SINGLE ENTERPRISE LIABILITY THEORY ON COMPANY GROUPS

Year 2019, , 287 - 360, 15.04.2019

Damla Küçük

https://doi.org/10.30915/abd.556990

Abstract

Company shareholders utilise principles of limited liability and separate legal
entity as much as ultimate shareholders do. However, when group of companies are concerned, these principles, which have been developed considering
the single company and its ultimate shareholder, lose ground in terms of the
benefits that allow them to be accepted, on the other hand disadvantages in
their natures rise. Because of rigid practices arising from their structure, the
traditional theories which are used for piercing the corporate veil as a solution
are attacked due to especially they fails reliefing tort creditors. For this reason,
various theories are laid out; one of which is the theory of single enterprise
liability. According to the theory, the companies that are oriented towards a
common commercial target are accepted as a single enterprise and it is aimed
that group of companies are made responsible as a whole, especially the parent
company

Keywords

Piercing the Corporate Veil, Group of Companies, Enterprise Entity, Parent Company, Subsidiary

Anglo Sakson Hukukunda Şirketler Topluluğunda Tek İşletme Sorumluluğu Teorisi ve Bu Teorinin Türk Hukukundaki Yansımaları

Abstract

Sınırlı sorumluluk ve ayrılık ilkelerinden nihai ortaklar kadar, şirket ortaklar
da yararlanmaktadır. Ancak tek şirket ve onun nihai ortağı göz önüne alınarak
geliştirilen bu ilkeler, şirket toplulukları söz konusu olduğunda bir yandan
kabul edilmelerini sağlayan faydaları bakımından zemin kaybederken, diğer
yandan tabiatlarında olan zararlar da artmaktadır. Çözüm olarak tüzel kişilik
perdesinin kaldırılmasında kullanılan geleneksel teoriler ise bünyelerinden
doğan katı uygulamalar nedeniyle özellikle haksız fiil mağduru alacaklıların
mağduriyetini gidermekte yetersiz oldukları gerekçesiyle eleştirilmektedir. Bu
nedenle, ortaya çeşitli teoriler atılmaktadır ki bunlardan birisi de tek işletme
sorumluluğu teorisidir. Teoriye göre ortak ticari bir hedefe yönelmiş olan şirketler tek bir işletme olarak kabul edilmekte ve hakim şirket başta olmak üzere,
topluluğun bir bütün olarak sorumlu olması hedeflenmektedir. 

Keywords

Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Kaldırılması, Şirketler Topluluğu, İşletme Tüzel Kişiliği, Hakim Şirket, Bağlı Şirket

References

• ALTING, Carsten, “Piercing the Corporate Veil in American and German Law – Liability of Individuals and Entities: A Comparative View”, Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, Vol. 2, 1995, ss. 187 – 251. ANTALYA, Gökhan, “Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Aralanması Teorisi”, Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Aralanması Sempozyumu No: I, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayını, 2008, ss. 143 – 152. ARONOFSKY, David, “Piercing the Transnational Corporate Veil: Trends, Developments, and the Need for Widespread Adoption of Enterprise Analysis”, North Carolina Journal International and Commercial Regulation, Vol. 10–1, 1985, ss. 31 – 86. BACON, Kyle M., “The Single Business Enterprise Theory of Louisiana’s First Circuit: An Erroneous Application of Traditional Veil Piercings”, Louisiana Law Review, Vol. 63–1, 2002, ss. 75 – 110. BAKER, David. S. / KILLINGSWORTH, V. Scott, “An American View Through the Corporate Veil”, International Business Lawyer, Vol. 6, 1978, ss. 267 – 282. BARHAM, Misty Haberer, “The Death of the Single Enterprise Theory: What Now?”, San Antonio Lawyer, 2009, ss. 16 – 17, https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.sanantoniobar.org/resource/resmgr/imported/SingleEnterprise.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.06.2018). BELENZON, Sharon / LEE, Honggi / PATACCONİ, Andrea, “Towards a Legal Theory of the Firm: the Effects of Enterprise Liability on Asset Partitioning, Decentralization and Corporate Group Growth”, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 24720, 2018, http://www.nber.org/papers/w24720.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 01.08.2018). BERLE, Adolf A., “The Theory of Enterprise Entity”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 47–3, 1947, ss. 343 – 358. BLUMBERG, Phillip. I., “Limited Liability and Corporate Groups”, The Journal of Corporation Law, Vol. 11, 1986, ss. 573 – 631. BRABANT, Stéphane / SAVOUREY, Elsa, “Scope of the Law on the Corporate Duty of Vigilance”, http://www.bhrinlaw.org/frenchcorporatedutylaw_articles.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 23.07.2018). BROWN, Nancy. J., “Texas High Court Rejects Single Business Enterprise Theory”, Legal Backgrounder, Vol. 24-2, 2009, ss. 1 – 4, http://wlf.org /upload/1-16-09Brown_LegalBackgrounder.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 21.06.2018). BURGESS, Richard H., “Liability of Parent Corporation for Tort of Subsidiary”, Cleveland State Law Review, Vol. 12, 1963, ss. 177 – 184. BURROWS, Malcolm, “Holding Company Liability for Debts of Subsidiary”, Dundas Lawyers, 2017, https://www.dundaslawyers.com.au/holdingcompany-liability-for-debts-of-subsidiary/ (Erişim Tarihi: 20.07.2018). CAZENAVE, Dean P., “Single Business Enterprise Theory Continues to Gain Ground”, https://www.louisianalawblog.com/business-and-corporate/single-business-enterprise-theory-continues-to-gain-ground/ (Erişim Tarihi: 20.05.2018). CLAUSEN, Nis, “Use of the American Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Argument in Danish Business Law”, International Tax & Business Lawyer,Vol. 5, 1987, ss. 44- 69. DEARBORN, Meredith, “Enterprise Liability: Reviewing and Revitalizing Liability for Corporate Groups”, California Law Review, Vol. 97, 2009, ss. 195 – 261. DE JONGE, Alice de / TOMASIC, Roman (Editors), Research Handbook on Transnational Corporations, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, United Kingdom 2017. DROBLYEN, Eric, “Is Your Company Part of a Controlled Group? You Need to Know or Risk 401(k) Plan Disqualification”, https://www.employeefiduciary.com/blog/is-your-company-part-of-a-controlled-group-you-need-to-know-orrisk-401k-plan-disqualification (Erişim Tarihi: 06.07.2018). DURMUŞ KARATAŞ, Neslihan, “Ticaret Kanunu Kapsamındaki Şirket Toplulukları ve Bunların Vergi Hukuku Karşısındaki Durumları”, Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi, C. I–2, 2015, ss. 71 – 84. EASTERBROOK, Frank H. / FISCHEL, Daniel R., “Limited Liability and the Corporation”, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 52, 1985, ss. 89 – 117. FENG, Xue, Corporate Liability Towards Tort Victims in the Personal Injury Context, Doctora Thesis, Queen Mary University of London, 2017, https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/39748/Feng_X_PhD_final_290518.pdf?sequence=1 (Erişim Tarihi: 21.06.2018). GROSSWALD CURRAN, Vivian, “Harmonizing Multinational Parent Company Liability for Foreign Subsidiary Human Rights Violations”, Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 17- 2, 2016, ss. 403 – 446. HANSMANN, Henry / KRAAKMAN, Reinier, “Toward Unlimited Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts”, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 100, 1991, ss. 1879 – 1934. HERSZBERG, Daniel, “Salomon v. Salomon: Have the Liquidator’s Arguments Been Buried with Time?”, Corporate Governance eJournal, 2017, ss. 1 – 13. HILLMAN, Robert W. / LOEWENSTEIN, Mark J. (Editors), Research Handbook on Partnership, LLC’s and Alternative Forms of Business Organizations, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Great Britain 2015. IBARGUEN, Marcos, The Corporate Entity and Piercing the Corporate Veil, Master of Comparative Jurisprudence, New York University School of Law, 1994, http://www.unis.edu.gt/ap/fetch/corporate-entity-piercing-corporate-veil.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.06.2018). KAHAN, Daniel R., “Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts: A Historical Perspective”, The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 97, 2009, ss. 1085 – 1110. KLEMME, Howard C., “The Enterprise Liability Theory of Torts, University of Colorado Law Review, Vol. 47, 1976, ss. 153 – 232. KOHN, Richard S., “Alternative Methods of Piercing the Corporate Veil in Contract and Tort Cases”, Boston University Law Review, Vol. 48, 1968, ss. 123 – 141. KOKAZ, C. Jocelyne, “Piercing the Corporate Veil: A Comparative Analysis”, Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, C. 30–46, 1996, ss. 25 – 47. KRAVTSOVA, Tetiana / KALINICHENKO, Ganna, “The Vicarious Liability of Parent Company Liability for Its Subsidiary”, Corporate Ownership & Control, Vol. 14-1, 2016, ss. 684 – 691. LANDERST, Jonathan M., “A Unified Approach to Parent, Subsidiary, and Affiliate Questions in Bankruptcy”, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 42–4, 1975, ss. 589 – 652. MATHESON, John H., “The Modern Law of Corporate Groups: An Empirical Study of Piercing the Corporate Veil in the Parent – Subsidiary Context”, North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 87, 2009, ss. 1091 – 1156. (MATHESON, 2009) MATHESON, John H., “The Limits of Business Limited Liability: Entity Veil Piercing and Successor Liability Doctrines”, William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 31, 2004, ss. 411 – 450. (MATHESON, 2004) MATHESON, John H. / OLSON, Brent A., “A Call for A Unified Business Organization Law”, The George Washington Law Review, Vol. 65–1, 1996, ss.1 – 48. MILES, Chris, 10 Corporations Control Almost Everything You Buy — This Chart Shows How, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36743.htm (Erişim Tarihi: 10.05.2018). MONTANO, Marilyn, “The Single Business Enterprise Theory in Texas: A Singularly Bad Idea?”, Baylor Law Review, Vol. 55, 2003, ss. 1163 – 1201. MORGAN, Phillip, “Vicarious Liability for Group Companies: the Final Frontier of Vicarious Liability?”, Journal of Professional Negligence, Vol. 31–4, 2015, ss. 276 – 299. MUCHLINSKI, Peter, “Limited Liability and Multinational Enterprises: A Case for Reform?”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 34, 2010, ss. 915–928. NARÇİN TOSUN, Zelal, “Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Kaldırılması ve Şirketler Topluluğunda Sorumluluk Düzenlemeleriyle Karşılaştırılması”, Terazi Hukuk Dergisi, C. 10–105, 2015, ss. 89 – 103. OKUTAN NILSSON, Gül, Türk Ticaret Kanunu Tasarısı’na Göre Şirketler Topluluğu Hukuku, XII Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2009. (OKUTAN NILSSON, 2009) OKUTAN NILSSON, Gül, “Şirketler Topluluğunda Güvenden Doğan Sorumluluk”, Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, S. 2, 2013, ss. 35 – 54. (OKUTAN NILSSON, 2013) ORN, Philip, Piercing the Corporate Veil – a Law and Economics Analysis, Master Thesis, İsveç, University of Lund Faculty of Law, 2009, https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1563314&fileOId=1566244 (Erişim Tarihi: 03.07.2018). ÖZTEK, Selçuk / MEMİŞ, Tekin, “Şirketler Hukuku ve İcra İflas Hukuku İlkeleri Karşısında Borçlu Şirketin Alacaklılarının Hâkim Ortağa Karşı Korunması”, Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Aralanması Sempozyumu No: I, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayını, 2008, ss. 195 – 216, s. 208, 209. PIERCE, Sarah B., “State Taxation – Unitary Business / Formula Apportionment Tax Accounting Method – Application of a Three Factor Formula to Apportion İncome of Foreign – Parent Corporations for State Tax Reporting Purposes Does Not Violate the Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution – Barclays Bank Int’l, Ltd. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 10 Cal. App. 4th 1742, 14 Cal. RPTR. 2d 537 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992), Modified, Reh’g Denied, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1678A (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)”, Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 23, 1993, ss. 89 – 110. PLEASANT, Daniel B., “Using the Single-Enterprise Doctrine to Hold Sister Corporations Liable”, Plaintiff Magazine, 2013, ss. 1–3, https://www.plaintiffmagazine.com/images/issues/2013/08-august/reprints/Pleasant_Using--the-Single-Enterprise-Doctrine-to-hold-sister-corporations-iable_Plaintiffmagazine.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 01.06.2018). PULAŞLI, Hasan, Şirketler Hukuku Şerhi, C.I, 2. Baskı, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2014. RAMSAY, Ian M. / NOAKES, David B., “Piercing the Corporate Veil in Australia”, Company and Securities Law Journal, Vol. 19, 2001, https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1710089/122-Piercing_the_Corporate_Veil1.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 30.10.2018). SAĞLAM, İpek, “Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Aralanması Kavramına Genel Bir Bakış”, Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Aralanması Sempozyumu No: I, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayını, 2008, ss. 153 – 161. SEVEN, Vural / GÖKSOY Y. Can, “Ticaret Şirketlerinde Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Kaldırılması (Bir Kararın Değerlendirilmesi)”, İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, C. 80–6, 2006, ss. 2455 – 2470. SKINNER, Gwynne, “Parent Company Accountability Ensuring Justice for Human Rights Violations”, The International Corporate Accountability Roundtable (ICAR) Report, 2015, https://justice-project.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/pcap-report-2015.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 09.07.2018). SÖYLEMEZ, Caner, İşletmelerde Temsil Maliyetlerinin Test Edilmesi; Tük İmalat Sektörü Üzerine Ampirik Bir Uygulama, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, 2007, s. 31 vd, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjsk8zPlevfAhVLlSwKHR94CnYQFjAAegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Facikarsiv.ankara.edu. tr%2Fbrowse%2F1764%2F2420.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3MaMYs51QZfH-Y0-Wv73S0 (Erişim Tarihi: 30.12.2018). SØRENSEN, L. A., “Parental Liability for Externalities of Subsidiaries, Domestic and Exraterritorial Approaches”, Dovenschmidt Quarterly (Doi: 10.5553/DQ/221199812014002003003), 2014, ss. 102 – 118. SUSUZ, Kağan, “Şirketler Topluluğuna İlişkin Hükümlerin Uygulama Alanı Bakımından Teşebbüs Kavramı”, 6102 sayılı Yeni Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nu Beklerken 10-11-12 Mayıs 2012, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi Özel Sayı, C. 18 – 2, 2012, ss. 269 – 279. TEKİNALP, Gülören / TEKİNALP, Ünal, “Perdeyi Kaldırma Teorisi”, Reha Poroy’a Armağan, İstanbul, 1995, ss. 387 – 404. TEKİNALP, Ünal, “Türk Ticaret Kanunu Tasarısı’nın Şirketler Topluluğuna İlişkin Düzenlemesinde Kontrol İlkesi”, Hüseyin Hatemiye Armağan, C. II, İstanbul 2009, ss. 1543 – 1556. THOMSON, Robert B., “Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study”, Cornell Law Review, Vol. 76, 1991, ss. 1036 – 1074. ULUCAN, Devrim, “İş Hukukunda Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Kaldırılması, ss. 753 – 760, http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/316385 (Erişim Tarihi: 05.09.2018). YANLI, Veliye, Anonim Ortaklıklarda Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Kaldırılması ve Pay Sahiplerinin Ortaklık Alacaklılarına Karşı Sorumlu Kılınması, Beta Basım, İstanbul. 2000. YILMAZ, Asuman, Türk, İsviçre ve Alman Hukuklarında Şirketler Topluluğuna Güvenden Doğan Sorumluluk, X11 Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2010, s. 145, 146. WRIGHT, Glen, “Risky Business the Case for Enterprise Analysis at the Intersection of Corporate Groups and Torts”, http://www.glenwright.net/files/Glen%20Wright,%20Risky%20Business.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 10.05.2018).
• Mahkeme Kararları
• Yargıtay 19. Hukuk Dairesi , E. 2005/8774, K. 2006/5232, T. 12.05.2006, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 11.08.2018). Yargıtay 19. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2014/7187, K. 2015/4144, T. 24.03.2015, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 11.08.2018). Yargıtay 19. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2016/17898, K. 2017/3683, T. 11.05.2017, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 11.08.2018). Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2016/6300, K. 2018/702, T. 25.01.2018, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 11.08.2018). Yargıtay 23. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2012/4542, K. 2012/5447, T. 26.09.2012, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 13.08.2018). Yargıtay 15. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2016/4881, K. 2018/836, T. 28.02.2018, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 12.08.2018). Yargıtay 19. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2008/718, K. 2008/9343, T. 10.10.2008, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 13.08.2018). Yargıtay 23. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2014/10384, K. 2015/8391, T. 23.12.2015, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 13.08.2018). Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2014/938, K. 2014/13997, T. 17.09.2014, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 13.08.2018). Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2014/3592 K. 2014/6536, T. 03.04.2014, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 11.08.2018). Yargıtay, 23. Hukuk Dairesi., E. 2011/4483, K. 2012/2139, T. 20.03.2012, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 29.12.2018). Yargıtay, 23. Hukuk Dairesi., E. 2011/4350, K. 2012/2137, T. 20.03.2012, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 29.12.2018). Yargıtay, 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2016/3251, K. 2016/6984, T. 23.6.2016, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 29.12.2018). Yargıtay, 9. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2015/12416, K. 2018/7588, T. 4.4.2018, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 29.12.2018) Yargıtay, 9. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2016/23001, K. 2018/104, T. 15.1.2018, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 29.12.2018) Yargıtay Kararı, 9. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2015/6431, K. 2016/22286, T. 15.12.2016, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 29.12.2018). Yargıtay Kararı, 9. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2015/6429, K. 2016/22287, T. 15.12.2016, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 29.12.2018). Yargıtay, 11. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2013/8975, K. 2013/12399, T. 13.06.2013, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 29.12.2018) Yargıtay, 9. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2008/12983, K. 2008/18877, T. 04.07.2008, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 29.12.2018). Yargıtay, 9. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2015/10138, K. 2018/4389, T. 27.2.2018, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 29.12.2018). Yargıtay, 19. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2008/1729, K. 2008/8953, T. 26.09.2008, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 29.12.2018). Danıştay 13. Dairesi, E. 2009/5747, K. 2012/43884, T. 18.12.2012, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 20.08.2018). “Green v. Champion Insurance Company”, Court of Appeal of Louisiana First Circuit ( 577 So.2d 249 (1991)), https://www.leagle.com/decision/1991826577so2d2491581 (Erişim Tarihi: 20.05.2018). “Hall v. Timmons, Court of Appeals of Texas (987 S.W.2d 248 (1999)), https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1533177/hall-v-timmons/ (Erişim Tarihi: 20.06.2018). “Henry Cornelius Grayson, Jr. v. R.B. Ammon and Associates, Inc.”, Court of Appeal of Louisiana First Circuit (No. 99 CA 2597 (2000)), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1099964.html (Erişim Tarihi: 21.05.2018). “Minno v. Pro–Fab, Inc.”, Supreme Court of Ohio (No. 2008-0170 (2009)), https://ohio.lexroll.com/minno-v-pro-fab-inc-121-ohio-st-3d-464-2009/ (Erişim Tarihi: 20.05.2018). “Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes”, United States Supreme Court (445 U.S. 425 (1980)), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/445/425.html (Erişim Tarihi: 05.07.2018). “North American Van Lines Inc v. Emmons”, Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont (No. 09-00-073 CV. (2001)), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-courtof-appeals/1126996.html (Erişim Tarihi: 12.06.2018). “Paramount Petroleum v. Taylor Rental Ctr.”, Court of Appeals of Texas, (712 S.W.2d 534 (1986)), https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2437267/paramount-petroleum-v-taylor-rental-ctr/ (Erişim Tarihi: 12.06.2018). “Sarpy vs. ESAD, Inc.”, Court of Appeal of Louisiana Fourth Circuit (2007-CA-0347 (2007)), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1272914.html (Erişim Tarihi: 02.08.2018). “SSP Partners and Metro Novelties, Inc. v. Gladstrong Investments (USA) Corporation”, Supreme Court of Texas (No. 05-0721 (2009), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-supreme-court/1225463.html (Erişim Tarihi: 20.06.2018). “United Nations Sub-Commission Norms on Business & Human Rights: Explanatory Materials”, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/unitednations-sub-commission-norms-on-business-human-rights-explanatorymaterials (Erişim Tarihi: 20.05.2018). “United States of America v. Jon-t Chemicals, Inc., and Lewis M. Overton, Jr., Receiverfor Jon-t Chemicals, Inc.”, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (768 F.2d 686 (1985)), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/768/686/407913/ (Erişim Tarihi: 09.06.2018). “Walkovsky v. Carlton”, Court of Appeals of New York (18 NY2d 414 (1966)), https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/walkovszky_carlton.htm (Erişim Tarihi: 18.06.2018).
• Diğer Kaynaklar
• “Glossary of Tax Terms / Unitary Tax System”, http://www.oecd.org/ctp/glossaryoftaxterms.htm (Erişim Tarihi: .10.2018). Corporations Act 2001 / Chapter 5 / Part 5.7B / Division 5- 588V, Section 588V, http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s588v.html (Erişim Tarihi: 20.07.2018). http://tureng.com/tr/turkce-ingilizce/sham (Erişim Tarihi: 16.10.2018). Rekabet Kurulu, K. 10-78/1643-608, T. 16.12.2010, s. 14 vd; Rekabet Kurulu, K. 10-78/1645-609, T. 16.12.2010 sayılı karar, s. 38 vd, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 20.08.2018). Rekabet Kurulu, K. 14-15/277-119, T. 16.04.2014 sayılı karar, s. 59, www.lexpera.com.tr... (Erişim Tarihi: 20.08.2018). United States Code / Title 26 / Subtitle A / Chapter 6 / Subchapter B / Part II §1563, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1563 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.07.2018). United States Code / General Provisions / Chapter 18 / Subchapter III / Subtitle D § 1362, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1362 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.07.2018). United States Code / Title 26 / Subtitle A / Chapter 1 / Subchapter D / Part I / Subpart B § 414, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/414 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.07.2018). Türk Ticaret Kanunu Tasarısı, Şirketler Topluluğu 195 ila 209. Maddelerle İlgili Genel Açıklamalar, s. 70 vd, http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d22/1/1-1138.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 12.08.2018)).