회사분할시 유로본드 투자자의 법적 지위 = A Legal Status of Eurobond Investors Facing Corporate Division

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

These days, most Eurobond investors do not hold physical bond certificates. The Eurobond issuer issues a global certificate representing the entire issue to a common depository of an international clearing system(such as Euroclear in Brussels, Clearstream in Luxembourg and the Depository Trust Corporation in the U.S.), which in turn hold their interests for participants who are members of the clearing system and who hold accounts with the clearing system. Investors buy and sell their holdings through book-entries made to their securities accounts with such participants directly or indirectly. Due to the globalization of capital markets, international investments have created enormous cross-border securities holdings, which are utilizing the foregoing indirect holding system.
The case here represents the foregoing trend and may be summarized as follows: a Korean corporation has issued a typical Eurobond in a registered form and was later split into two new corporations and for itself become bankrupt. Prior to such corporate division, a few investors bought certain amount of the bonds from a U.S. broker through their accounts with the U.S. broker, which in turn had held its interests in the bonds through its account with Euroclear. In a capacity as bondholders, these investors have sued new corporations split from the issuer as well as the issuer.
Disregarding the indirect holding by the investors, the lower court has decided that the investors are bondholders and therefore have rights to claim early redemption of the bond against the issuer. However, the higher court reversed the lower court's decision. It held that it should be determined by the trust deed relating to the bonds who are bondholders. Further it noted that Eurobond is not subject to any laws and regulations of any country. It concluded that according to the trust deed, the investors are not bondholders who can claim the redemption of the bonds against the issuer because they are not entered in the bondholders registry as bondholders.
This Article analyses the case and criticizes the decisions in three aspects.
First, the author insists that there are conflicts of laws issues with respect to the Eurobond. Accordingly, at the first stage the court should have decided the governing laws for every aspect of the bond issue and holdings by investors. The author sets a particular emphasis on a point that Eurobond is generally not subject to securities regulations of any specific jurisdiction, but is subject to substantive laws such as corporation, contract, property and torts of relevant countries which shall be determined by conflict of laws. The author points out difficulties in deciding laws governing indirect securities holdings, given the lack of relevant provision in the International Private Law of Korea and established precedents.
Secondly, this Article examines the legal characteristics of the property rights of investors that have bond holdings through an indirect holding system. Depending upon the governing law, investors have either direct ownership on individual securities (or some form of pro rata ownership in the pool of securities) or are beneficially entitled to the securities only(in the latter case the first-tier intermediary, usually through its nominee, has a legal title to the securities). Because the bonds in question are issued in a registered form under English law, the legal characteristics of the property rights of investors in this case, however, have little significance in determining whether the investors have a valid claim against the issuer. Regardless of the characterization of the indirect holdings by investors under applicable laws, under English law (more specifically pursuant to the trust deed and terms and conditions of the bonds which shall be valid under the governing law, English law), investors have no direct relationship with the issuer because they are not entered in the bondholders registry as such.
Thirdly, this Article ...

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이철송, "회사법 [제17판]" 박영사 2009

2 임중호, "증권대체거래에 있어서의 유가증권의 무권화 현상과 그 법적 문제" 한국비교사법학회 5 (5): 1998

3 석광현, "중개기관에 보유된 유가증권에 관한 일부 권리의 준거법에 관한 협약" 한국증권법학회 5 (5): 2004

4 김이수, "영국신탁법리에 의한 증권간접보유구조의 구성" 한국상사법학회 22 (22): 273-313, 2004

5 오승룡, "섭외사법 개정을 둘러싼 국제물권․지적재산권의 고찰" 법조협회 (536) : 2001

6 이호정, "섭외사법" 한국방송대학교출판부 2000

7 허항진, "금융중개기관을 통해 유가증권을 간접보유하는 투자자의 법적 지위" 한국상사법학회 27 (27): 185-233, 2008

8 법무부, "국제화 시대의 섭외사법 개정방향" 226 : 1999

9 허항진, "국제증권시장의 법과 실무" 세창출판사 2009

10 허항진, "국제적 증권거래의 준거법 결정원칙에 대한 고찰" 한국증권법학회 8 (8): 47-92, 2007

11 석광현, "국제사법 해설[제2판]" 지산 2003

12 이호정, "국제사법" 경문사 1984

13 석광현, "國際的인 證券擔保去來의 準據法―PRIMA와 관련하여―" 한국증권법학회 3 (3): 101-137, 2002

14 석광현, "國際的인 證券擔保去來의 準據法 -헤이그국제사법회의의 유가증권협약을 중심으로-" 한국증권법학회 5 (5): 43-99, 2004

15 석광현, "「국제사법과 국제소송」 제1권부터 제4권" 박영사 2007

16 "http://www.unidroit.org/english/workprogramme/study078/item1/conference2009/conferencedocuments/main.htm"

17 "http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=72"

18 "http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.pdf&cid=59"

19 ALI & National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws, "Uniform Commercial Code(2005 edition) Official Text and Comments" Thompson/West 2005

20 김이수, "UCC상 證券權利(security entitlement)의 槪念" 한국증권법학회 5 (5): 1-41, 2004

21 Germant Thomas, "The Law of Trusts"

22 Philip Rawlings, "Reinforcing Collectivity: The Liability of Trustees and the Power of Investors in Finance Transactions" 23 (23): 2009

23 Philip R. Wood, "International Loans, Bonds, Guarantees, Legal Opinions (2nd edition)" Sweet & Maxwell 2007

24 Luc Thévenoz, "Intermediated Securities, Legal Risk, and the International Harmonization of Commercial Law" 13 : 384-, 2008

25 Philip R. Wood, "Conflict of Laws and International Finance (2nd edition)" Sweet & Maxwell 2007