從日月光公開併購矽品案論目標公司的防禦措施之適法性──台美公司法之比較基礎

From the case of ASE publicly took over SPIL’s stock to Study the legality of SPIL reversed a hostile takeover strategy-- Based on a comparison of the Law of Taiwan and the United States

2015年8月日月光公開收購矽品股票，矽品以反敵意併購策略因應，首先採行與鴻海之換股策略，可惜在矽品公司臨時股東會沒有通過，聯盟策略失敗。接著矽品再以私募方式，擬引進中國紫光集團成為公司最大股東，但是矽品此私募策略勢必面臨政府嚴格審查的考驗。此時日月光宣布二度公開收購矽品股票，目標是最終取得矽品百分之百的股權。矽品的反敵意併購策略似乎有所窮，在國外，例如美國公司法之反敵意併購策略之法律規範較為周全，但是我們所面對的瓶頸是通常採行之反敵意併購策略在我國欠缺適法性。本文乃基於台灣與美國之公司法比較基礎，探討反敵意併購策略之適法性，希望能尋求可行的解決方案。

In August (2015), ASE publicly took over SPIL’s stock, while SPIL reversed a hostile takeover strategy in response. First SPIL adopt convertible strategies with Hon Hai as a business alliance partner. Unfortunately, because extraordinary SPIL companies didn’t pass the convertible strategy, alliance policy failed. Then again SPIL applied a private placement by planning to introduce China Tsinghua Unisplendour Group to become the largest shareholder of the company, but such a private policy is bound to face the government’s rigorous censorship. IN the meanwhile, ASE operated a second time a public takeover of SPIL’s stock. By doing so, ASE try to control one hundred percent stake in SPIL final. SPIL’s anti-hostile takeover strategy seems to be no way. In foreign law norms, taking American’s anti-hostile takeover law is more comprehensive, but Taiwan’s anti hostile acquisition strategy lacks proper law. Based on a comparison of the Law of Taiwan and the United States, this article tried to study the appropriate anti-hostile takeover strategy legality. We hope to find out a feasible solution project.