RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    복수의결권주식 도입의 이론적 검토 = Economic Approach to Dual-Class Shares

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A101613558

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Dual-class shares have long been debated in corporate law, but it seems that commentators have not yet reached a conclusion. It is sometimes argued that one-share-one-vote system is in most cases socially more desirable than the dual class system. The controlling shareholders with multiple-vote shares are likely to pursue private benefits inefficiently, especially when the corporate law is not good enough to deter them. Such observation, however, does not necessarily lead that mandatory one-share-one-vote rule is socially preferable. Dual-class shares are likely to have several value-enhancing effects by coordinating various interests in many contexts such as IPO, strategic alliance, and joint venture investment. Mandatory enforcement of one-share-one-vote rule just eliminates suchp ositive effects. Even if the dark sides of dual-class shares should be fully taken into account, the prohibition would not be an answer in most situations.
    This paper joins the dual-class share debates with theories and empirical studies on corporate ownership structure and family firms, and suggests more modest approach, in which law should regulates the details of dual class shares. In fact, dual class shares, as an option given to founders, might be socially desirable even in emerging markets where corporate law is not that good enough to effectively protect investors. The point is that the corporate law which could hardly prevent controlling shareholders from pursuing private benefit is also likely to fail as well to restrict agency costs associated with professional management. Legislators could not know which agency cost is larger. In those situations, therefore, dual-class shares might be an optimal solution.
    At the same time, however, this paper emphasizes that the details of this multiple voting rights should be regulated by corporate law. While current conventional theory employs simple dual-class v. one-share-one-vote dichotomy, this paper argues that more attention should be paid to the detailed provisions of dual-class shares. One of the most important features to be considered is that the multiple voting rights should be granted only to the founders of company (or equivalent members), and should not be transferred to others nor inherited by the next generations. In fact, dual class shares in the United States, Canada, and Japan often contain those provisions. Market-oriented scholars are likely to argue that such features can be achieved contractually with investors and thereby priced by stock market, but a handful of empirical studies demonstrate that the market could not be so efficient as to evaluate such details. This paper therefore proposes rather a safer approach where corporate law or listing rules should play a role to alert investors to pay attention to the specific provisions of multiple-vote shares.
    번역하기

    Dual-class shares have long been debated in corporate law, but it seems that commentators have not yet reached a conclusion. It is sometimes argued that one-share-one-vote system is in most cases socially more desirable than the dual class system. The...

    Dual-class shares have long been debated in corporate law, but it seems that commentators have not yet reached a conclusion. It is sometimes argued that one-share-one-vote system is in most cases socially more desirable than the dual class system. The controlling shareholders with multiple-vote shares are likely to pursue private benefits inefficiently, especially when the corporate law is not good enough to deter them. Such observation, however, does not necessarily lead that mandatory one-share-one-vote rule is socially preferable. Dual-class shares are likely to have several value-enhancing effects by coordinating various interests in many contexts such as IPO, strategic alliance, and joint venture investment. Mandatory enforcement of one-share-one-vote rule just eliminates suchp ositive effects. Even if the dark sides of dual-class shares should be fully taken into account, the prohibition would not be an answer in most situations.
    This paper joins the dual-class share debates with theories and empirical studies on corporate ownership structure and family firms, and suggests more modest approach, in which law should regulates the details of dual class shares. In fact, dual class shares, as an option given to founders, might be socially desirable even in emerging markets where corporate law is not that good enough to effectively protect investors. The point is that the corporate law which could hardly prevent controlling shareholders from pursuing private benefit is also likely to fail as well to restrict agency costs associated with professional management. Legislators could not know which agency cost is larger. In those situations, therefore, dual-class shares might be an optimal solution.
    At the same time, however, this paper emphasizes that the details of this multiple voting rights should be regulated by corporate law. While current conventional theory employs simple dual-class v. one-share-one-vote dichotomy, this paper argues that more attention should be paid to the detailed provisions of dual-class shares. One of the most important features to be considered is that the multiple voting rights should be granted only to the founders of company (or equivalent members), and should not be transferred to others nor inherited by the next generations. In fact, dual class shares in the United States, Canada, and Japan often contain those provisions. Market-oriented scholars are likely to argue that such features can be achieved contractually with investors and thereby priced by stock market, but a handful of empirical studies demonstrate that the market could not be so efficient as to evaluate such details. This paper therefore proposes rather a safer approach where corporate law or listing rules should play a role to alert investors to pay attention to the specific provisions of multiple-vote shares.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 최준선, "회사법개정방향에 관한 연구" 한국상장회사협의회 2004

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

    3 유영일, "차등의결권주에 관한 연구 - 도입필요성을 중심으로 -" 한국상사판례학회 21 (21): 93-135, 2008

    4 문준우, "차등의결권주식을 상법에 도입하여야 하는 이유 및 도입 방법" 한국상사법학회 31 (31): 243-269, 2012

    5 정혜련, "차등의결권에 관한 소고 - 각국의 입법, 태도의 변화, 그리고 기업의 효율성을 중심으로 -" 한국기업법학회 29 (29): 79-115, 2015

    6 김정호, "차등의결권 주식의 도입가능성에 대한 소고"

    7 박양균, "차등의결권 제도의 경제학적 분석" 한국규제학회 18 (18): 143-172, 2009

    8 이형규, "상법개정안상 거부권부주식의 도입에 관한 검토" 한국상사법학회 25 (25): 121-138, 2007

    9 江頭憲治郞, "株式會社法" 2014

    10 山下友信, "會社法コンメンダール 株式[2]" 2009

    1 최준선, "회사법개정방향에 관한 연구" 한국상장회사협의회 2004

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

    3 유영일, "차등의결권주에 관한 연구 - 도입필요성을 중심으로 -" 한국상사판례학회 21 (21): 93-135, 2008

    4 문준우, "차등의결권주식을 상법에 도입하여야 하는 이유 및 도입 방법" 한국상사법학회 31 (31): 243-269, 2012

    5 정혜련, "차등의결권에 관한 소고 - 각국의 입법, 태도의 변화, 그리고 기업의 효율성을 중심으로 -" 한국기업법학회 29 (29): 79-115, 2015

    6 김정호, "차등의결권 주식의 도입가능성에 대한 소고"

    7 박양균, "차등의결권 제도의 경제학적 분석" 한국규제학회 18 (18): 143-172, 2009

    8 이형규, "상법개정안상 거부권부주식의 도입에 관한 검토" 한국상사법학회 25 (25): 121-138, 2007

    9 江頭憲治郞, "株式會社法" 2014

    10 山下友信, "會社法コンメンダール 株式[2]" 2009

    11 神田秀樹, "會社法" 2014

    12 Smart, Scott, "What’s in a Vote? The Short- and Long-Run Impact of Dual-Class Equity on IPO Firm Values" 45 : 94-, 2008

    13 Gordon, Jeffrey N., "Ties That Bond: Dual Class Common Stock and the Problem of Shareholder Choice" 76 : 1-, 1988

    14 Hauser, Shmuel, "The Value of Voting Rights to Majority Shareholders: Evidence from Dual-Class Stock Unifications" 17 : 1167-, 2004

    15 Burkart, Mike, "The One Share-One Vote Debate: A Theoretical Perspective" ECGI 2007

    16 Boot, Amoud W.A., "The Entrepreneur’s Choice between Private and Public Ownership" 71 : 803-, 2006

    17 Partch, Megan, "The Creation of a Class of Limited Voting Common Stock and Shareholder Wealth" 18 : 313-, 1987

    18 Sherman, "Proportiomlity Between Ownership and Control in EU Listed Companies: Comparative Legal Study"

    19 Maury, Benjamin, "Private Benefits of Control and Dual-Class Share Unifications" 2007

    20 Fischel, Daniel R., "Organized Exchanges and the Regulation of Dual Class Common Stock" 54 : 119-, 1987

    21 Adams, Renee, "One Share-One Vote: The Empirical Evidence" 12 : 51-, 2008

    22 Ferrarini, Guido, "One Share-One Vote: A European Rule?" ECGI 2006

    23 Bebchuk, Lucian A., "Limiting Contractual Freedom in Corporate Law: The Desirable Constraints on Charter Amendments" 102 : 1820-, 1989

    24 Claessens, Stijn, "Lang, Disentangling the Incentive and Entrenchment Effects of Large Shareholdings" 57 : 2741-, 2002

    25 OECD Steering Group on Corporate Governance, "Lack of Proportionality between Ownership and Control: Overview and Issues for Discussion" 2007

    26 Gompers, Paul A., "Extreme Governance: An Analysis of Dual-Class Firms in the United States" 23 : 1051-, 2010

    27 Gilson, Ronald J., "Evaluating Dual Class Common Stock: The Relevance of Substitutes" 73 : 807-, 1987

    28 Lins, Karl V., "Equity Ownership and Firm Value in Emerging Markets" 38 : 159-, 2003

    29 Institute for Governance of Public and Private Organizations, "Dual-Class Share Structure in Canada: Review and Recommendations" 2006

    30 Dairies, Robert, "Do IPO Charters Maximize Firm Value? Antitakeover Protection in IPO" 17 : 83-, 2001

    31 Pajuste, Anete, "Determinants and Consequences of the Unification of Dual-Class Shares" European Central Bank 2005

    32 Joh, Sung Wook, "Corporate Governance and Firm Profitability: Evidence from Korea before the Economic Crisis" 68 : 287-, 2003

    33 Easterbrook, Frank H., "Corporate Contract" 89 : 1416-, 1989

    34 Gilson, Ronald J., "Controlling Shareholders and Corporate Governance: Complicating the Comparative Taxonomy" 119 : 141-, 2006

    35 Smart, Scott, "Control as a Motivation for Underpricing: A Comparison of Dual and Single-Class IPOs" 69 : 85-, 2003

    36 Bebchuk, Lucian A., "Concentrated Corporate Ownership" 295-, 2000

    37 Masulis, Ronald W., "Agency Problems at Dual-Class Companies" 64 : 1697-, 2009

    38 권종호, "2006년 회사법개정시안의 주요내용 ― 자금조달관련사항을 중심으로 ―" 한국상사법학회 25 (25): 303-338, 2006

    39 윤영신, "1주1의결권원칙과 차등의결권원칙에 대한 검토" 한국상사법학회 28 (28): 203-241, 2009

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2026 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2020-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2017-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2008-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2007-05-07 학술지명변경 외국어명 : 미등록 -> KOREAN COMMERCIAL LAW ASSOCIATION KCI등재
    2006-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2005-10-18 학술지등록 한글명 : 상사법연구
    외국어명 : 미등록
    KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2001-07-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    1999-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 1 1 1.07
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.96 0.93 0.979 0.58
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼