Following the first trial, the second trial court also determined that Samsung C&T does not have to pay the hedge fund Elliott, which was a shareholder, a payment of 26.7 billion won.
On the 29th, the Civil Division 16 of the Seoul High Court (Director General Kim In-kyum) dismissed Elliott's appeal in a case seeking the return of a payment of about 26.7 billion won against Samsung C&T.
Elliott was a shareholder holding 7.12% of Samsung C&T shares in 2015. That year, Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries pushed for a merger and asked shareholders opposing the merger to sell their shares at 57,234 won per share. Accordingly, Elliott filed a lawsuit with the court requesting a determination on the share price, stating that the buyout price per share was too low.
Elliott withdrew the lawsuit in March 2016, and the fact that it had reached a confidential agreement with Samsung C&T in return was revealed later through the international investment dispute (ISDS) process that Elliott filed against the South Korean government. It is known that this agreement included a provision stating that 'if the claim price changes in lawsuits with other shareholders, the difference will be paid accordingly.'
Later, the Supreme Court ruled in April 2022 that the appropriate buyout price per share for Samsung C&T in another shareholder's lawsuit filed with the court was 66,602 won. Following this decision, Elliott reportedly received about 74.7 billion won according to its agreement with Samsung C&T. Elliott received money based on the number of shares it held, equal to the difference between the buyout price presented by Samsung C&T and the price determined by the Supreme Court.
However, in October 2023, Elliott filed an additional lawsuit against Samsung C&T for the return of the payment, asserting that there were additional delayed interest that had not been paid.
Last September, the first trial court ruled that Samsung C&T does not have to pay Elliott additional payments. The court stated, 'None of the costs included in the principal amount for the stock buyout include delayed damages.' It then added, '(Elliott) has no reason to claim delayed damages.' The second trial court also saw the first trial's ruling as just.