Mirae Asset sure of beating China's Anbang again in US
Seen are the 15 U.S. luxury hotels involved in the disrupted acquisition deal between Mirae Asset Global Investments and China's Anbang Insurance Group. Courtesy of Mirae Asset Global Investments
Chinese insurer may pay Korean firm more interest after 2nd trial
By Park Jae-hyuk
An appeal lodged by China's Anbang Insurance Group earlier this month against the U.S. court's previous ruling in favor of Mirae Asset Global Investments does not seem to be posing a threat to the Korean financial company, according to industry officials, Thursday.
Mirae Asset said there stands a very minimal chance for the appeal court to overturn the ruling in the first trial.
“We will cope with this issue by receiving legal advice,” its official said.
According to a recent regulatory filing by Mirae Asset, AB Stable VIII, a special-purpose entity established in the U.S. by Dajia Insurance Group that acquired Anbang, filed a 1.7 trillion won ($1.5 billion) lawsuit against the Korean firm as an appeal against the Delaware Chancery Court's memorandum opinion last November and its final order and judgment last month.
Mirae Asset and Anbang sued each other last year, after the former decided to cancel its takeover of the U.S. hotels, alleging the seller had failed to guarantee its ownership of some of the properties.
The court ruled in the first trial that Mirae Asset's cancellation of the contract was proper due to Anbang's failure to meet contractual conditions.
It ordered Anbang to return the $581 million deposit Mirae Asset paid for purchasing 15 luxury hotels in the U.S. and pay an additional $60 million to cover the Korean firm's legal fees, costs of setting up the hotel deal and pre-judgment interest.
The law firms that took Mirae Asset to victory in the first trial are Peter & Kim and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in the U.S. The Korean financial firm also received advice from Korea's Yulchon and U.S.-based Greenberg Traurig, which served as advisers for Mirae Asset during negotiations on the hotel deal.
Legal experts warned that the Chinese company's appeal may inflict further damage on itself as it will have to pay greater interest to Mirae Asset if it loses again in the second trial, which is likely to turn out the same as the first one.
They said it will be difficult for Anbang to convince the judge, unless it comes up with entirely new evidence.
During the first trial, Delaware Vice Chancellor Travis Laster agreed with Mirae Asset's claim that Anbang's legal representative, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, might have attempted to conceal problems with the properties, given the law firm also served as an Anbang adviser when it signed a contract with Mirae Asset in 2019.
“Put bluntly, (Anbang and Gibson Dunn) committed fraud about fraud,” the judge was quoted as saying by Reuters.
Anbang worked with Gibson Dunn and Kim & Chang for the first trial, but there is a possibility the insurer hired different legal representatives for the second trial.
At this moment, the Chinese firm is keeping a low profile regarding this issue.
Before the first trial judgment, Anbang tried to win over the local press by releasing its statements in Korean through a global public relations consultancy, Edelman. However, it has gone virtually silent since it lost in the first trial last November.