IBK Corporate Bank Opposes KT&G Executive Appointments

News by 2FIRSTS.ai
Mar.13.2024
IBK Corporate Bank Opposes KT&G Executive Appointments
IBK Corporate Bank opposes nominations of KT&G executives, calling for better corporate governance structure with independent directors.

According to South Korean media outlet Naver, IBK Corporate Bank officially announced its opposition to the appointment of Bang Kyung-man and others recommended by the KT&G board as directors.

 

The industrial bank emphasized that as the largest shareholder of KT&G, they have put forth a shareholder proposal opposing such nominations, and are urging other shareholders to join their stance.

 

Finance industry professionals say that industrial banks hope to improve the governance structure of companies by enhancing the professionalism and independence of the board of directors. They are urging other shareholders to oppose the appointment of Bang Kyung-man and Lin Minkui, while supporting the candidate recommended by the industrial bank, Choi Dong-hwan. It is understood that these measures may be aimed at preventing Bang Kyung-man from being appointed as the representative of KT&G at the upcoming shareholders' meeting.

 

With the appointment of Bang Kyung-man, KT&G's operating profit has decreased by 20%, and issues such as overseas business trips have become a focus for the company. IBK Industrial Bank has expressed strong dissatisfaction with this and stated that KT&G's external directors were reappointed without adequately addressing market concerns, increasing the power of external directors and creating a clear conflict with the goal of increasing industrial value.

 

We welcome news tips, article submissions, interview requests, or comments on this piece.

Please contact us at info@2firsts.com, or reach out to Alan Zhao, CEO of 2Firsts, on LinkedIn


Notice

1.  This article is intended solely for professional research purposes related to industry, technology, and policy. Any references to brands or products are made purely for objective description and do not constitute any form of endorsement, recommendation, or promotion by 2Firsts.

2.  The use of nicotine-containing products — including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, nicotine pouchand heated tobacco products — carries significant health risks. Users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations in their respective jurisdictions.

3.  This article is not intended to serve as the basis for any investment decisions or financial advice. 2Firsts assumes no direct or indirect liability for any inaccuracies or errors in the content.

4.  Access to this article is strictly prohibited for individuals below the legal age in their jurisdiction.

 

Copyright

 

This article is either an original work created by 2Firsts or a reproduction from third-party sources with proper attribution. All copyrights and usage rights belong to 2Firsts or the original content provider. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or any other form of unauthorized use by any individual or organization is strictly prohibited. Violators will be held legally accountable.

For copyright-related inquiries, please contact: info@2firsts.com

 

AI Assistance Disclaimer

 

This article may have been enhanced using AI tools to improve translation and editorial efficiency. However, due to technical limitations, inaccuracies may occur. Readers are encouraged to refer to the cited sources for the most accurate information.

We welcome any corrections or feedback. Please contact us at: info@2firsts.com

U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
U.S. Fifth Circuit Vacates NicQuid Vape MDO, Says FDA Comparative-Efficacy Standard Violated APA Procedures
According to VitalLaw on August 27, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated an FDA marketing denial order (MDO) against NicQuid LLC, ruling that the agency’s comparative-efficacy standard for electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) applications had become a substantive rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court did not reject FDA’s authority to compare the public health benefits and risks of flavored vapes, but held that the agency could not establish a broadly binding standard through informal adjudications. The case was remanded to FDA for further proceedings.
Aug.28
Imperial Brands Acquires Helwit Owner Yoik Group for SEK 515 Million, More Than Doubling Swedish Nicotine Pouch Share
Imperial Brands Acquires Helwit Owner Yoik Group for SEK 515 Million, More Than Doubling Swedish Nicotine Pouch Share
Imperial Brands has agreed to acquire 100% of Swedish modern oral nicotine company Yoik Group AB for an initial SEK515 million, equivalent to about US$53.9 million, plus a deferred payment linked to performance over the next two years. Yoik owns nicotine pouch brand Helwit, which held about 3.4% of Sweden’s modern oral nicotine market over the past 12 months. Imperial says the acquisition will more than double its existing share of the Swedish market. Helwit is also sold elsewhere in the Nordics, through European online channels and in selected UK retail outlets.
Sep.08
Juul Sublicense Reshapes Vuse Alto Patent Bill as Court Ends R.J. Reynolds’ 5.25% Royalty Obligation to Altria
Juul Sublicense Reshapes Vuse Alto Patent Bill as Court Ends R.J. Reynolds’ 5.25% Royalty Obligation to Altria
According to Law360 on August 31, 2026, a federal judge in North Carolina ruled that a patent sublicense between R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and Juul Labs Inc. relieves Reynolds of its obligation to continue paying royalties to Altria Client Services LLC over Vuse Alto. A jury had previously found that Vuse Alto infringed three Altria patents and awarded approximately $95.2 million in past damages, after which Reynolds was ordered to pay an ongoing royalty equal to 5.25% of positive net sales. The new ruling finds that a valid sublicense can eliminate future infringement, potentially ending what Altria described as hundreds of millions of dollars in future royalties.
Sep.01
How Many Nicotine Pouch Factories Does Europe Need? 2Firsts Interviews AIRSCREAM on the OEM Market
How Many Nicotine Pouch Factories Does Europe Need? 2Firsts Interviews AIRSCREAM on the OEM Market
At InterTabac 2026, nicotine pouch growth was visible not only in brands but across equipment, raw materials and OEM manufacturing. 2Firsts interviewed AIRSCREAM commercial head Steve Moore on how many pouch factories Europe may ultimately need and where manufacturers can differentiate, from formulation and flavour to pouch materials, production consistency and customer service. The category continues to expand, but questions remain over future capacity, consolidation and the long-term structure of the supply chain.
Sep.18
Indiana’s Foreign-Made Vape Ban Takes Effect, Forcing Brands and Retailers to Adjust Supply Chains
Indiana’s Foreign-Made Vape Ban Takes Effect, Forcing Brands and Retailers to Adjust Supply Chains
A new Indiana law restricting the sale of foreign-made vape products has taken effect, requiring retailers to adjust inventory and sourcing practices. According to The Sun, WDRB and other reports, some local vape shops are reviewing product origins and supplier information to comply with the new requirements. The measure represents a broader shift in U.S. vape regulation, with oversight expanding beyond product authorization and sales rules toward manufacturing origin and supply-chain management.
Jul.24
U.S. Ninth Circuit Upholds FDA Denial of MH Global’s Flavored Vape PMTA Applications
U.S. Ninth Circuit Upholds FDA Denial of MH Global’s Flavored Vape PMTA Applications
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the FDA’s denial of MH Global LLC’s applications to market flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). The court ruled that FDA’s comparative-efficacy framework, which requires applicants to show that flavored products provide greater cessation or switching benefits than tobacco-flavored alternatives, is consistent with the Tobacco Control Act’s “appropriate for the protection of the public health” standard. The court also found that FDA was not required to establish the framework through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Aug.26