 |
| ▲ A Ministry of Justice official speaks during a press briefing in Gwacheon, just south of Seoul, on Feb. 24, 2026, on a lawsuit filed at a British court over an investor-state dispute settlement case involving U.S. hedge fund Elliott Investment Management. (Yonhap) |
Elliott case-outlook
Despite recent win in Elliott case, Seoul still faces drawn-out proceedings
SEOUL, Feb. 24 (Yonhap) -- South Korea has won a lawsuit to overturn an international tribunal court's arbitration award for U.S. hedge fund Elliott Investment Management over the 2015 merger of two Samsung affiliates but it still has a long way to go before it can finally be freed from liability for damages, watchers said Tuesday.
The case began in 2018, when Elliott launched a lawsuit against South Korea to claim compensation of US$770 million over losses from the merger of Samsung C&T Corp., in which the U.S. fund was a minority stakeholder, and Cheil Industries Inc. Elliott claimed it suffered the losses due to "unfair" mediation by the South Korean government in the process of approving the merger.
In June 2023, the South Korean government was ordered by the Netherlands-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) to pay $107.8 million, including damages and interest, to Elliott.
But a British court has partly upheld South Korea's jurisdictional challenge to the arbitration award won by Elliott and sent the case back to the PCA, according to the Ministry of Justice on Monday. The court reportedly found that actions taken by South Korea's National Pension Service (NPS) to vote in favor of the Samsung merger were not attributable to the state.
Accordingly, the PCA's existing ruling cannot be maintained and the investor-state dispute returned to square one.
Elliott can apply for permission to appeal the latest British court ruling.
Earlier, South Korea sought to challenge the PCA's decision at the British court but its case was rejected. Then a higher British court permitted South Korea's appeal and sent the base back to the court.
Elliott is expected to decide whether to file an appeal after considering the opportunity costs, such as additional litigation costs and the amount of damages. The decision on whether to appeal is expected to be made within three weeks.
If Elliott appeals, the court will again review whether the National Pension Service is a state agency or not.
The existing PCA verdict was based on the premise that the presidential office, the health ministry and the NPS are all state institutions and there was a causal relationship between Elliott's damage and them. As the British court ruled to the effect that the NPS is not a state institution, however, the PCA is expected to review the causal relationship between the state institutions' decisions and Elliott's damage.
Since the results of the international tribunal court's retrial can be appealed again, it may take a considerable amount of time until the final conclusion of the proceedings, the watchers said.
(END)
(C) Yonhap News Agency. All Rights Reserved
