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

    会社の支配権の争奪と主要目的ルール

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A100315509

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    There is no provision in the Japanese Corporate Code on whether it is permissible for a target's board to take defensive measures against hostile takeovers. This kind of legal problem involves the rule of primary purpose, which has been created by the courts. The Tokyo High Court in the Livedoor litigation adhered to the rule of primary purpose and enunciated it as follows: Where a contest for corporate control emerges, if the primary purpose of the target corporation in issuing shares (or warrants) to a white knight is to preserve or protect management's control rights, the issuance should be enjoined as “grossly unfair,” since it violates the theory of division of authorities. The Court clarified that management should not intervene in the contest for corporate control and that the shareholders should decide the winner. The Court also declared an exception to the rule: If the hostile bidder has the abusive motive of exploiting the target corporation, the target's issuance of shares (or warrants), whose primary purpose is to preserve the management's right of control, may be permitted to the extent the defensive measures are recognized as necessary and appropriate. Even though this is only obiter dictum, the court's opinion has had an influence on business. The rule of primary purpose has the function of regulating the target's management. The courts have based their decisions on the rule and stated that the target's management should not intervene in the contest for corporate control; the decision of whether the target should take defensive measures must be made by the shareholders. However, shareholders are not good decision-makers regarding hostile takeovers, which involve skilled business judgment. Moreover, for the target corporation, it is difficult to apply the exception to the rule. It is time to consider how to enact takeover law that can deal with the problems arising from the rule of primary purpose.
    번역하기

    There is no provision in the Japanese Corporate Code on whether it is permissible for a target's board to take defensive measures against hostile takeovers. This kind of legal problem involves the rule of primary purpose, which has been created by the...

    There is no provision in the Japanese Corporate Code on whether it is permissible for a target's board to take defensive measures against hostile takeovers. This kind of legal problem involves the rule of primary purpose, which has been created by the courts. The Tokyo High Court in the Livedoor litigation adhered to the rule of primary purpose and enunciated it as follows: Where a contest for corporate control emerges, if the primary purpose of the target corporation in issuing shares (or warrants) to a white knight is to preserve or protect management's control rights, the issuance should be enjoined as “grossly unfair,” since it violates the theory of division of authorities. The Court clarified that management should not intervene in the contest for corporate control and that the shareholders should decide the winner. The Court also declared an exception to the rule: If the hostile bidder has the abusive motive of exploiting the target corporation, the target's issuance of shares (or warrants), whose primary purpose is to preserve the management's right of control, may be permitted to the extent the defensive measures are recognized as necessary and appropriate. Even though this is only obiter dictum, the court's opinion has had an influence on business. The rule of primary purpose has the function of regulating the target's management. The courts have based their decisions on the rule and stated that the target's management should not intervene in the contest for corporate control; the decision of whether the target should take defensive measures must be made by the shareholders. However, shareholders are not good decision-makers regarding hostile takeovers, which involve skilled business judgment. Moreover, for the target corporation, it is difficult to apply the exception to the rule. It is time to consider how to enact takeover law that can deal with the problems arising from the rule of primary purpose.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • I. はじめに
    • II. 裁判例の分析
    • III. 結びに代えて
    • 참고문헌
    • ABSTRACT
    • I. はじめに
    • II. 裁判例の分析
    • III. 結びに代えて
    • 참고문헌
    • ABSTRACT
    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    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

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼