Advertisement
Australia markets open in 2 hours 26 minutes
  • ALL ORDS

    7,932.00
    +25.40 (+0.32%)
     
  • AUD/USD

    0.6478
    -0.0092 (-1.40%)
     
  • ASX 200

    7,664.10
    +26.70 (+0.35%)
     
  • OIL

    81.55
    -1.08 (-1.31%)
     
  • GOLD

    2,297.30
    -60.40 (-2.56%)
     
  • Bitcoin AUD

    92,976.74
    -4,115.81 (-4.24%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    1,284.86
    -54.20 (-4.05%)
     

US fund Elliott files appeal against Samsung merger ruling

Samsung is a South-Korean multinational conglomerate, with headquarters in Seoul

US hedge fund Elliott said on Friday it had filed an appeal against a court ruling in favour of the proposed merger of two Samsung Group subsidiaries.

The Seoul Central District Court on Wednesday rejected a request from Elliott to stop Cheil Industries buying Samsung C&T Corp through an all-stock deal worth $8 billion, a move designed to facilitate Samsung's founding Lee family's father-to-son succession.

"Elliott was disappointed with the recent first instance Court decision not to grant a preliminary injunction to prohibit Samsung C&T from seeking shareholder approval for the Proposed Takeover" at a shareholder's meeting on July 17, the firm said in a statement.

"However, Elliott today filed a notice of appeal... and is confident that its position will be fully vindicated on appeal."

ADVERTISEMENT

It said there was a "chorus of disapproval" from Samsung C&T shareholders over over the merger proposals, adding they are "neither fair nor in the best interests of Samsung C&T's shareholders".

But it remains to be seen whether an appeals court would have time to hand down a verdict on the case before the July 17 meeting.

Elliott also filed a separate case seeking a court injunction against Samsung C&T's efforts to sell treasury shares to chemicals maker KCC Corp., which the hedge fund said was a move to bolster its hand at the shareholders' meeting.

KCC is a friendly shareholder of Samsung. Treasury shares are useless in voting as companies cannot vote for themselves.

The court has not yet reached a decision on that issue, but said it would rule before July 17.