Meritz Financial Group pushed back hard against MBK Partners' position on supporting the rehabilitation of Homeplus Co., saying it is shifting the responsibility for the controlling shareholder's management failure onto the creditor group.
Meritz issued a statement on the 19th, saying, "The largest shareholder, which has ample financial capacity, is claiming as if it lacks funds and is shifting the responsibility needed for Homeplus Co.'s rehabilitation onto creditors," and emphasized, "If it is confident in Homeplus Co.'s chances of rehabilitation, there is no reason to refuse a payment guarantee."
Meritz argued that MBK Partners has sufficient financial capacity. It said four of MBK's major funds have generated more than 4 trillion won in revenue over the past 10 years, and the fund used for the Homeplus Co. investment also posted more than 1 trillion won in revenue. It further estimated that MBK received a total of $820 million (about 1.23 trillion won) in the course of fund management, including about $300 million in management fees and about $500 million in performance fees.
It also refuted the claim that MBK injected 400 billion won to normalize Homeplus Co. The first 60 billion won and second 100 billion won in DIP support were guarantees rather than direct cash injections, and the subsequent 200 billion won was likewise a payment guarantee for interest on borrowing fund incurred before the rehabilitation filing. Meritz viewed MBK's cash injection as only around 40 billion won.
Meritz also denied the claim that it wants Homeplus Co. to be liquidated. Meritz said, "The ultimate goal is the rehabilitation of Homeplus Co., and recovering claims through a normal rehabilitation is the most desirable scenario," and countered, "Because DIP financing is financial support in which Meritz bears the possibility of additional losses, it is a natural decision for a financial institution to demand payment guarantees from MBK and Chair Kim Byung-ju as a minimum safeguard."
It added, "If liquidation proceeds, it will be hard to guarantee full recovery of principal and interest due to declines in real estate value, the emergence of tenants' damages claims, expense of dispositions, and lengthy sale procedures," and emphasized, "The claim that applying a 20% annual arrears interest on the premise of liquidation would yield 516.1 billion won in excess revenue is an unrealistic calculation."