企業価値の移転と経営判断

アベノミクスの成果なのか評価の分かれるところかもしれませんが、業種によって景気は良し悪しが分かれるように思います。グループ企業の経営再建や再編をどう考えたらよいか、頭を悩ます経営者の方も少なくないと推察します。

取締役は日頃から経営判断を行い、特に取締役会では取締役会決議に賛成・反対という形で判断を行います。決議に反対した取締役が議事録に異議を留めなければ、決議に賛成したものと推定され、反証をあげない限り責任を追及されることになります。

過去の取締役会の検討内容や具体的な意思決定過程が記録されていなかったために、会社の訴訟における立証活動に支障をきたすという事例もあります。

さて、グループ会社の経営再建の過程において、行われた金融取引、株の売却、特定種類株式の取得など、取締役の善管注意義務違反の有無が問われた事例がここ数年複数見られます。

裁判所は①判断の過程と②判断の内容について、経営判断の原則を示しています。

株式の移転における移転比率の合意の任務に当たった取締役の判断について、裁判所は、経営判断の前提となる事実の認識過程に注目しています。具体的には「情報収集とその分析・検討に不注意な誤りがあるか」、あるいは、「意思決定の過程や内容が企業経営者の判断として明らかに不合理な点があるか」どうかの判断基準を示しています（アパマンショップＨＤ事件）。

会社保有の関係会社の株式を不当に低額で売却したかどうかが争われた事案でも、同様な判断が示されています。

こうした裁判所の判断を見る限り、取締役の裁量の範囲は広いと言えますが、しかし、判断材料をしっかり見極めなければ、責任を問われます。

また、企業価値を向上させるべき経営陣が自ら取締役をつとめる企業の株式を取得するＭＢＯ（マネージメント・バイ・アウト）では、株主が株式公開買い付けに応じるかどうかの意思決定を行う上で、適切な情報を開示する義務を負っていたと考えるのが相当であると判断した裁判例もあります（レックスＨＤ損害賠償事件）。

企業再編のみならず、資本提携などについても、企業価値の移転が伴うことから、株主の関心が高いものです。また、時にはスクープ報道がなされることもあります。経営者としては、情報開示を適正に行うことにも注意が必要だと言えます。

〈中部経済新聞　「中経論壇」平成26年8 月26日掲載　池田桂子〉

Management Decisions and the Transfer of Corporate Value

Some businesses are in a good positive condition economically, while other businesses are in a bad negative economic condition. I think that both sides are clearly visible and quite separated now. It is a controversial issue as to whether the outcome of Abenomix which is the coined phrase of the economic policies put into place by the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will result in the proposed, and desired effect it was intended to produce. I guess at this point there are quite a few CEOs thinking about reorganization and restructuring of their group companies.

Company directors make management decisions
on a daily basis, and in particular a director can make decisions in the form of a favor-oppose to the resolution proposal to the Board of Directors. Unless directors who have opposed a resolution stop their objections in order o make a record into the company minutes, then it means that it is presumed to have been agreed to the resolution, and may be held responsible as long as you do not raise a rebuttal.

There was a case with regard to the decision making process and specifically a consideration of the Board of Directors that in the past, the company minutes had not been recorded and or agreed to any resolutions, therefore that interfered with proof in litigation activities of the company.

We can see multiple cases that have been questioned about either the presence or absence of a necessary duty by company directors, in the course of the restructuring of Group companies, cases of financial transactions, or the sale of stock, or cases such as retrieving certain types of shares in a few years. Courts show the business judgment rule, the contents of the judgment and the process of judgment.

The judgment of the directors who hit the missions of an agreement of transfer ratios in the transfer of shares, the court has focused on the recognition process of fact which is a prerequisite of management decisions. Or, “if there is a careless error of the analysis and review of the information collection”, or “whether there is a point to clearly and unreasonably make a determination of corporate management’s content and process of the decision-making” of whether it demonstrates and specifically shows the criteria (as in the case of Apaman-Shop Holding Company Inc.).

Even in cases that were contested as to whether a company sold shares unfairly of its affiliates of the company with a small fee, a similar decision had been made.

As far as the judgment of these courts, it can be said that the scope of the discretion of the Board of Directors is extremely wide, however, unless the decision is based that the company assess materials fairly, it will be interpreted to be a responsibility of the Board of Directors to do so.

In addition, in making decisions of a MBO to acquire shares of companies, management should improve the corporate value that will serve the director himself in (management buy-outs), the shareholders must try to respond to a tender offer. Is that appropriate?

There is also a court case where it was determined to be a reasonable assumption to think that it had an obligation to disclose all of the information (Rex HD damages incident).

Not only by corporate restructuring, for example, concerning a capital alliance, under such situations in the real transfer of a corporate value is accompanied. It attracts the interest of shareholders quite a bit, and you may see scoop news at times. As a manager, it can be said that we need to be careful tht all issues be carried out properly as well as to disclose all relevant information.