Kyobo Life dismisses “reckless legal action that distorts the ICC arbitration award”
Kyobo Life’s financial investor Affinity Consortium (hereinafter referred to as Affinity) announced on the 22nd that it had recently applied for an injunction against Kyobo Life Chairman Shin Chang-jae with the Seoul Northern District Court in relation to a put option dispute.
Affinity requested the fulfillment of the part in which the shareholder’s contractual obligation was confirmed in the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration award on September 6, but Chairman Shin Chang-jae refused to do so, and inevitably took an injunction to recover the investment money of the National Pension Service, etc. claimed to have applied for it.
He explained that this application for injunction will set a precedent for determining whether investors can recover their investment through legal process if shareholders refuse to fulfill their contractual obligations and do not fulfill their share purchase obligations in the future.
In response, Kyobo Life dismissed it as nothing more than a reckless legal lawsuit that distorts the ICC arbitration award.
A Kyobo Life official said, “All elements of disputes related to pricing have already been dealt with in the ICC arbitration.
He said, “International arbitration is a single trial system and has virtually the same effect as the Supreme Court’s decision.” will be considered,” he said.
The affinity consortium is an FI consisting of Affinity Equity Partners, IMM PE, Bearing PE, and Singapore Investment Agency.
In 2012, when Daewoo International sold a 24% stake in Kyobo Life, Chairman Shin drew in as a ‘white knight’.
Affinity said that it was difficult to recover the investment because Chairman Shin broke his promise to do an IPO by September 2015. billion) was submitted.
Chairman Shin argued that the exercise of Affinity’s put option was invalid at the time and did not acknowledge it, so Affinity applied for ICC international arbitration in March 2019.
On September 6, the ICC arbitral tribunal held that the put option contract between Chairman Shin and Affinity was valid and that Chairman Shin violated the contract. By rejecting Affinity’s request to fulfill (buy stock), Chairman Shin actually won.
ⓒ Hankyung.com, unauthorized reprinting and redistribution prohibited