상법 개정안상 포이즌 필의 검토 = The Study on the Poison Pill based on the stock purchase right in the Commercial Code Revision Draft

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Ministry of Justice pronounced the revision of the Commercial Code introducing the stock purchase right to be used the Poison pill.
Poison pill is most practical and typical method to protect target from the hostile take overs in America and Japan. They are adopted to protect minority shareholders from inadequate takeovers and to increase the power of a company's board of directors to negotiate with potential acquirers.
From the draft, the corporations can induce the poison pill, but it is restrictive when compared to the USA or Japan.
First, the stock purchase right can be adopted only by the amendment of the articles of the corporations. When articles permit the issuing the right,The board of directors can make material conditions, like triggering event,issuance, transfer, redemption, cancellation of the right etc. In deciding the condition, it requires the approval of the more than two thirds of the board of the directors.
There are some opposition to that the poison pill can only adopted by the amendment of the articles. They doubt the practical possibility of the poison pill. But, in implementing the plan, the board of directors will lead the process. In order to guarantee reasonableness of plan, it should be passed the decision at the shareholder meeting.
Poison pill plan will involve two major issues (1) whether the poison pill plan unlawfully discriminates against the acquirer. The corporation can restrict the bidder’s right of stock purchase and it can also except the bidders when redeeming the right, So it make issue of whether it breach the principle of equal treatment between the shareholder. (2) whether the implementation and the redemption of the plan constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty by the company’s board of directors.
Generally the board has the ability to issue and redeem the rights, in order to prevent the abuse of discretion like to keep the seat, we need to arrange the standard for the duty of care in deciding whether to issue or redeem the rights. The board should issue or redeem the poison pill only in accordance with the principles of maintaining and increasing the corporate value and general shareholder’s interests.
In this paper, I suggested several amendments of Code for the poison pill. Between them, I suggested that the right should be separated from the share after the starting date of exercising the right. For that, the bills of the right should be issued. The corporate can redeem the right by the cash only to the bidders when it discriminate them between the shareholders.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이철송, "회사법강의" 박영사 2009

2 정동윤, "회사법" 법문사 2001

3 송옥렬, "포이즌필의 導入에 따른 法政策的 爭點" 한국상사법학회 27 (27): 79-122, 2008

4 이영철, "포이즌필과 주주평등의 원칙" 한국기업법학회 23 (23): 191-224, 2009

5 김택주, "포이즌 필의 이용방안과 문제점" 한국기업법학회 20 (20): 127-162, 2006

6 최완진, "포이즌 필의 도입에 따른 상법개정안에 관한 고찰" 한국상사법학회 28 (28): 191-221, 2010

7 송종준, "포이슨 필의 도입과 경영권 방어의 적법기준 -2008년 상법개정초안을 중심으로-" 한국법학원 (109) : 161-190, 2009

8 유영일, "적대적 공개매수에 대한 일본 방어법제의 최근 동향 - 2007년 불독소스 결정을 중심으로 -" 한국상사판례학회 21 (21): 57-89, 2008

9 권종호, "적대적 M&A 에 대한 방어수단의 국제비교와 시사점" 한국기업법학회 20 (20): 95-122, 2006

10 권종호, "적대적 M&A 방어수단의 도입 필요성" 법무부자료집 2009

11 최문희, "일본의 포이즌 필 발행 사례와 법적 쟁점" (26) : 2007

12 유진희, "유럽연합의 기업인수 규제 -공개매수 지침을 중심으로-" 한국기업법학회 19 (19): 259-288, 2005

13 정찬형, "상법강의(상)" 박영사 2009

14 윤영신, "법률에 근거규정이 없는 사채의 발행가부" 한국상사법학회 22 (22): 461-493, 2003

15 유영일, "방어행위의 적법성 판단에 관한 국내 판례의 법리- 현대엘리베이터 결정의 재평가 -" 한국기업법학회 23 (23): 249-274, 2009

16 이현철, "방어수단으로서의 신주인수선택권제도" 법무부자료집 2009

17 김재형, "미국의 posion pill에 관한 동향" 한국기업법학회 20 (20): 123-148, 2006

18 江頭憲治郞, "會社法大系" 靑林書院 2008

19 神田秀樹, "會社法(第7版)" 弘文堂 2005

20 河本一郞, "日本の會社法" 商事法務 2005

21 菅原 貴與志, "新しい會社法の知識" 商事法務 2006

22 石綿 學, "敵對的買收防禦策の法的朹組みの檢討(中)" (1717) : 2004

23 石綿 學, "敵對的買收防禦策の法的朹組みの檢討(上)" (1716) : 2004

24 松本眞輔, "敵對的買收と防禦策" 稅務經理協會 2005

25 神田秀樹, "企業買收防禦策をめぐる法的論點と實務上の對應(座談會)" (1731) : 2005

26 Lucien Arye Bebchuck, "The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards : Theory, Evidence and Policy" 54 : 887-, 2002

27 Dale. A. Oesterle, "The Law of Mergers, Acquisitions and Reorganization" West 1991

28 Daniel A. Neff, "The Impact of State Statutes and Continuing Director Right Plans" 51 : 663-, 1997

29 Fleischer, Alexander, "Take over Defense" 1 : 1995

30 W. Jennings, "Securities Laws - Cases and Materials - (7th ed.)" The Foundation Press 1992

31 Harold S. Bloomental, "Securities Law Handbook" West 2000

32 Note, "Protecting Shareholders Against Partial and Two-Tier Takeover : The ‘Poison Pill’ Prefered" 97 : 1966-, 1984

33 The American Law Institute, "Principles of Corporate Governance ; Analysis and Recommendations, Part Vl, Introductory Note" (11) : 1991

34 Committee on Corporate Laws, "Other Constituencies Statutes: Potential for Confusion" 45 : 2253-, 1990

35 Michael B. Regan, "Dead end : Delaware's response to the recent innovation in corporate antitakeover measures, the so-called “dead hand” poison pill, Incarmody v. Toll Brothers, Inc" 44 : 643-, 1999

36 Robert C. Clark, "Corporate Law" Little, Brown and Co. 1985

37 A. Helman, "A Fresh Look at Poison Pills" 42 : 772-, 1987