Last week, Taishin Financial Holding Co and the Ministry of Finance announced that they had settled a dispute over state-run Chang Hwa Commercial Bank’s management rights, with Taishin Financial withdrawing its Supreme Court case against the ministry. Taishin Financial also sold 1.048 billion Chang Hwa Bank shares to other financial institutions for NT$19.09 billion (US$636.97 million), or NT$18.2 per share, in a block trade, the company said in a regulatory filing. The agreement ended a 17-year dispute, but at great cost.
In 2005, Taishin Financial outbid six competitors to purchase Chang Hwa Bank’s 1.4 billion special shares for NT$36.57 billion, or NT$26.12 per share. The deal gave it a controlling 22.5 percent stake in then-debt-ridden Chang Hwa, making it the bank’s largest shareholder. The ministry was the second-largest shareholder with a roughly 20 percent stake. Ideally, the deal should have had synergic benefits, as the state-run lender had a solid foothold in corporate lending and Taishin Financial’s banking arm, Taishin International Bank, had expertise in consumer banking, fixed income and wealth management.
However, this supposedly ideal match was never to be; Taishin Financial and the ministry have never been at peace with one another regarding the makeup of Chang Hwa’s nine-member board or with Taishin Financial’s plan to merge Chang Hwa with Taishin International Bank. Instead, boardroom showdowns between the two in 2014, 2017 and 2020 indicated they were simply not on the same page, with the tensions spilling over from one board election to the next.
This high-profile deal has revealed the fragility of public-private partnerships in the financial sector: Following the change of political power in Taiwan in 2008, the ministry withdrew its support for Taishin Financial to secure a board majority and control of Chang Hwa. It also highlights the government’s failure to observe the principles of good corporate governance, with its breach of contract harming the nation’s reputation in global capital markets.
The lengthy litigation also hurt Taishin Financial’s business development, causing it to miss an opportunity to expand its financial profile at a time when several other financial holding companies, such as Cathay Financial Holding Co, Fubon Financial Holding Co and CTBC Financial Holding Co, grew through mergers and acquisitions.
Perhaps seeing that the case had reached a point where it could not be dragged out any longer, Taishin Financial in 2020 announced that it would sell Chang Hwa shares to fund its NT$5.5 billion acquisition of Prudential Life Insurance Co of Taiwan. The company last year also pledged to the Financial Supervisory Commission that it would sell its Chang Hwa shares within six years and would not nominate new board members or exercise its voting rights in the state-run bank’s board elections as long as the commission approved its bid for Prudential’s local unit.
It is welcome news that the ministry and Taishin Financial, with the arbitration of Supreme Court judges over the past year, have finally reached a satisfactory consensus. The court said in a news release last week that the settlement was a win-win for both sides and was a successful example of the court’s mediation mechanism.
However, how many years can a company be expected to squander on a single deal? How does this saga affect people’s perception of the government? This win-win actually has a price for all.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS