This article was displayed on the ChosunBiz MoneyMove (MM) site at 6:33 p.m. on July 1, 2026.
Meritz Financial Group has strongly asked the court to "actively guide and supervise" so that MBK Partners makes a responsible decision regarding Homeplus Co.'s rehabilitation proceedings. The point is that the majority shareholder must first provide a guarantee and the like for the additional DIP financing—the core premise of the amended rehabilitation plan—to materialize. It effectively went beyond the general request to review the feasibility of the plan and unusually called for the court itself to tighten procedural control over the majority shareholder and the examiner.
Industry officials said Meritz's stance may include an intent to revive Homeplus Co., but it is closer to a message to clarify who bears responsibility for bankruptcy.
According to the investment banking (IB) industry on the 1st, Meritz said in a response to the Seoul Bankruptcy Court's request for opinions the previous day, "We respectfully ask the court to actively guide and supervise so that the majority shareholder (MBK Partners) makes a responsible decision, such as providing a guarantee as Meritz requested, to realize the additional DIP financing—the core premise of the amended rehabilitation plan—and, on that premise, the examiner (Samil PwC) objectively and thoroughly reviews the feasibility of the amended rehabilitation plan to devise a way for the debtor to substantively rehabilitate."
The legal community interprets this language as carrying a very strong message. In general opinion inquiries during rehabilitation proceedings, creditors often submit general views such as "please closely review the feasibility of the rehabilitation plan" or "please ensure that creditors' interests are not infringed."
However, Meritz bundled additional DIP financing, a majority shareholder guarantee, the examiner's re-review, and the court's guidance and supervision into de facto preconditions to recognize the feasibility of the amended rehabilitation plan. It emphasized that the success or failure of the amended plan depends on additional funding, and that for that funding to be possible, the majority shareholder must take responsibility by providing a guarantee and the like.
In particular, it is notable that Meritz targeted not only the debtor Homeplus Co. but also the majority shareholder directly. The direct parties to rehabilitation proceedings are the debtor and the creditor, and the majority shareholder does not automatically bear a guarantee obligation for the company's debt. Even so, Meritz's mention of "a responsible decision such as a guarantee provided by the majority shareholder" is interpreted as a demand that, if Homeplus Co.'s rehabilitation is desired, MBK Partners should put up its own credit or asset to increase the certainty of additional financing.
The language aimed at the examiner, Samil PwC, also merits attention. Meritz argued that Samil PwC should objectively and thoroughly review the feasibility of the amended rehabilitation plan. This is interpreted to mean the examiner should not simply trust the debtor's proposed funding plan but verify whether the additional DIP is actually committed or conditional, whether a majority shareholder guarantee is attached, and when execution would occur.
However, the question of whether Meritz will provide additional DIP support is already effectively settled. The industry is suggesting that Homeplus Co.'s bankruptcy is imminent. The stage of weighing whether Meritz will step in with additional funding has already passed.
In this context, the industry interprets Meritz's response less as a simple list of funding conditions and more as a message to clarify responsibility ahead of a possible bankruptcy. While acknowledging that additional DIP financing is the core premise of the amended rehabilitation plan, Meritz made it clear that a responsible decision by the majority shareholder MBK Partners—such as providing a guarantee—is necessary to make it a reality. In other words, if the additional financing falls through, Meritz left the court with the argument that the cause lies not in Meritz's lack of willingness to support but in the majority shareholder's failure to provide sufficient credit enhancement.
MBK Partners has said it has already provided a considerable level of funding and guarantee burdens. The support scale claimed by MBK is about 500 billion won. Specifically, there is a 200 billion won payment guarantee that MBK Partners provided for Homeplus Co.'s debt; 100 billion won provided in the form of personal funds and joint and several guarantees by Chairperson Kim Byung-ju and Vice Chairperson Kim Kwang-il; 100 billion won provided as a DIP loan; and 100 billion won that was recently announced as an additional joint and several guarantee.
A Meritz Financial official said, "The actual cash-like support is only about 40 billion won, and the rest is in the form of loans as administrative claims or replacements of existing guaranteed debt," adding, "MBK Partners and Chairperson Kim need to inject assets."
Meanwhile, on the day, lawmaker Min Byung-deok, who chairs the Democratic Party of Korea's Euljiro Committee, and the Homeplus Co. chapter of the mart union visited the Seoul Bankruptcy Court to urge another extension of the rehabilitation deadline. The deadline for approval of the rehabilitation plan is the 3rd.