Actual shareholding is 1.84%, but listed as 9.8%
Father Choi Chang-geol, who owns no shares, listed as 0.91%
Tends to approve board agenda unconditionally
Supports cumulative voting, differs from ISS, ‘[Seoul Economy]’, This article was published on January 14, 2025, at 22:58 in Capital Market Compass ‘Signal’.,
,
,
,
,
, Korea Zinc (010130), ‘In a report by global proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis, which recommended adopting a charter amendment to introduce the cumulative voting system, a key agenda item in Korea Zinc’s extraordinary general meeting, inaccurate shareholding figures were listed. There is concern about the reliability of the report containing such a fundamental error.’,
,
, ‘According to the investment banking (IB) industry on the 15th, the Glass Lewis report listed Choi Yoon-beom, chairman of Korea Zinc, as holding a 9.8% stake, and his father Choi Chang-geol as holding 0.91%. However, according to the Financial Supervisory Service’s electronic disclosure system, Chairman Choi’s stake is 1.84%, and Honorary Chairman Choi does not hold any shares.’,
,
, ‘Glass Lewis sent a report to institutional investors the previous day, stating that votes should only be in favor of the four board-recommended candidates to maximize the chance of their appointment, assuming the implementation of the cumulative voting system to prevent vote dispersion.’,
,
, ‘Glass Lewis typically shows a tendency to support board agendas. Over the past year, out of eight cases including Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Doosan Enerbility, SK Innovation, KT&G, Hanmi Science, JB Financial Group, Kumho Petrochemical, and POSCO Holdings, Glass Lewis opposed board proposals only in one instance, KT&G. Even in the KT&G case, they effectively sided with the board by recommending approval for the appointment of KT&G’s presidential candidate Bang Kyung-man.’,
,
, ‘Due to this, Youngpoong and MBK Partners dismissed Glass Lewis’s report as “biased and logically inconsistent.”‘,
,
, ‘Meanwhile, another global proxy advisory firm ISS had previously recommended against the adoption of the cumulative voting system.’,
,
,