지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Enron, the US's seventh largest firm, has recently collapsed, as its executives were found guilty on conspiracy, fraud, and other relevant charges. They were also accused of lying to the Enron's investors regarding its financial problems and accounting irregularities. Consequently, the reliability and trust that all the shareholders had previously upheld became unstable, and then most of the Enron's shareholders rushed to sell their market shares worth millions of dollars before the stock tanked.
This event has raised a number of important questions especially for shareholders. It is imperative for shareholders or investors to look into feasible rationale of how executives would have done differently to save the company; however, the major key issue is the possibility of shareholders fully participating in nominating a council as representative of a corporation. Particularly in Korea, however, a CEO of a corporation usually is considered as the controlling shareholder and is likely to have the strongest influence on council nominations. The CEO tends to maximize the council's capabilities under his/her authority possibly for illegitimate company transactions or such without much concern of other shareholders' opinions. This type of council nomination can eventually deteriorate the credibility that shareholders hold. This is one of the crucial reasons why shareholders should be involved in selecting their own council possibly representing their opinionate remarks and suggestions for company enhancement in an impartial practice. An election, however, should be conducted based on the majority voting system instead of the plurality voting one.
Arranging an appropriate voting system is proven to be critical as it can better develop corporate governance. Although there is a variety of voting systems established around the world, major corporations prefer to use the plurality voting system for their council nominations. A plurality standard refers to as the directors with only one “for” vote in contrast to all other votes with “withheld”.
The majority voting system has its pros and cons; it could provide a more democratic process of council nomination and increase the accountability of nominees, but it could also produce a failed election ). Failure to elect certain directors could result in a corporation's inability to comply with commercial and stock exchange rules, and other relevant matters.
As mentioned above, there may be some possible negative consequences, but these can be ameliorated by applying holdover-rule, board post-election action options, and director resignation policies. In sum, it is reasonable to maintain that the majority voting system is the most appropriate method to select a council and should be operated to generate proper and reliable functions of board. Furthermore, corporations need to take all the positive and negatives matters into consideration before actually developing their own voting system that can fit best into their circumstances.
This event has raised a number of important questions especially for shareholders. It is imperative for shareholders or investors to look into feasible rationale of how executives would have done differently to save the company; however, the major key issue is the possibility of shareholders fully participating in nominating a council as representative of a corporation. Particularly in Korea, however, a CEO of a corporation usually is considered as the controlling shareholder and is likely to have the strongest influence on council nominations. The CEO tends to maximize the council's capabilities under his/her authority possibly for illegitimate company transactions or such without much concern of other shareholders' opinions. This type of council nomination can eventually deteriorate the credibility that shareholders hold. This is one of the crucial reasons why shareholders should be involved in selecting their own council possibly representing their opinionate remarks and suggestions for company enhancement in an impartial practice. An election, however, should be conducted based on the majority voting system instead of the plurality voting one.
Arranging an appropriate voting system is proven to be critical as it can better develop corporate governance. Although there is a variety of voting systems established around the world, major corporations prefer to use the plurality voting system for their council nominations. A plurality standard refers to as the directors with only one “for” vote in contrast to all other votes with “withheld”.
The majority voting system has its pros and cons; it could provide a more democratic process of council nomination and increase the accountability of nominees, but it could also produce a failed election ). Failure to elect certain directors could result in a corporation's inability to comply with commercial and stock exchange rules, and other relevant matters.
As mentioned above, there may be some possible negative consequences, but these can be ameliorated by applying holdover-rule, board post-election action options, and director resignation policies. In sum, it is reasonable to maintain that the majority voting system is the most appropriate method to select a council and should be operated to generate proper and reliable functions of board. Furthermore, corporations need to take all the positive and negatives matters into consideration before actually developing their own voting system that can fit best into their circumstances.
목차
Ⅰ. 序論
Ⅱ. 企業價値 提高를 위한 理事會 構成
Ⅲ. 過半數投票制度의 導入 必要性
Ⅳ. 適用可能한 過半數 投票制의 摸索
Ⅴ. 結論
參考文獻
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (20)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 2007. 6. 19.자 2007마311 결정
[1] 대표이사를 포함한 이사가 임기의 만료나 사임에 의하여 퇴임함으로 말미암아 법률 또는 정관에 정한 대표이사나 이사의 원수(최저인원수 또는 특정한 인원수)를 채우지 못하게 되는 결과가 일어나는 경우에, 그 퇴임한 이사는 새로 선임된 이사(후임이사)가 취임할 때까지 이사로서의 권리의무가 있는 것인바( 상법 제386조 제1
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
주주총회의 전자투표제도 ‘의무화’와 문제점
기업법연구
2013 .09
-
사외이사제도의 공과와 내용조정
일감법학
2013 .01
-
집중투표제도 의무화 : 상법개정시안중 집중투표제도의 의무화에 대한 반론
기업법연구
2013 .09
-
의결권 행사의 전자화와 그 활성화를 위한 법적 과제
기업법연구
2012 .06
-
중국 상업은행 사외이사 독립성에 관한 연구
일감법학
2012 .01
-
기관투자자의 경영관여 : 사외이사선임에 있어서 기관투자자의 역할을 중심으로
법과기업연구
2014 .06
-
사외이사의 독립성
경영법률
2013 .01
-
온라인 및 디지털 기술을 이용한 주주총회 활성화 방안 연구
한양법학
2020 .08
-
의결권행사를 위한 주주간 계약의 고찰
외법논집
2012 .01
-
전자투표제도의 필요성과 도입방안
경영법률
2005 .01
-
현행 집중투표제도의 비판적 고찰
법과 정책연구
2005 .06
-
차등의결권 주식의 도입가능성에 대한 연구
경영법률
2014 .01
-
지분의 은폐와 법적 규제
한양법학
2016 .02
-
企業支配構造造整과 그 改善方向
기업법연구
2003 .09
-
집중투표제 의무화에 관한 소고
법이론실무연구
2019 .11
-
집중투표제의 의무화주장에 대한 비판적 검토 -회의법 및 회사지배구조론의 시각에서-
기업법연구
2003 .09
-
The Cumulative Voting Rule in Taiwan
비교사법
2020 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-366-001387402