메뉴 건너뛰기
소속 기관 / 학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
고객센터 ENG
주제분류

논문 기본 정보

저자정보
(가천대학교)
저널정보
한국기업법학회 기업법연구 企業法硏究 第26卷 第3號
오류 신고하기

피인용 5

검색

    초록·키워드

    In its ruling of the Murakami Fund case about the determination on the tender offer, the Supreme Court of Japan said that “Financial Instruments and Exchange Act” Article 167 Paragraph (2) defines objectively and concretely the scope of material information. According to this definition, the material information does not need to have a significant impact on investment decisions.
    This can be understood as an attempt to define clearly the scope and thereby enhancing the predictability of regulation, by restricting regulatory information on any information that may introduce a significant impact on investment decision by means of determination itself, disregarding the amount of the actual impact. It follows that a tender offer is determined when an entity makes the decision to prepare a tender offer with the intent of actually making it. The probability that the tender offer will take place does not have to be explicitly taken into consideration. This ruling of the Supreme Court of Japan, however, cannot be accepted when interpreting the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act. While the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan explicitly defines material information by listing the kind of information that has a significant impact on investor’s investment decisions, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act rules that the materiality of information is conditional on the impact it has on investors’ investment decisions. For this reason, for information to be material according to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, both its impact on the investment decision of investors, and its probability have to be considered, unlike material in formation according to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan.
    Even though investigations and preparations are made for a tender offer, for example, the tender offer cannot be said to be determined unless there is objective evidence of the likeliness of its execution. Even if preparatory measures are being taken for a tender offer, the condition for insider trading regulations is not met until it can be judged that it will have an impact on investors’ investment decisions.

    최근 본 자료 전체보기

      UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-366-001261296