Emerging commercial opportunities in South Korea are opening doors for investors worldwide.
Foreign investors and trade partners continue to face significant challenges when navigating disputes with chaebols, given their dominant position and the complexities of the Korean legal landscape.
Utilizing antitrust authorities may be one component in building an aggressive and effective strategy.
In South Korea, family struggles and key shareholder disputes over control of conglomerates, or chaebols, have long posed risks to minority shareholder interests.
As the chief of South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service raises concerns over a bid to take over Korea Zinc, many are preparing for impact on shareholder value.
Global investors, including activist funds, should consider deploying creative strategies to maximize their positions.
Opportunities for activist investors in Korea are expanding, but as an ongoing dispute involving LG shows, corporate succession disputes involving chaebols can be a source of risk.
These family struggles can lead to attempts at corporate changes that conflict with the interests of minority shareholders.
Investors and activists should understand the risks and their options by working with international counsel to protect their rights.
Cross-border disputes involving ultra-high-net-worth individuals (UHNWIs) can often turn personal.
Commercial counterparties may try to make the UHNWI individually liable, putting their personal assets at risk.
However, if there is a connection to Delaware, UHNWIs can leverage the favorable tools available in the jurisdiction to resolve disputes in their favor.
Recent developments in the Korean legal landscape have been in activist investors’ favor, opening new opportunities to assert their rights and interests in Korean companies.
Still, the intricacies of the Korean market and the dominance of chaebols mean investors should still tread carefully.
Creative strategies that navigate these complexities can bring investors the greatest chances of success.
Recent developments in Korea have made Korean chaebols attractive to overseas activist investors.
However, the intricacies of Korean capital markets and legal practice, and the influence of chaebols, mean investors need to tread carefully.
Only by engaging in creative strategies that consider local and overseas factors can investors have the greatest chance of maximizing shareholder value.
Minority shareholders may be surprised to learn that they have effective options when a director or other fiduciary has harmed the company.
However, the situation may be complicated when structures cross borders, as many corporate structures in Asia do, including spreading offshore.
Our Claim Monetization team explores how shareholders can deploy derivative actions in five key jurisdictions across Asia Pacific, the UK and the Caribbean as part of an effective cross-border strategy.
Minority shareholders may have certain remedies available when they feel their rights have been unfairly prejudiced by the majority.
However, the situation may be complicated when structures cross borders – typical corporate structures in Asia may spread across offshore and other key regions.
Our Claim Monetization team lays out the basic parameters of the tools open to minority shareholders across five key jurisdictions.
Minority shareholders of South Korean industrial conglomerates, or “chaebols,” have had few ways to protect their interests against controlling shareholders.
However, with the passage of new amendments to the Korea Commercial Code (KCC), minority shareholders have gained new tools to even the playing field.
Our Claim Monetization and Dilution team looks at the key changes and implications that minority shareholders and activist investors should know about.
Chinese businesses tend to favor offshore jurisdictions for setting up joint venture (JV) structures, but deadlock can ensue if partners differ into a dispute.
A litany of offshore legal tools exists, from provisions in the JV's constitutional documents to the appoint of a receiver to restore control to the wronged party.
However, the process for deploying these options differ based on each jurisdiction, and it is advisable to seek counsel before acting on any strategy.
Corporate directors and their counsel should understand the nuances of cross-border independent investigations, which can create pitfalls for even the most experienced corporate advisers.
Although the stated risks are common to many types of cross-border investigations, they can be unexpected for corporate advisers whose primary experience is U.S.-based.
Strategically navigating the pitfalls stated within is vital because the business judgment rule does not protect a board or a company from violations of the foreign laws discussed.
