"Samsung C&T Not Required to Pay 26.7 Billion Won to Elliott"... Wins in Second Trial

Samsung C&T has won an appellate court ruling stating it does not have to pay 26.7 billion won in delayed damages to the U.S.-based hedge fund Elliott.

On May 29, the Seoul High Court's Civil Division 16 (Presiding Judge Kim Inkyum) dismissed Elliott's appeal in a lawsuit demanding the return of settlement money from Samsung C&T, ruling against the plaintiff and ordering Elliott to bear the costs of the appeal, in line with the first trial.

Elliott, which held a 7.12% stake in Samsung C&T, filed a stock purchase request during the 2015 merger between Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, arguing that the merger ratio was set unfavorably for Samsung C&T. Elliott claimed that the price of 57,234 won per share offered by Samsung C&T was too low. Later, both parties reached a confidential agreement in March 2015, stating that if the claim price changed due to lawsuits with other shareholders, the difference would be paid accordingly. Elliott then withdrew its request. In April 2022, the Supreme Court determined that 66,602 won per share was appropriate for Samsung C&T, and in May of the same year, Elliott received 72.4 billion won from Samsung C&T, an amount calculated as the difference between the price offered by Samsung C&T and the price set by the Supreme Court.

However, in October 2023, Elliott filed another lawsuit, seeking an additional 26.7 billion won in delayed damages. Elliott argued that while Samsung C&T paid them delayed damages from September 8, 2015, to March 17, 2016, it paid other shareholders delayed damages from September 8, 2015, to May 12, 2022, and therefore, Elliott should receive damages for the unpaid period.

The first trial ruled in favor of Samsung C&T. At that time, the court stated, "Although the content of the agreement between the two parties is essentially equivalent to the stock purchase price, it should only be interpreted as a provision to include amounts paid under different titles," and added, "It is difficult to view it as a provision intended to include delayed damages." The appellate court on this day also found no fault with the first trial's judgment and dismissed the appeal.