한국형 포이즌 필의 도입에 관한 연구 -2009년 12월 법무부가 입법예고한 상법 일부개정법률안에 대한 검토- = A Study on the Government's Draft Amendments to the Commercial Law to Introduce a Poison Pill Scheme into Korea

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Ministry of Justice has opened the draft amendments to the Commercial Code to the public, which are intented to adopt a poison pill against hostile takeovers. The poison pill refers a defensive tactic that curbs hostile takeover bids by making the target corporation unattractive to the potential acquirer. According to the draft amendments, a poison pill can be used only in the instance where the issuance of warrants are written into the articles of incorporation and the board of directors can decide whether to grant warrants to existing shareholders. The articles may provide that the target corporation treats shareholders on an unequal basis even if the issuance of warrants dilutes the raider's holdings. However, some kinds of loopholes remain in the draft amendments. Firstly, the government's drive to adopt the pill seems that Korea is likely to close the door of the market for corporate control to foreigners. Secondly, since the draft amendments use some abstract terms such as the corporate value and does not provide the concrete guideline for the board's prerogative of granting and redeeming warrants, the board's decisions may be under the court's ex post facto scrutiny. Thirdly, it can not be anticipated for the target corporation to cancel the issued warrants voluntarily because the re-incorporation of the poison pill into the articles after its previous cancellation is not an easy work. Fourthly, although shareholders are granted an injunction against the issuance of new shares, the newly- issued shares are not retrospectively null and void.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박찬호, "회사관련법규의 미국모델수렴에 관한 연구" 한국법제연구원 2007

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

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

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

5 정쾌영, "포이즌 필의 導入에 관한 立法論的 考察" 한국기업법학회 20 (20): 157-180, 2006

6 권재열, "포이즌 필의 導入에 관한 硏究" 중앙법학회 9 (9): 293-312, 2007

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 유영일, "일본 회사법상의 신주예약권에 관한 연구" 한국상사판례학회 19 (19): 403-466, 2006

10 이종상, "이사의 책임과 배임죄에 대한 비판적 고찰" 서울대학교 금융법센터 (19) : 2006

11 김건식, "워런트(warrant)의 도입을 위한 소론" 서울대학교 40 (40): 1999

12 권재열, "소수주주권의 법리 - 그 행사요건의 완화에 대한 검토를 중심으로 -" 한국상사법학회 22 (22): 133-178, 2003

13 권재열, "상법상 이익공여죄에 관한 소고" 법학연구원 18 (18): 127-149, 2008

14 김영곤, "불공정한 신주발행과 구제수단" 한국기업법학회 15 : 2003

15 김화진, "기업지배구조와 기업금융" 박영사 2009

16 김화진, "기업인수합병" 박영사 2007

17 矢崎淳司, "敵対的買収防衛策をめぐる法規制" 多賀出版 2007

18 渡辺顕, "敵対的買収と企業防衛―予防・対抗策の設計、株主対策から総会運営、ＩＲまで" 日本経済新聞社 2005

19 企業価値研究会, "企業価値報告書～公正な企業社会のルール形成に向けた提案～" 2005

20 経済産業省, "企業価値・株主共同の利益の確保又は向上のための買収防衛策に関する指針"

21 이철송, "「회사법강의」제17판" 박영사 2009

22 정동윤, "「회사법」제7판" 법문사 2001

23 권기범, "「현대회사법론」제2판" 삼지원 2005

24 . Gordon Smith, "The Shareholder Primacy Norm" 23 : 277-, 1998

25 Frank H. Easterbrook, "The Race for the Bottom in Corporate Governance" 95 : 685-, 2009

26 Jonathan R. Macey, "The Legality and Utility of the Shaeholder Rights Bylaw" 26 : 835-, 2009

27 J. C. Shepherd, "The Law of Fiduciaries"

28 Julian Velasco, "The Enduring Illegitimacy of the Poison Pill" 27 : 381-, 2002

29 Lucian A. Bebchuk, "The Elusive Quest for Global Governance Standards" 157 : 1263-, 2009

30 Laura Lin, "The Effectiveness of Outside Directors as a Corporate Governance Mechanism and Evidence" 90 : 898-, 1996

31 Michael Ryngaert, "The Effect of Poison Pill Securities on Shareholder Wealth" 20 : 377-, 1988

32 William Magnuson, "Takeover Regulation in the United States and Europe: An Institutional Approach" 21 : 205-, 2009

33 Marco Ventoruzzo, "Takeover Regulation as a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Taking U.K. Rules to Continental Europe" 11 : 135-, 2008

34 Joris M. Hogan, "Shareholder Rights Plans: Self-Limiting Features And Redemptions; What's Up With Stapled Financing?" 34 : 221-, 2006

35 Brett H. McDonnell, "Shareholder Bylaws, Shareholder Nominations, and Poison Pills" 3 : 205-, 2005

36 Patrick J. Ryan, "Rule 14a-8, Institutional Shareholder Proposals, and Corporate Democracy" 23 : 97-, 1988

37 Martin Lipton, "Pills, Polls, and Professors Redux" 69 : 1037-, 2002

38 James A. Brickley, "Outside Directors and the Adoption of Poison Pills" 35 : 371-, 1994

39 송종준, "M&A에 대한 주요 방어대책" 14 (14): 1995

40 전삼현, "M&A관련 독약처방(Poison Pill)에 관한 소고" 법학연구소 19 : 161-187, 2008

41 奈良輝久, "M&A法制の羅針盤―TOB、三角合併、金融商品取引法施行を踏まえたM&A手法と防衛策" 青林書院 2007

42 Walter Stuber, "International Securities and Capital Markets" 41 : 443-, 2007

43 George S. Geis, "Internal Poison Pill" 84 : 1169-, 2009

44 Mark R. Wingerson, "Institutional Investors in the U.S. and the Repeal of Poison Pills: A Practitioner's Perspective" 1992 : 223-, 1992

45 Curtis J. Milhaupt, "In the Shadow of Delaware? The Rise of Hostile Takeovers in Japan" 105 : 2171-, 2005

46 Shearman, "Implementation in France of the Takeover Directive and the New French Poison Pill: How Does It Affect Defensive Measures Available to French Companies"

47 Adolf A. Berle, "For Whom Corporate Managers are Trustees: A Note" 45 : 1365-, 1932

48 E. Merrick Dodd, "For Whom Are Corporate-Managers Trustees?" 45 : 1145-, 1932

49 Luke Nottage, "Economics, Politics, Public Policy and Law in Japan, Australasia and the Pacific: Corporate Governance, Financial Crisis, and Consumer Product Safety in 2008" (26) : 2009

50 James D. Cox, "Corporations"

51 Adolf A. Berle, "Corporate Powers as Powers in Trust" 44 : 1049-, 1931

52 Jonathan M. Karpoff, "Corporate Governance and Firm Performance"

53 "Black's Law Dictionary 8th ed" 2004

54 Soo-Jeong Ahn, "Asia-Pacific" 43 : 1007-, 2009

55 Simon M. Lorne, "Acquisitions and Mergers: Negotiated and Contested Transactions"