A Study of the Assignment and Limits of Authority of Special Committees in Mergers and Acquisitions Cases

• Main Author: 吳宛怡
• Other Authors: 林國全
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/79270178303961552655

碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 法律學研究所 === 103 === 　　According to the "Business Mergers and Acquisitions Act (the Act)", in order to protect the rights and interests of minority shareholders, the corporations are under an obligation to appoint the independent experts, to ensure the reasonableness and equity of mergers and acquisitions. However, there are some problems in this system as follows. First, the independent experts do not be required to have sufficient experiences of the relevant industry or financial expertise. Second, the Act does not specifically regulate the important condition of independence. Third, independent experts are appointed by the management, so they may not be independent and objective enough. Fourth, the shareholders cannot directly sue the independent experts for their dereliction of duty. Finally, the experts are limited to provide non-compulsory advices, but are lack of other relevant authrity. Because of those problems, the "Amended Draft of the Business Mergers and Acquisitions Act (the Amended Draft)", referring to the Common Law of United states and the regulations of Hong Kong, introduces the Special Committee system. 　　The Special Committees system is originated from the corporate governance legal system of the United States. They are usually composed of Independent Directors. By means of comparing the introduction and operation of American corporate governance model in other countries, this essay tries to point out some native problems relating to Independent Directors and Functional Committees in our country, which are introduced from the United States as well. Other countries adjusted the regulations and operation of Independent Directors and Functional Committees to tie in the original corporate governance system. On the contrary, our country merely amended the "Securities and Exchange Act" introducing Independent Directors and Audit Committee system, not re-orientated the Board of Directors nor introduced other important Functional Committees. It results in many conflictions and dilemmas between management power and supervisory authority. And those problems also influence the operation of the Special Committees. 　　By means of researching the operation of the Special Committee in the United States and other countries as well as comparing them with our country, this essay considers there is an enormous diversity between the Special Committee in the Amended Draft and the common law of the United States. In case of practical operation in the United States, the Special Committee is not an essential institution. When directors have conflict of interests, the Board of Directors can determine to organize the Special Committee and sufficiently entitle it to transact with the counterpart on behalf of the corporation. By doing so, the court would lower the standards of judicial review, the directors and controlling shareholders could get through the review of fiduciary duties. On the other hand, the Special Committee in the Amended Draft is an essential institution as soon as mergers and requisitions start going. However, the Amended Draft does not regulate the legal effect of violation. It does not show what the influence of setting up the Special Committee on the standards of judicial review is. It does not even authorize the Special Committee to handle relevant affairs. 　　Furthermore, this essay analyzes the purpose, function and role, authority, organization and related issues of the Special Committee in the Amended Draft. The Special Committee acts as a "neutral and objective institution" to make sure the reasonableness and equity of mergers and acquisitions. However, it is unable to negotiate the conditions of transaction with the counterpart, refuse the deal or look for another better counterpart. It is only entitled to make a report to the Board of Directors and shareholders after investigating the opinions from the Independent Experts. And because the Amended Draft has no binding effects of violation, the Board of Directors is less motivated to set up the Special Committee. According to the Amended Draft, the authority and effect of the Special Committee are separated into two kinds by whether there is an Audit Committee inside the corporation or not. In terms of the appointment of the Independent Experts, the difference between the Amended Draft and the Act is the double-layer structure. This design allows the Special Committee to appoint the Independent Experts in place of the Board of Directors. It seems that only when Independent Experts are appointed by the Special Committee consisting of Independent Directors or non-stakeholders could they eliminate the conflict of interests in the business transactions and guarantee the whole corporative interests. In conclusion, by means of comparison and analysis, this essay tries to figure out whether the Amended Draft is better and more efficient in protecting minority shareholders than the Act.