Study on Short-Form Merger Without Approval of General Meeting of Shareholders

김성진 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2018 외법논집 Vol.42 No.2

This article addresses Delaware’s recent Amendment to the Section 251(h) of the DGCL since 2013 to facilitate short-form mergers in two-step transactions. In 2013, Section 251(h) of the DGCL was amended to allow, under certain circumstances, the second step of a two-step merger to be completed without the requirement for a shareholder vote, although the acquiring company obtains less than 90 percent of the acquired company’s outstanding stocks. Since 2013, Delaware has amended the Section 251(h) to supplement and facilitate it. From its adoption, Section 251(h) has become a preferred method of completing a tender offer in public M&A transactions because the need for a second-step merger vote in a two-step merger linking a first-step tender or exchange offer was eradicated while Section 251(h) provides a cost-effective procedure for those transactions at the same time. Delaware is the second smallest state in terms of territory and the sixth least populous state in the United States; nonetheless, it has become the most important state in the U.S. corporation law. The reasons are as follows: Delaware’s extraordinarily well-developed and management-friendly law of corporations, efficient court system that has unparalleled expertise resolving business disputes, and brand name which has developed along with its reputation as a uniquely favorable place for incorporation. In addition, Delaware affects corporate law not only in the United States, but around the world. Therefore, this article focuses on addressing Delaware’s recent Amendment to the Section 251(h) of the DGCL since 2013 to facilitate short-form mergers and discussing the implications for South Korea. In details, chapter II generally reviews the short-form merger in the United States. Part III addresses Delaware’s amendment since 2013 to facilitate short-form mergers in two-step transactions. Lastly, part IV. as a conclusion, discusses the implications for South Korea. Ultimately, to overcome current problems in processes of short-form mergers, South Korea must consider to adopt new Article in the Commercial Act like the Section 251(h) of the DGCL. This article addresses Delaware’s recent Amendment to the Section 251(h) of the DGCL since 2013 to facilitate short-form mergers in two-step transactions. In 2013, Section 251(h) of the DGCL was amended to allow, under certain circumstances, the second step of a two-step merger to be completed without the requirement for a shareholder vote, although the acquiring company obtains less than 90 percent of the acquired company’s outstanding stocks. Since 2013, Delaware has amended the Section 251(h) to supplement and facilitate it. From its adoption, Section 251(h) has become a preferred method of completing a tender offer in public M&A transactions because the need for a second-step merger vote in a two-step merger linking a first-step tender or exchange offer was eradicated while Section 251(h) provides a cost-effective procedure for those transactions at the same time. Delaware is the second smallest state in terms of territory and the sixth least populous state in the United States; nonetheless, it has become the most important state in the U.S. corporation law. The reasons are as follows: Delaware’s extraordinarily well-developed and management-friendly law of corporations, efficient court system that has unparalleled expertise resolving business disputes, and brand name which has developed along with its reputation as a uniquely favorable place for incorporation. In addition, Delaware affects corporate law not only in the United States, but around the world. Therefore, this article focuses on addressing Delaware’s recent Amendment to the Section 251(h) of the DGCL since 2013 to facilitate short-form mergers and discussing the implications for South Korea.In details, chapter II generally reviews the short-form merger in the United States. Part III addresses Delaware’s amendment since 2013 to facilitate short-form mergers in two-step transactions. Lastly, part IV. as a conclusion, discusses the implications for South Korea. Ultimately, to overcome current problems in processes of short-form mergers, South Korea must consider to adopt new Article in the Commercial Act like the Section 251(h) of the DGCL.

2008년 한국 상법개정안상 기업구조조정 제도의 변화

김순석 法務部 商事法務課 2010 선진상사법률연구 Vol.- No.52

The Ministry of Justice of Korean Government launched Special Committee for Korean Commercial Code revision project in order to provide for a better legal environment for Korean enterprises in July 2005. It held the first public hearing in July 2006 and announced its first Draft in October 2006, however, it was not completed. The MOJ prepared the second Draft in September 2007, and the third Draft in May 2008. This article deals with corporate restructuring system of the third Draft. The KCC is composed of five parts, which are General Principles, Corporate Action, Corporation, Insurance, Maritime Transportation. The third Draft covers General Principle, Corporate Action and Corporation Parts. Regrading General Principles and Corporate Action Parts, 11 articles were scheduled to be amended among 171 current articles, which amended 6.4% of current articles. Regrading Corporation Parts, 226 articles are scheduled to be amended among 575 current articles, which will amend 39.3% of current articles. The 2008 Revision puts an emphasis on Buyer's Side of M&A and introduces some Defensive Measures of M&A such as Warrant, Various Class Stocks, Liberalization of Stock Repurchase. Major Changes of 2008 Revision regarding M&A Buyer's Side can be classified into four categories, which are Deregulation of Merger Consideration, Freeze-out of Minority Shareholder by Controlling Shareholder, the Acceleration of Exchange Tender Offer through the Deregulation of Contribution in Kind, the Deregulation of Small Sized Business Acquisition. Major Changes of the 2008 Revision regarding defensive measures of target corporation can be classified into four categories, which are Warrant, Class Stock, Stock Repurchase, Pre-disclosure for the Allocation of Newly Issued Stock to the third Party. The Korean domestic corporation’s requests to streamline corporate regulation and to emphasize post monitoring rather than pre regulation for better business environment. Even though the 2008 Revision introduces various systems in order to accelerate equity financing and to facilitate corporate restructuring, it appears that supplemental measures should also be adopted continuously. For example, the provision on the freeze-out of minority shareholders by controlling shareholder does not stipulate legitimate compensations including control premium for minority shareholders. Also, the introduction of super majority voting requirement for bust up M&A needs to be reviewed. In addition, as it is not clear whether the right of defense against hostile M&A is included within the power of directors, it is necessary to stipulate expressly. Also, as defense measures against hostile M&A become strengthened, certain guideline shall be established to prevent the abuse of such measures. 법무부가 보다 나은 기업환경을 조성한다는 목표 아래 2005년부터 본격화한 상법 회사편의 개정작업이 벌써 6년째를 맞이하고 있다. 2006년부터 입법예고되기 시작한 법무부의 회사편에 관한 상법개정안은 아직 개정작업이 마무리되지 못하고 있으며, 2008년 5월 7일 "상법 일부개정 법률안"(법무부공고 제2008-47호)으로 입법예고되어 현재 국회에서 계류 중이다. 2008년 상법 개정안 가운데 총칙ㆍ상행위편은 2010년 5월 14일 개정되었다. 회사편의 경우 2009년 2월 5월에n걸차 2차례 개정이 있었으나 아직 대부분의 조항을 검토 중이다. 상법개정안은 기업구조조정과 관련해서는 전반적으로 매수의 원활화에 비중을 두고 있다. 즉, 대상회사 주식의 현물출자에 대한 가액의 평가규제 완화함으로써 교환공개매수의 방해요인 제거하였다. 또한 다른 회사의 영업의 전부 또는 일부를 양수하는 경우 양수회사의 영업에 중대한 영향을 미치지 않는 경우 주주총회 특별결의 절차를 면제하였다. 현금교부합병을 허용하여 합병대가를 존속회사 또는 신설회사의 신주 이외에도 현금 기타 재산으로 유연화하였다. 또한 합병대가로 모회사의 주식을 지급할 수 있도록 함으로써 삼각합병을 허용하였다. 또한 95% 이상의 주식을 취득하는 경우 지배주주가 소수파주주를 퇴출할 수 있는 제도를 도입하였다. 방어 촉진책으로서는 종류주식을 다양화하여 방어적 주식제도의 도입하였으며, 자기주식의 취득을 원칙적으로 허용하였다. 특히 영미법상 warrant에 해당하는 신주인수선택권 제도를 도입하여 사전경고형 포이즌필이 가능하도록 하였다. 상법개정안은 자금조달을 원활화하고 기업구조조정을 촉진하기 위하여 여러 가지 제도를 도입하였지만, 앞으로도 계속 제도의 보완이 이루어져야 할 것으로 보인다. 이번에 도입된 소수주식의 전부취득제의 경우 소수주주에게 경영권 프리미엄 등을 포함한 정당한 보상문제에 대해서는 규정하지 않고 있다. 공개매수에서 부분매수제도를 운영하고 있는 현실에서는 고려가 필요한 부분이다. 또한 파탄적 M&A를 超多數決議要件을 도입하는 문제도 고려할 필요가 있을 것이다. 그 이외에도 이사회의 권한범위에 적대적 M&A에 대한 방어권이 포함되는지 여부가 명확하지 않으나 이를 명문으로 규정할 필요가 있을 것이다. 또한 방어수단이 강화됨에 따라 방어수단의 남용을 방지하기 위한 가이드라인의 제정이 필요한 실정이다.

미주지역의 적대적 인수합병인 공개매수 제도와 이의 한국에의 적용에 관한 연구

김광록 ( Kwang Rok Kim ) 국제지역학회 2005 국제지역연구 Vol.9 No.3

상장회사를 위한 M&A제도의 보완필요성과 과제

김광록(Kim Kwang-Rok) 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2007 法學論叢 Vol.18 No.-

우리나라 자본시장에서의 M&A는 지난 1997년 말 소위 IMF 경제위기 이후에 우리나라 기업과 산업에 있어서 핵심적인 구조조정의 수단으로 활용되었고, 기업경영진으로 하여금 지배구조를 개선하고 기업경영을 투명하게 하는 수단으로 작용함으로써 주주의 이익을 극대화할 수 있었다는 긍정적인 측면을 가지고 있다. 그러나 최근 들어 외국자본이 국내시장의 자유로운 유입으로 인하여 국내시장에서 차지하는 외국인 비중과 외국인 투자자의 지분율이 국내 최대주주보다 많은 기업들이 크게 증가하면서 국내기업에 대한 외국인 투자자의 경영권위협이 증가하게 되었다. 따라서 우리 국내기업들은 외국인 투자자에 의한 경영권위협, 특히 소위 적대적 M&A에 대한 위협에 대응하고자 기업의 시설투자 대신에 자사주를 과도하게 매입하거나 무리한 배당확대를 함으로써 경제성장의 부정적 요소로 작용할 가능성이 높아지고 있다. 최근 전국경제인연합회 등 우리나라 기업의 주요 단체들을 중심으로 외국자본으로부터 우리나라 기업의 경영권을 보호하여야 한다는 목소리가 커지기 시작한 것도 이와 맥을 같이 한다고 할 것이다. 특히 우리나라 관련 법제들을 보면 적대적 M&A의 경우 우리나라 기업에는 적용되지만 외국 자본에는 적용되지 않아 결과적으로 우리 나라기업의 보호에 문제가 되고 있음이 지적되어 관련 법제의 개선을 촉구하기도 하였다. 그러나 현실적으로 관련법이 개정된다고 하더라도 당해 개정 내용이 각 기업에 직접 적용되기 위해서는 기업의 정관을 변경하여야 하는 문제가 발생하는데 최근 국내기업에 대한 외국자본의 비율이 과반수를 초과하는 상황에서는 이 또한 현실적으로 해결하여야 하는 문제임에 틀림없다. 이 글에서는 바로 이러한 M&A에 관한 개선방안을 찾고자 한다. M&A means merger and acquisition between enterprises. However, M&A is generally acknowledged just as all of transactions for the acquisition of controls or management power of enterprises. At this point, M&A has positive aspects that the M&A is worth not only as the method of restructuring the corporate governance in Korean companies and industries after the economic crisis in the late 1997, but also as the means of maximizing the stock holders' interests which could have the management to improve the corporate governance and to make clear the management of companies. However, the free investment of foreign capital to domestic market makes the larger ratio of foreign capital than the ratio of domestic capital in the Korean capital market. As the result of this recent trend, many domestic companies are threatened by the foreign companies' taking over the domestic companies' controls. Therefore the domestic companies are willing to try to purchase treasury stocks in exceed volumes and magnify stock dividend instead of investing to companies' equipment in order to protect their controls. This reflex trend of the domestic companies might affect to the economic growth of Korean market negatively. Even though the direct influx of foreign capital into the domestic market in Korea helped the market itself get out of the economic crisis in late 1997, the need of changing the M&A system in Korea is recently increasing for the reason of protecting domestic companies. This Article will review and analysis the current M&A system and M&A cases in order to suggest new schemes of M&A system in Korea.

일본의 회사법제상 자기주식취득규제 및 그 시사점

오성근 한양대학교 법학연구소 2023 법학논총 Vol.40 No.2

Prior to its revision in 2011, the Korean Commercial Act prohibited the acquisition of treasury stock in principle and allowed exceptions only when it was inevitable and no harmful effects would materialize (Article 341 of the old Commercial Act). However, as the USA as well as countries with civil law systems that have traditionally strictly regulated the acquisition of treasury stocks gradually eased regulations for the purpose of pursuing flexibility in financial management, Korea has also changed its regulations on treasury stocks through the amended Commercial Act 2011 (Articles 341 to 342 of the Commercial Act). In addition, with the emergence of the global financial crisis that began at the end of July 2007, another permissible purpose is to revialize the stock market, such as by boosting stock prices. This was through the expansion and absorption of treasury stock acquisition (Article 165-2 of the Commercial Act), which had previously been recognized only as a special rule of the Financial Investment Servics and Capital Markets Act, as a general system of the Commercial Act. As such, the flexible position in Korea on the acquisition of treasury stocks was largely influenced by changes in the stance of civil law countries, especially legislation in Japan. However, even though the Korean Commercial Act has adopted a flexible position on the acquisition of treasury stocks, there remains much room for discussion about its interpretation and application. Therefore, in this article, I would like to examine the basis of the Japanese legislation that influenced the change in Korea's position on the acquisition of treasury stocks. In addition, by providing implications for legislation in Korea, it is intended that this study will become a reference material for future legislative processes, discussions in academia, or its related application. However, the regulations on treasury stocks under Japanese company law are very extensive; therefore, this article will focus on the regulatory contents closely related to the “acquisition of treasury stocks”. This is because it was judged that it is necessary to study this area in particular in comparison with Korea's Commercial Act.