메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국기업법학회 기업법연구 기업법연구 제18권 제2호
발행연도
2004.12
수록면
9 - 44 (36page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Recently foreigner's hostile M&A against some leading companies like SK and Hyundai Elevator has been a social and economic Issue in Korean capital market since last year. Most of the large corporations have been reported to feel severe threat of being taken over by foreign capitals. Since the reform of tender offer regulations under the Securities Exchange Act in January, 1997, target company has been prohibited to issue new shares during the tender offer. Whether or not allowing the target to use defensive tactics against hostile M&A has been a big issue in legal society of some leading countries such as U.S.A, European countries and Japan Under the USA legal system, target's defensive actions against hostile M&A are permitted in principle, but target's abuse of defensive discretion has to be reviewed in court. Meanwhile under the EU tender offer directives target's defenses are rigidly prohibited, and Japan does not have an explicit regulation about it. This paper reviews the three lands of legal systems in the point of comparative analysis and suggests some promising legislative directions under the Korean legal system in the future.
First, legal policy of direct restrictive or regulatory legislature to prohibit the, hostile M&A is not recommendable, and it's not desirable to import the american state law style legislature. Meanwhile disclosure regulations have to be enhanced to secure transparence and fairness of the M&A transactions especially in 5% mandatory disclosure rule and proxy regulations. Moreover so called one-third mandatory tender offer under the Japanese Securities Exchange Act needs to be taken into account to legislation, because it has an important purpose of securing the transparence of controlling shares transactions and of allocating the control premium equally to all the shareholders.
Second, regulation of target's defensive actions should be made allowed in principle and Commercial law and Securities Exchange Act should provide various kinds of defensive tactics to select and use during hostile takeovers. In that point a recent district court decision will give a good criteria in its legislature. And chances of select a specific defensive tactic through the self-regulatory role by company's article need to be given, especially in using 'golden parachute', issuing 'dual class shares' or poison pill and providing the non-constituency provision etc.
Third, management control of domestic defense industry and national strategic industry like energy, telecommunication, motor, culture and so on should be protected against foreigner's hostile takeovers, but which should be in accordance with the international regulatory standards

목차

Ⅰ. 머리말

Ⅱ. 적대적 M&A 사례와 방어의 형태

Ⅲ. 적대적 M&A 방어에 관련된 입법의 유형

Ⅳ. 우리법상 적대적 M&A 방어에 관한 규제와 법적 과제

Ⅴ. 결론

♣ 참고문헌

참고문헌 (33)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-014440168