Homeplus, the second-largest hypermarket chain, sees its corporate reorganization procedure terminated... Debate intensifies over the effectiveness of MBK's support

*This content was translated by AI.

Controversy has arisen over the substance and effectiveness of the direct and indirect support methods proposed by Homeplus's largest shareholder, MBK Partners, to resolve Homeplus's crisis.

The Seoul Bankruptcy Court's Reorganization Division 4 decided on the 3rd to terminate Homeplus's court receivership. Although Homeplus's revised reorganization plan included measures to improve profitability by restructuring its hypermarkets into 67 key stores, it failed to include concrete plans to secure the minimum 200 billion won in funding required to execute them.

In the market, there are growing doubts about the substance and effectiveness of the support emphasized by the largest shareholder MBK, as Homeplus ultimately failed to secure operating funds amid a liquidity crisis, leading to the termination of its reorganization procedure. Some also point out that MBK must clarify these matters concretely.

Some argue that since support centered on guarantees rather than direct equity investment or cash infusion, there were limits in securing the liquidity needed to implement the reorganization plan.

In fact, according to Homeplus's audited financial report for the fiscal year ending February 2026, which was publicly disclosed last month, it is not clearly confirmed that any direct cash support such as capital injection or interest-free loans from the largest shareholder MBK occurred between March of last year and February of this year, following the filing for reorganization procedure in the audit report.

Amid this stance by the largest shareholder MBK, Homeplus had to secure funds on its own.

According to the cash flow statement in the audit report, it secured approximately 60.7 billion won through borrowing from financial institutional investors over the past year, and collateral was also provided for these borrowings.

MBK released a press release in September last year announcing that it would provide up to 200 billion won as an interest-free grant to alleviate the financial burden on Homeplus's acquirer. However, this was effectively an interest-free grant plan subject to certain conditions, and MBK has not provided specific explanations regarding under what circumstances such a grant could be made or why it was not implemented.

Amid these developments, Homeplus issued a statement saying, "Despite numerous pleas from many stakeholders over the past few weeks, Meritz Financial Group refused to provide funding, stating that the joint guarantees of 10 billion won provided by MBK Partners and partner Kim Byung-ju were insufficient, which is regrettable," thereby publicly revealing through Homeplus rather than MBK that MBK Partners accepted the condition of 'Kim Byung-ju, Chairman of MBK' providing a personal guarantee. In this regard, some media outlets reported that Kim Byeong-ju (Chairman) submitted an intention to provide a personal guarantee to the court.

However, in response to this, Meritz Financial Group firmly refuted MBK Partners' claim regarding the 10 billion won emergency operating funds (DIP) for Homeplus that "funding was rejected even with Kim Byeong-ju (Chairman)'s joint guarantee," stating it is not true. Additionally, while expressing regret over the court's decision to terminate Homeplus's reorganization procedure, Meritz urged the largest shareholder MBK to play a responsible role in the restructuring.

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

*This content was translated by AI.