[Edaily Marketin YunJi Kim Reporter] OGQ, South Korea’s largest intellectual property (IP) content company, which faces the risk of a forced sale of its founder’s shares due to a dispute with existing investors, has received an “A” rating in a preliminary technology evaluation conducted in preparation for a KOSDAQ listing under the technology exception category. While the company’s technological capabilities and level of commercialization have received positive evaluations from external agencies, the conflict with existing investors over the recovery of their investments shows no signs of resolution. With enforcement proceedings against the founder’s shares continuing, the company is caught between conflicting assessments of its value and a dispute over management control.

According to industry sources on the 17th, OGQ earned an A grade in a preliminary technology evaluation conducted by Korea Evaluation Data (KODATA) on the 13th. This evaluation comprehensively assessed OGQ’s IP-specialized multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) technology and its level of commercialization.

A preliminary technical evaluation is a procedure through which a company assesses its technological capabilities and business viability prior to pursuing a technology-based listing. Unlike a formal technical evaluation, the results of the preliminary evaluation alone do not qualify a company to file for a preliminary listing review. To actually proceed with a technology-based listing, the company must subsequently undergo a formal technical evaluation and the Korea Exchange’s preliminary listing review separately.

Therefore, it is difficult to interpret this Grade A rating as a sign that OGQ’s listing is imminent. However, from the company’s perspective, it is significant that it has received an evaluation above a certain threshold from an external expert organization regarding its technological capabilities and commercialization level.

However, obtaining an A grade in the preliminary technical evaluation does not appear to be changing the dynamics of the dispute with existing investors. The forced sale proceedings regarding CEO Shin Cheol-ho’s personal shares are still ongoing, and it is understood that OGQ and the general partner (GP) have yet to bridge their differences regarding the method of recovering investment funds through a capital reduction with consideration.

Both sides have been in ongoing discussions regarding a plan to return the principal investment through a capital reduction and to settle late payment damages and litigation costs through the sale of CEO Shin’s personal shares. CEO Shin’s side maintains that the investors’ prior consent is required to proceed with the capital reduction and the sale of his personal shares, while the GP side insists that a concrete plan must be established to recover the entire debt, including not only the principal but also late payment damages and litigation costs.

The divergence in their positions persisted in recent correspondence as well. In a reply sent to OGQ on the 12th, the GPs stated that they would decide whether to exercise their voting rights on the relevant agenda item only after a shareholders’ meeting is convened to approve the differential capital reduction. In simpler terms, this means they have not given prior consent to the capital reduction but will decide whether to exercise their voting rights only once the actual shareholders’ meeting is held.

The GPs cited as the basis for this stance the fact that the settlement proposal presented by CEO Shin’s side includes provisions such as a waiver of late interest, a debt repayment deferral of one year or more, a suspension of enforcement proceedings until full debt recovery, and restrictions on the exercise of voting rights. Given that CEO Shin’s debt has been finalized by a Supreme Court ruling, the GPs maintain that it is difficult to accept any terms that would restrict or waive their right to enforce the judgment.

Consequently, enforcement proceedings against CEO Shin’s personal shares are expected to continue for the time being. If a shareholders’ meeting to approve the capital reduction is actually convened, whether the GP exercises its voting rights is likely to become a key variable in future negotiations.

In response, CEO Shin stated, “The company still has the funds to repay the debt, and while consent to the capital reduction is the fastest and surest way to recover the funds, they have ultimately refused to provide the consent form.” He added, “It remains to be seen whether this news of the technology evaluation will further strengthen their resolve to take over the company or whether it will actually lead to consent for the capital reduction.” He concluded by saying, “I will do everything in my power until the very last moment.”