Recent reports indicate that MBK Partners and Youngpoong have retained a major U.S. law firm to lobby on the management rights dispute involving KoreaZinc. They claim the lobbyist was engaged to support the key mineral refining project in Tennessee, where KoreaZinc is a major shareholder.
However, given Youngpoong and MBK’s previous opposition to the Tennessee refinery’s construction, which they labeled a white knight strategy, some speculate they may have ulterior motives.
Industry sources reported on Wednesday that Youngpoong and MBK recently appointed a global law firm operating in the U.S. as their lobbyist. They assert the purpose is to facilitate communication regarding foreign investment in the Tennessee key mineral refinery. Youngpoong and MBK said that as major shareholders, they have a duty to communicate with local stakeholders and provide accurate information, adding that they support KoreaZinc’s U.S. refinery project.
However, critics argue this explanation is difficult to accept at face value. If they were truly supportive, as major shareholders of KoreaZinc, the most logical way to back the company’s large-scale overseas projects would be to collaborate with current management. Hiring a separate lobbyist to operate independently in the U.S. seems counterintuitive.
Notably, Youngpoong and MBK have strongly criticized KoreaZinc’s investment in the Tennessee refinery, claiming it’s a white knight strategy for Chairman Choi Yoon-bum. They’ve argued that the scale of investment and the decision-making process serve as defenses of management rights. In this context, their decision to hire a lobbyist to support the Tennessee refinery project raises questions.
There are concerns that any discord during the construction of the Tennessee refinery, which symbolizes U.S.-South Korea cooperation in the key mineral supply chain, could impact broader bilateral collaboration. President Donald Trump has already threatened to increase mutual tariffs to 25% due to sluggish U.S. investment.
An industry insider said that even amid disputes, attention should stay on the company’s future and national industrial competitiveness, adding that what is needed now is greater focus on the company’s long-term growth.
