Resumen de South Korea: : Investment prospectus snags
In late 2013, the Supreme Court rendered a decision involving the issue of whether the contents of an investment prospectus is contractually binding if it differs from the contents of the trust agreement provided to the investor under an investment trust agreement. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed damages against financial companies on the grounds that the asset management company, without the plaintiffs' prior consent, changed the transaction counterparty to Lehman Brothers Asia, which was different to that stated in the investment prospectus. Further, they stated that the sales companies sold more than W20 billion ($18.5 million) of beneficiary certificates for the fund without considering the possibility of such change in transaction counterparties, and therefore, since the plaintiffs were provided information which made it impossible for them to be aware of the relevant facts (due to the different investment subject and investment limit from those contained in the investment prospectus) such acts constituted tortious conduct and default of contractual obligations.
