평가— 법정책적 논의를 중심으로 —

The LBO(Leveraged buyouts) in the U.S. Corporate Law

손창일
한국경영법률학회 (The Korean Academic Society Of Business Administration And Law)|2014.10|경영법률 (Journal of Business Administration & Law)|제25권 제1호|pp. 153-198

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

차입매수M&A신인의무인수합병LBO회사Fiduciary Duty레버리지드 바이아웃미국 회사법Leveraged BuyoutsU.S. Corporate LawCorporation
주제분류법학

초록

A leveraged buyout (LBO) is a technique employed in mergers and acquisitions (M&As), in which the M&A is funded through leverage or lending. Although the formal framework of individual LBOs can vary, an LBO generally relates to an M&A in which a considerable portion of the funds paid for the stock of a target corporation is raised through borrowing, and the loan is secured by the target corporation’s assets. Usually the acquirer invests little of its own cash. Further, an underlying hallmark of the LBO is that corporate capital is exchanged for debt, and the original shareholders are substituted for new secured creditors. U.S. fraudulent conveyance laws, such as the Bankruptcy Code and other state statutes, forming part of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) or the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (UFCA), have been enacted to prevent a corporation becoming bankrupt after an LBO. However, leveraged buyouts in the U.S. corporate law have several problems. First, LBOs change a corporation’s assets to debts. Second, LBOs should not be regulated under the fraudulent conveyances laws; rather, they should be understood in terms of the relationship among the corporation, the shareholders, the board of directors, and the creditors. Third, a corporation’s assets are transferred to the shareholders. Fourth, LBOs create a situation in which profits are made by selling the corporation rather than by faithfully managing it. Fifth, the board of directors may be forced to assume responsibility, which encourages the board of directors to take aleatory decisions. Sixth, LBOs aggravate the financial state of a corporation. Finally, the existing shareholders do not always make a profit. LBOs in the U.S. serve to demonstrate the implications of this system if it is allowed in Korea. In the author’s opinion, LBOs are not a desirable system and thus must be prohibited.

Abstract

A leveraged buyout (LBO) is a technique employed in mergers and acquisitions (M&As), in which the M&A is funded through leverage or lending. Although the formal framework of individual LBOs can vary, an LBO generally relates to an M&A in which a considerable portion of the funds paid for the stock of a target corporation is raised through borrowing, and the loan is secured by the target corporation’s assets. Usually the acquirer invests little of its own cash. Further, an underlying hallmark of the LBO is that corporate capital is exchanged for debt, and the original shareholders are substituted for new secured creditors. U.S. fraudulent conveyance laws, such as the Bankruptcy Code and other state statutes, forming part of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) or the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (UFCA), have been enacted to prevent a corporation becoming bankrupt after an LBO. However, leveraged buyouts in the U.S. corporate law have several problems. First, LBOs change a corporation’s assets to debts. Second, LBOs should not be regulated under the fraudulent conveyances laws; rather, they should be understood in terms of the relationship among the corporation, the shareholders, the board of directors, and the creditors. Third, a corporation’s assets are transferred to the shareholders. Fourth, LBOs create a situation in which profits are made by selling the corporation rather than by faithfully managing it. Fifth, the board of directors may be forced to assume responsibility, which encourages the board of directors to take aleatory decisions. Sixth, LBOs aggravate the financial state of a corporation. Finally, the existing shareholders do not always make a profit. LBOs in the U.S. serve to demonstrate the implications of this system if it is allowed in Korea. In the author’s opinion, LBOs are not a desirable system and thus must be prohibited.

참고문헌 (72)

  1. 최병규, "회사법" (2009), 박영사
  2. 구경철, "기업의 차입매수(LBO)에 따른 업무상배임죄 적용에 대한 대응방안: LBO 유형별 기업경영의 관점에서", 경희법학, 47(2), pp.105~144 (2012), 법학연구소[DOI]
  3. 김병연, "차입매수(LBO)와 배임죄의 적용-신한LBO 및 한일합섬LBO 사례와 관련하여-", 상사법연구, 29(1), pp.217~252 (2010), 한국상사법학회
  4. 김홍식, "借入買受(Leveraged Buyout)의 法的 論點에 관한 考察", 상사판례연구, 20(2), pp.231~251 (2007), 한국상사판례학회
  5. 박태현, "차입매수(Leveraged Buyout)에 있어서의 이사의 신인의무", 인권과 정의, 369(369), pp.195~229 (2007), 대한변호사협회
  6. 손영화, "LBO", MBO에 관한 법적 문제-이사의 책임 및 소수자주주보호의 관점에서, 2007, pp.8(2), 161~212[DOI]
  7. 송종준, "會社法상 LBO의 背任罪 成否와 立法課題* －신한 및 한일합섬 LBO 판결을 계기로 하여－", 증권법연구, 10(2), pp.319~363 (2009), 한국증권법학회
  8. 윤영신, "동양그룹의 합병형 LBO와 배임죄", BFL, (36) (2009), 서울대학교 금융법센터
  9. 안수현, "회사법이론에서 본 LBO거래의 가벌성", 법학논집, 14(3), pp.57~82 (2010), 법학연구소
  10. 이상훈, "LBO와 배임죄(上) - 손익관계와 출자환급적 성격 및 법인이익독립론을 중심으로 -", 법조, 57(4), pp.105~148 (2008), 법조협회
  11. 이승준, "합병형 차입매수(LBO)의 배임죄 성부 판단", 형사정책연구, 24(1), pp.79~115 (2013), 한국형사정책연구원
  12. 이용식, "차입매수(LBO)에 대한 형사책임- 대법원의 배임죄 판단에 대한 검토 -", 법학논집, 14(3), pp.83~114 (2010), 법학연구소
  13. 손창일, "미국 회사법상의 법인격 부인론 연구", 경영법률, 22(1), pp.23~58 (2011), 한국경영법률학회
  14. 손창일, "미국 회사법상의 주주대표소송과 특별소송위원회에 관한 연구", 외법논집, 35(4), pp.149~168 (2011), 법학연구소
  15. Angelo Guisado, "Revisiting the Leveraged Buyout: Is Constructive Fraud Going Too Far?", J. Marshall L. Rev, 46, pp.429~ (2013)
  16. Brian Cheffins, "The Eclipse of Private Equity", Del. J. Corp. L, 33, pp.1~ (2008)
  17. Christopher J. Smart, "Note: Takeover Dangers and Non-Shareholders: Who Should be Our Brothers' Keeper?", Colum. Bus. L. Rev, 1988, pp.301~ (1988)
  18. David G. Carlson, "Leveraged Buyouts in Bankruptcy", Ga. L. Rev, 20, pp.73~ (1985)
  19. David R. Weinstein, "From Kupetz to Lippi and Beyond: LBOs in the Ninth Circuit - Now What?", Cal. Bankr. J, 21, pp.169~ (1993)
  20. Douglas G. Baird, "Fraudulent Conveyance Law and Its Proper Domain", Vand. L. Rev, 38, pp.829~ (1985)
  21. Douglas S. Mintz, "LBOs and Fraudulent Transfers: How Susceptible Are You to Avoidance?", BNA Bankr. L. Rep, 22, pp.1~ (2010)
  22. Emily L. Sherwin, "Creditors’ Rights against Participants in a Leveraged Buyout", Minn. L. Rev, 72, pp.449~ (1988)
  23. Frank H. Easterbrook, "High-Yield Debt as an Incentive Device", Int’l Rev. L. & Econ, 11, pp.183~ (1991)
  24. H. Bruce Bernstein, "Leveraged Buyouts and Fraudulent Conveyances: Yet Another Update", J. Bankr. L. & Prac, 7, pp.315~ (1998)
  25. Harry G. Henn, "Cases and Materials on the Laws of Corporations" (1974), West Publishing Co.
  26. James W. Hurst, "The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States 1780-1970" (1970), The University Press of Virginia
  27. Jenny B. Wahl, "Fraudulent Conveyance Law and Leveraged Buyouts: Remedy or Insurance Policy?", Wm. Mitchell L. Rev, 16, pp.343~ (1990)
  28. Jonathan P. Friedland, "Commercial Bankruptcy Litigation § 11:40", Fraudulent conveyances—Collapsing doctrine, ~
  29. Laura Femino, "Ex Ante Review of Leverage Buyouts", Yale L.J, 123, pp.1830~ (2014)
  30. Matthew T. Kirby, "Fraudulent Conveyance Concerns in Leveraged Buyout Lending", Bus. Law, 43, pp.27~ (1987)
  31. Neil M. Garfinkel, "Note, No Way Out: Section 546(e) is No Escape for the Public Shareholder of a Failed LBO", Colum. Bus. L. Rev, 51 (1991)
  32. Note, "Good Faith and Fraudulent Conveyances", Harv. L. Rev, 97, pp.495~ (1983)
  33. Notes, "The Developing Meaning of "Tender Offer" under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934", Harv. L. Rev, 86, pp.1250~ (1973)
  34. Peter Spero, "Fraudulent Transfers, Prebankruptcy Planning and Exemptions § 2:37", ~ (2014)
  35. Robert C. Clark, "The Duties of the Corporate Debtor to its Creditors", HARV.L.REV, 90, pp.505~ (1977)
  36. Robin E. Phelan, "If Their Business Judgment Was So Good How Come They're In Bankruptcy and Other Perplexing Mysteries of the Business Judgment Rule: Corporate Governance Issues for the Financially Troubled Company", J. Bankr.L. & Prac, 10, pp.471~
  37. Samir D. Parikh, "Saving Fraudulent Transfer Law", Am. Bankr. L. J, 86, pp.305~ (2012)
  38. Samuel Williston, "History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800", Harv. L. Rev, 2, pp.149~ (1888)
  39. Stephen M. Bainbridge, "Corporate Law", pp.48~ (2009), Foundation Press
  40. Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity, "Steven N. Kaplan", NBER, ~, pp.14207 (2008)
  41. William W. Cook, "The Principles of Corporation Law", the Lawyers Club University of Michigan Ann Arbor, ~ (1925)
  42. Aronson, "473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984)", ~ (1984)
  43. Dodge, "170 N. W. 668", ~ (1919)
  44. Eberhard, "530 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008)", ~ (2008)
  45. Field, "457 A.2d 1089 (Del. Ch. 1983)", ~ (1983)
  46. Gafco, Inc., "263 N.Y.S.2d 109 (S. Ct. 1965)", ~ (1965)
  47. Geyer, "621 A.2d 784 (Del. Ch. 1992)", ~ (1992)
  48. Harff, "324 A.2d 215 (Del. Ch. 1974)", ~ (1974)
  49. HBE Leasing Corp., "48 F.3d 623 (2d Cir. 1995)", ~ (1995)
  50. Hearn 45 St. Corp., "283 N.Y. 139 (1940)", ~ (1940)
  51. In re Compton, "70 B.R. 60 (Bankr. W. D. Pa. 1987)", ~ (1987)
  52. Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept, "15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir. 1984)", ~ (1984)
  53. In re Hechinger Investment Co. of Delaware, "274 B.R. 71 (D. Del. 2002)", ~ (2002)
  54. In re Lyondell Chem. Co., "503 BR 348 (Bankr. SDNY 2014)", ~ (2014)
  55. In re Pinto Trucking Service, Inc., "93 B.R. 379 (1988)", ~ (1988)
  56. In re R.M.L., Inc., "92 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 1996)", ~ (1996)
  57. In re Roco Corp., "701 F.2d 978 (1st Cir. 1983)", ~ (1983)
  58. In re Victor Int’l, Inc., "97 Fed.Appx. 365 (3d Cir. 2004)", ~ (2004)
  59. Katz, "508 A.2d 873 (Del. Ch. 1986)", ~ (1986)
  60. Liquidation Trust of Hechinger Inv. Co., "327 B.R. 53, (Del. Distr. 2005)", ~ (2005)
  61. Mellon Bank, N.A., "945 F.2d 635 (3d Cir. 1991)", ~ (1991)
  62. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., "716 F. Supp. 1504 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)", ~ (1989)
  63. MFS, "Sun Life Trust-High Yield Series", 910 F. Supp. 913 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), 1995
  64. Moody, "127 B.R. 958 (W. D. Pa. 1991)", ~ (1991)
  65. Orr, "991 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1993)", ~ (1993)
  66. Peltz, "279 B.R. 710(Del. Distr. 2002)", ~ (2002)
  67. Revlon, Inc., "506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986)", ~ (1986)
  68. Silverman, "337 B.R. 791 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)", ~ (2005)
  69. Smith, "488 A.2d 858, 872 (Del. 1985)", ~ (1985)
  70. Stewart, "62 App. Div. 182 (1901)", ~ (1901)
  71. United Parcel Service, "423 N.Y.S.2d 125 (S. Ct. 1979)", ~ (1979)
  72. United States, "803 F.2d 1288 (3d Cir. 1986)", ~ (1986)

관련 논문AI추천

차입매수와 이사의 업무상 배임- 거래의 기본구조와 내재된 법률상의 쟁점을 중심으로 -박기령법학연구소 · 법학논집2010 · 제14권 제3호LBO에 있어서의 배임죄와 사해행위윤광균사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2015 · 제64권 제7호차입매수(LBO/MBO)거래의 규제와 패러다임의 변화 - 상장회사에 적용되는 규제의 문제점과 함께 -김진욱한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2012 · 제25권 제1호LBO에 대한 개정상법의 영향과 바람직한 규제의 방향이상훈한국증권법학회 · 증권법연구2012 · 제13권 제2호LBO와 손해최민용한국상사법학회 · 상사법연구2010 · 제29권 제2호차입매수(Leveraged Buyout)와 배임죄송석언법학연구원 · 法學論文集2016 · 제40권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (16건)

현행 상법상 주식회사의 감사선임의 문제점김병연pp. 1-31영업양수도의 새로운 쟁점과 개선방안황현아, 이승희pp. 33-67삼각조직재편김정호pp. 69-109이사회의 개선방안에 대한 고찰— 최근 미국에서의 논의를 중심으로 —원동욱pp. 111-152미국 투자자문업법상 주의의무에 대한 법적 쟁점과 그 시사점 분석김용재pp. 199-238
원문 보기