Homeplus Crisis: Creditors and Victims Demand MBK and Kim Byeong-ju (Chairman) Prove Responsibility and Sacrifice, Not Just Guarantees

*This content was translated by AI.

"Regarding the Homeplus crisis, MBK, which manages assets worth approximately 50 trillion won, must demonstrate responsibility and sacrifice commensurate with that scale."

Calls are growing to hold MBK Partners (MBK) and MBK Chairman Kim Byeong-ju accountable for the Homeplus crisis.

Victims of the Homeplus merchandise purchase electronic bill of exchange (Jeondanchae) issued an open letter urging Kim (Chairman) to inject funds through personal asset contributions and to secure separate protection funds. It is also reported that Meritz Financial Group, a creditor of Homeplus, has once again demanded that MBK and Kim (Chairman) take responsible measures, including providing guarantees, on the condition of supporting 100 billion won in emergency operating funds (DIP).

Lee Ui-hwan, chairman of the executive committee of the Jeondanchae victims' emergency response committee, issued an open letter criticizing Kim (Chairman), stating, "When it comes to ranking among the wealthy, the assets are real, but when responsibility is demanded, the argument that those assets are non-cash and therefore unusable is difficult for the public to accept." The committee is calling for Kim (Chairman) to make actual capital contributions and to protect subordinated creditors.

He further argued, "If MBK acquired and controlled Homeplus, and enjoyed profits, reputation, and financial results through Homeplus, then when that company fell into crisis, it should be required to bear losses first and present responsible self-help measures. This is the minimum ethical responsibility that Korean society demands of major shareholders."

The executive committee chairman also argued that the 500 billion won that MBK and Kim (Chairman) claimed to have supported for Homeplus is difficult to view as pure cash contributions. He stated that apart from the 40 billion won in personal assets that Kim (Chairman) pledged to contribute, the majority of the remaining amount consisted of guarantees, collateral provision, and the burden of existing loan interest, meaning that guarantees and loans cannot be considered 'responsible capital contributions.'

In particular, concerns were raised that DIP, which allows for priority repayment over existing creditors in the reorganization process, could reduce the repayment resources available to Jeondanchae victims. In response, the emergency response committee demanded that MBK and Kim (Chairman) publicly disclose the details of their support by date and reveal plans for pure cash contributions and direct capital injection. The committee also urged the proactive review of securing separate protection funds for Jeondanchae victims and developing a reorganization plan that includes participation by workers, cooperative companies, and tenant stores.

While noting that Kim (Chairman) ranked second on Forbes' list of South Korea's wealthiest individuals, the committee pointed out, "Ranking on the wealth list can be an honor. However, that honor can only be respected when it is accompanied by responsibility in the face of crisis."

The executive committee chairman further escalated his criticism by even bringing up Kim (Chairman)'s family history. He stated, "If Homeplus collapses, Kim (Chairman) will not be able to escape unscathed, and the responsibility will not remain confined within the court's reorganization process. The former chairman of POSCO, Park Tae-jun, who built an industry, is a father-in-law, and history will ask what his son-in-law, Kim Byeong-ju, has left behind. We hope that Kim (Chairman) will not be ashamed."

In addition, according to reports from some media outlets, Meritz, a creditor of Homeplus, criticized MBK in a statement released on the day, saying, "MBK manages massive assets and collects investment returns, yet it refuses even the minimum guarantee for Homeplus." It was also reported that Meritz emphasized that the Homeplus crisis is the result of MBK's management, which has focused solely on recovering its investment funds over the past 10 years, and that as the largest shareholder and person responsible for management, MBK must play the role necessary for reorganization.

Meritz explained that it decided to support 100 billion won in DIP and deposited the funds in an escrow account to fulfill its social responsibility, despite opposition from shareholders and subordinated creditors and the possibility of legal disputes. It also emphasized that since the initiation of Homeplus's reorganization process, it has provided all possible cooperation as a creditor, including a moratorium on the exercise of security rights and cooperation for the early repayment of trade claims.

Meritz further stated that in such a critical decision, the guarantee demanded by creditors from MBK and Kim Byeong-ju (Chairman) is a reasonable and minimum requirement that must be accepted by the largest shareholder.

Meritz emphasized that if MBK is confident in the success of Homeplus's reorganization, there is no reason to evade the guarantee, and this is a minimum requirement that must be accepted by the largest shareholder.

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.