Abstract
Korean Abstract: 삼성물산과 제일모직의 합병이 미국에서 진행되었다면 (1) 이재용은 삼성그룹의 지배주주로서, 삼성물산의 이사들은 이재용의 특수관계인으로, 모두가 합병에 대하여 이해관계에 있다고 판단되었을 것이고, 합병과정에서 지배주주와 이사로서의 충실의무를 위반하지 않기 위해서는 (i) 합병절차 및 조건내용이 삼성물산의 소액주주에게 공정 (entire fairness)하였어야 하거나, (ii) 이재용의 이해관계에 대한 모든 사실을 공개하고, 이해관계가 없는 이사들의 승인을 득하거나, (iii) good faith에 의한 주주들의 승인을 득하였어야 한다. Entire fairness는 절차적과 거래조건 모두가 공정함을 요구하는데, 삼성물산의 합병은 일단 절차상으로 소액주주들에게 공정하다고 할 수 없어 보이며, 거래조건도 공정하다고 하기 어려워 보인다. 이사회의 사전승인역시 절차상의 부족함과 이사들의 이해관계여부가 불투명하고, 주총에서의 승인도 good faith 요건을 충족시키지 못하였을 가능성이 높아보인다. (2) 또한 합병전 삼성물산의 주식가격에 중요한 영향을 주었던 여러 경영행위에 대한 공시의무를 위반할 것으로 보이며, 그러한 경영내용이 투자자들의 투자결정에 중요한 내용으로 판단되어, 그러한 공시의무 위반이 증권사기법 위반으로 인정될 가능성이 높아 보인다. English Abstract: The 2015 merger of Samsung C&T Corporation and Cheil Industries were subjected to the U.S. laws, (1) Lee Jae Yong, as controlling shareholder of both companies, and the directors of Samsung C&T, as associates of Mr. Lee, would have been found to be interested in the merger, implicating duty of loyalty concerns. For the merger to survive duty of loyalty challenges from minority shareholders of Samsung C&T, (i) the merger need to have satisfied the entire fairness standard, (ii) after full disclosure of the facts relating to the interest of Mr. Lee, an approval of disinterested directors be obtained, or (iii) after full disclosure of the facts relating to the interest of Mr. Lee, an approval of the minority shareholders be obtained. The entire fairness standard requires fairness in procedure and the transactions. However, the merger process does not appear to have provided for procedural fairness safeguards mandated by the standard, nor the transaction terms appear to be fair to the minority shareholders. The approval of the merger by the board of directors did not take place upon full disclosure of the facts relating to the interest of Mr. Lee nor are the outside directors clearly shown to be disinterested. The approval of the merger by the shareholders also does not appear to have been given in good faith. (2) Samsung C&T, a public company, would have been subjected to disclosure requirements of certain material management decisions that depressed its share price in comparison to its competitors, under the Secuities Act and the Exchange Act and its failure to disclose such matters would likely be considered violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.