DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE PRINCIPLE OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 265 - 282, 31.12.2020

Meltem Karatepe Kaya

Öz

This article analyses the arguments of those
who do not necessarily agree with certain rights to be
granted to the minority shareholders in companies to
protect their interests. Following the presentation of
those arguments, the attention will be given on
opposite views in this regard to understand the
necessity of the existence of minority shareholder
protection. Since majority shareholders have higher
percentage of the capital, so that the voting powers,
their approach unfortunately ignores the rights of
minority shareholders in most cases. This abusive
approach of majority shareholders affects the interests
of minority shareholders and companies in a negative
way. In addition, whole national economy is adversely
affected from this situation. To find a solution for this
problem, inclusive protection is provided to minority
shareholders.
With regard to this situation, while inclusive
protection is provided for minority shareholders to
gain an adequate remedy, there should nevertheless be
a legal framework which prevents majority
shareholders’ misuse of their corporate powers. In this
article, the principle of minority shareholder protection
will also be considered in the light of Turkish and
English company law to see how different jurisdictions
found the solutions for similar problems regarding
minority shareholders.

Anahtar Kelimeler

minority shareholder protection, majority shareholders, Turkish Commercial Code, UK Companies Act of 2006

AZINLIK PAY SAHİPLERİNİN KORUNMASI İLKESİNE YÖNELİK TARTIŞMALAR

Öz

Bu makale, azınlık pay sahiplerinin menfaatlerini korumak için onlara tanınan hakların gerekliliğine ilişkin öğretide yer alan farklı tartışmalara yer vermektedir. Öncelikle azınlık hissedarların korunmasının gerekliliğine karşı geliştirilen argümanlara yer verilecek sonrasında ise karşıt görüş olarak azınlıkların korunması gerektiğini savunan görüşler ve gerekçeleri sunulacaktır. Çoğunluk paylara sahip olan pay sahipleri şirkette sahip oldukları yüksek oy oranı ve bu kapsamda sahip oldukları yetkiler ile azınlık hissedarların haklarını göz ardı edebilmektedir
ve bu durum azınlık pay sahipleri üzerinde olumsuz sonuçlar doğurmaktadır. Hatta geniş çerçevede düşünüldüğünde bu durumun ülke ekonomisine bile olumsuz yansımaları olabilmektedir. İşte bu olumsuz etkileri bertaraf edebilmek için azınlık pay sahiplerine kapsamlı bir koruma sağlanmaktadır. Ancak, sadece azınlıkların koruması yeterli olmayıp, şirkette payların çoğunluğuna sahip olan çoğunluk pay sahiplerinin de şirketteki yetkilerini kötüye kullanmalarının önüne geçmek için düzenlemeler yapılması gerekmektedir. Bu makalede, azınlık pay sahiplerinin karşılaşabileceği benzer sorunlara farklı hukuk sistemlerinde nasıl çözümler bulduğunu görmek için azınlık hissedarların korunması ilkesi Türk şirketler hukuku ve İngiliz şirketler hukuku kapsamında ele alınacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

azınlık pay sahiplerinin korunması, çoğunluk pay sahipleri, Türk Ticaret Kanunu, 2006 İngiliz Şirketler Kanunu

Kaynakça

• Ararat, Melsa&Uğur, Mehmet (2003), `Corporate Governance in Turkey: An Overview and Some Policy Recommendations` Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, V:3.
• Briano-Turrent, Guadalupe del Carmen& Rodríguez-Ariza, Lázaro (2016), 'Corporate Governance Ratings on Listed Companies: An Institutional Perspective in Latin America', European Journal of Management and Business Economics, V:25.
• Brown Richard E (2005), 'Enron/Andersen: Crisis in U.S. Accounting and Lessons for Government', Public Budgeting & Finance, V:25.
• Çamoglu, Ersin (2010), Anonim Ortaklık Yönetim Kurulu Üyelerinin Hukuki Sorumluluğu / The Liability of Directors in Joint Stock Companies, 1. Edition, Vedat Press, İstanbul.
• Cheffins, Brian (2000) 'Minority Shareholders and Corporate Governance' Company Lawyer, V:21, p. 41.
• Dahya, Jay& Dimitrov Orlin& McConnell John J. (2008), 'Dominant Shareholders, Corporate Boards, and Corporate Value: A Cross-Country Analysis', Journal of Financial Economics V:87.
• Dignam, Alan (2011), Andrew Hicks and S.H. Goo, Hicks & Goo's Cases and Materials on Company Law, 7. Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Engin, Cem&Golluce, Esra (2016), 'Küresel Finans Krizi ve Türkiye Üzerine Yansımaları / The Global Financial Crisis in 2008 and Its Reflections on Turkey' Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, V:1.
• Erdem, Nuri (2019), Anonim Ortaklığın Haklı Sebeple Feshi, 2. Edition, Vedat Press, İstanbul.
• Hallington, Robin (2007), 'Oppression of Minority Shareholders: Reflections on Blisset v Daniel', Denning Law Journal, V:19.
• Hannigan, Brenda (2009), ‘Drawing boundaries between derivative claims and unfairly prejudicial petitions’, Journal of Business Law, V:6.
• Jeeballah, A Abubaker (2016)., 'To What Extent Does The Libyan Shareholder Protection Regime Offer Equivalent Protection To That Found In Similar Selected Corporate Law Systems?', Ph.D thesis, Lancaster University.
• Joffe, Victor (2008), Minority Shareholders, 1. Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Keay Andrew (2015), 'Assessing and Rethinking the Statutory Scheme for Derivative Actions under the Companies Act 2006', Journal of Corporate Law Studies, V:16.
• Keay, Andrew & Loughrey, Joan (2010), 'Derivative Proceedings in a Brave New World for Company Management and Shareholders', Journal of Business Law, V:3.
• Kershaw, David (2015), ‘The Rule in Foss v Harbottle is Dead: Long Live the Rule in Foss v Harbottle’, Journal of Business Law.
• Kılınç, Pınar Buket (2012), 'Development of Corporate Governance, the Corporate Governance Approach of the Banking Sector, and the Effects of Corporate Governance on the Financial Structure of the Banking Sector's Companies: Research on the ISE 100 Index and the ISE Corporate Governance Index (XKURY)' (Masters, University of Hamburg, 2012).
• Kim, Kenneth A.& KitsabunnaratChatjuthamard P & Nofsinger John R. (2007), 'Large Shareholders, Board Independence, and Minority Shareholder Rights: Evidence from Europe', Journal of Corporate Finance, V:13.
• La Porta, Rafael& Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio& Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W. (1998), ‘Law and Finance’, Journal of Political Economy, V:106.
• Lazarides, Themistokles G. (2010), 'Minority Shareholder Choices and Rights in the New Market Environment', The IUP Journal of Corporate and Securities Law, V:7.
• Leuz, Christian (2003), ‘Dhananjay Nanda and Peter D Wysocki, 'Earnings Management and Investor Protection: An International Comparison', Journal of Financial Economics, V:69.
• Mayson, Stephen W& French Derek & Ryan Christopher (2007), Mayson, French & Ryan On Company Law, 24. Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Milman, David (2015), ‘Shareholder Law: Recent Developments in Practice’ Company Law Newsletter, V:378.
• Payne, Jennifer (2005), `Sections 459–461 Companies Act 1985 in Flux: The Future of Shareholder Protection’, The Cambridge Law Journal V:64.
• Pettet, Ben (2005), Company Law, 2. Edition, London, Pearson Education Limited.
• Pulaşlı, Hasan (2018), Şirketler Hukuku Şerhi, 3. Edition, Ankara, Adalet Press.
• Raja, Khurram Parvez (2012), ‘Corporate Governance and Minority Shareholders' Rights and Interests in Pakistan: A Case for Reform’ International Company and Commercial Law Review, V:23, I:10.
• Reisberg, Arad (2007), Derivative Actions and Corporate Governance, 2. Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Sarkar, Prabirjit (2017), `Common law vs. Civil law: which system provides more protection to shareholders and promotes financial development?`, Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, V:2.
• Sharar, Zain (2010) 2Minority Shareholders' Remedies in Public Shareholding Companies: Comparing the State of Qatar and Australia2 Corporate Governance e-Journal, 3.
• Siems, Mathias M (2008), 'Shareholder Protection around the World ('Leximetric II')', University of Cambridge, CBR Working Paper, V:359.
• Tan, Zhong Xing (2014), 'Unfair Prejudice from Beyond, Beyond Unfair Prejudice: Amplifying Minority Protection in Corporate Group Structures', Journal of Corporate Law Studies, V:14.
• Tekinalp, Ünal (1974), ‘Türk Ticaret Kanunundaki Boşluk: Anonim Ortaklığın Feshi, Çoğunluk Gücünün Kötüye Kullanılmasına Karşı Etkili Bir Araç’ İktisat ve Maliye Dergisi, V:21.
• Tekinalp, Ünal (2013), 'Anonim Ortaklıgın Haklı Sebeplerle Feshi Davasının Bazı Usulî Sorunları', Ersin Çamoglu'na Armağan, 1. Edition, Vedat Press, İstanbul.
• Tuzcu, Arcan (2004), 'The Corporate Governance Approach of Istanbul Stock Exchange Companies' The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, V:35.
• Ulusoy, Erol (2016), Anonim Şirketlerde Bireysel ve Azınlık Pay Sahibi Hakları, 2. Edition, Bilge Press, İstanbul. UK Cases
• 'Companies Register Activities 2017 To 2018' (GOV.UK, 2018) <https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/companies-registeractivities-statistical-release-2017-to-2018/ companies-register-activities-2017-to-2018> accessed 07/05/2020.
• Kirkpatrick, Grant (2009), 'The Corporate Governance Lessons from the Financial Crisis' (Oecd.org) <https://www.oecd.org/finance/financialmarkets/42229620.pdf> accessed 07 May 2020.
• Organisation for Economic Co- Operation and Development (OECD), ‘OECD Principles of Corporate Governance’ (2004) http://www.oecd.org/ corporate/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/31557 724.pdf. accessed 07/05/2020.
• Ungureanu, Mihaela (2012), 'Models and Practices of Corporate Governance Worldwide' (Ceswp.uaic.ro) <http://ceswp.uaic.ro/articles/ CESWP2012_IV3a_UNG.pdf> accessed 07 May 2020.
• Uygur Ercan (2010), 'The Global Crisis and the Turkish Economy' <http://www.tek.org.tr/ dosyalar/TURKEY-UYGUR-FF.pdf> accessed 07 May 2020.
• World Bank Group (2014), 'Why It Matters' <http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/ exploretopics/protecting-minority-investors/whymatters> accessed 07 May 2020.
• Law Commission, “Shareholder Remedies” (Law Com. No 246, Cm. 3769, 1997).