TÜRK VE İNGİLİZ HUKUK SİSTEMLERİ ÇERÇEVESİNDE GENEL KURUL KARARLARININ İPTALİ DAVASININ HUKUKİ, EKONOMİK VE YAPISAL ÖZELLİKLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ANALİZİ

Yıl 2023, Sayı: 2, 493 - 533, 31.07.2023

Yavuz Selim Günay

https://doi.org/10.33432/ybuhukuk.1267056

Öz

Anonim şirketlerde azlık pay sahiplerinin korunması ve genel kurul kararlarının iptali bakımından İngiliz ve Türk hukuk sistemleri farklı yaklaşımlara sahiptir. Bu farklılıkların tarih, ekonomi gibi önemli yapısal sebepleri olmakla birlikte hem şirketler hem de hukuk sistemleri bakımından önemli ekonomik ve hukuki sonuçlar doğurmaktadır. Türk ve İngiliz hukuk sistemleri arasındaki bu farklılıkların anlaşılabilmesi için bu kurumlara ilişkin hukuki analizin yanı sıra ekonomik ve kültürel analizin de gerçekleşleştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Genel kurul kararlarının iptali bakımından Türk hukuku ile İngiliz hukuku arasındaki farklılıkların temel sebebi olarak bu ülkelerde kurulmuş olan şirketlerin pay sahipliği yapısı ön plana çıkmaktadır. İngiliz hukukunda tarihsel olarak yer alan azlığın sözleşmesel yöntemlerle korunması ile ilgili hukuki kurumlar ve pay sahipliğinin hukuki niteliğine ilişkin olarak her iki hukuk sistemi arasındaki yaklaşım farkı ise ön plana çıkan diğer bir sebeptir. Genel kurul kararlarının iptali davaları bakımından her iki hukuk sistemi arasındaki farkların hukuki ve ekonomik etkinlik analizlerinin gerçekleştirilmesi de önem arz etmektedir. İngiliz hukuk sisteminin genel kurul iptâli davalarının neticeleri bakımından ekonomik olarak daha etkin olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Bununla birlikte, içerdiği belirsizlikler ve karmaşıklıklar dolayısıyla İngiliz hukuk sistemi genel kurul kararlarının iptâli davalarının hukuki etkinliği bakımından daha az etkin olarak nitelendirilebilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Genel Kurul Kararı, Azlığın Korunması, Menfaat Çatışması, Pay Sahipliği Yapısı, Hissedarlık Davaları, Pay Sahipliği Hakları, Hukukun Ekonomik Analizi

A Comparative Legal, Economic and Structural Analysis of Challenging Shareholders’ Resolutions Under Turkish and English Legal Systems

Öz

English law system and Turkish law systems have different approaches to protection of shareholders and challenging shareholder resolutions. These differences have important historical, economic background reasons and also economic and legal outcomes. In order to understand reasons for these differences an economic as well as a legal and cultural analysis should be conducted. Difference in the corporate ownership structures of these legal systems is the primary underlying reason; effective ex ante contractual minority protection mechanisms under English legal system is the second reason, and finally differences in legal nature of shareholder rights under these law systems is the third reason for the different approaches of these legal systems towards challenging shareholder resolutions. It is also important to analyze the legal and economic efficiency of the two legal systems in terms of challenging shareholders resolutions. Considering applicable legal institutions regarding challenging shareholders resolutions, it is possible to say that the English legal system is economically more efficient however due to the uncertainties and complexities involved, the English legal system can be characterized as legally less efficient.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Shareholder’s Resolutions, Minority Protection, Agency Conflict, Corporate Ownership Structure, Shareholder Litigation, Economic Analysis of Law, Shareholder Rights

Kaynakça

• Austin, Robert P./Ramsay, Ian M./Ford, Harold Arthur John (2013) Ford’s Principles of Corporations Law, 15. edn, LexisNexis.
• Ayhan, R., Çağlar, H., Özdamar, M. (2023) Şirketler Hukuku Genel Esaslar, Yetkin Yayınevi, Ankara.
• Ayoğlu, Tolga (2018) Sermaye Şirketleri Özelinde Şirketler Hukuku Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümünde Tahkim, İstanbul, On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
• Barker, Roger/Chiu, Iris H-Y. (2015) “Protecting Minority Shareholders in Blockholder-Controlled Companies: Evaluating the UK’s Enhanced Listing Regime in Comparison with Investor Protection Regimes in New York and Hong Kong”, Capital Markets Law Journal, Vol: 10, No: 1, pp. 98-132.
• Bebchuk, Lucian Arye/ Roe, Mark J. (1999) “A Theory of Path Dependence in Corporate Ownership and Governance”, Stanford Law Review, Vol: 52, pp. 127-170.
• Berle, Adolf A./ C. Means, Gardiner (1933) The Modern Corporation and Private Property, Macmillan Co. New York.
• Blackaby, Nigel/ Partasides, Constantine/ Redfern, Alan/ Hunter, Martin (2015) Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 6. edn, Oxford University Press.
• Cahn, Andreas/ Donald /David C. (2010) Comparative Company Law: Text and Cases on the Laws Governing Corporations in Germany, the UK and the USA, Cambridge University Press.
• Davies, Paul. L./Worthington, Sarah/ Micheler, Eva (2012) Gower and Davies' Principles of Modern Company Law, Vol: 20088, Sweet&Maxwell, London.
• Demirkol, Berk (2012) “Pay Sahipleri Sözleşmesi ile Getirilen Pay Devir Kısıtlamaları”, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Özel Sayı: Prof. Dr. Duygun Yarsuvat’a Armağan, İstanbul, V: IX, N: 2, p. 851-883.
• Dowson, Ian J./Stephenson, IS (1993) The Protection of Minority Shareholders, Tolley Publishing.
• Dyck, Alexander/ Zingales, Luigi (2002) “Private Benefits of Control: An International Comparison”, NBRA Working Paper Series, Working Paper 8711.
• Esin, İsmail G. (2020) Birleşme ve Devralmalar, İstanbul, On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
• Erdoğan, Ersin (2017) “Yapma Borçlarının İcrası ve Bazı Temel Sorunlar”, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, Vol: 77, No: 52, pp. 145-175.
• Ergün, Mevci (2021) Anonim Şirketler Hukuku, Ankara, Yetkin Yayınları.
• Feldman, Yuval/ Harel, Alon (2008) “Social Norms, Self-Interest and Ambiguity of Legal Norms: An Experimental Analysis of the Rule vs. Standard Dilemma”, Review of Law and Economics, Vol: 4, No: 1, pp. 81-126.
• Feldman, Yuval/ Lifshitz, Shahar (2011) “Behind the Veil of Legal Uncertainty”, Law and Contemporary Problems, 74.
• French, Derek/ Mayson, Stephen/ Ryan, Christopher (1973) Mayson, French & Ryan on Company Law, 29. edn, Oxford University Press.
• FitzGerald, Sean/ Muth, Graham (2012) Shareholders’ Agreements, Sweet & Maxwell.
• Gedajlovic, Eric R./Shapiro, Daniel M. (1998) “Management and Ownership Effects: Evidence from Five Countries’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol: 19, No: 6, pp. 533-553.
• Gilson, Ronald J/Schwartz, Alan (2012) “Contracting About Private Benefits of Control”, Columbia University Center for Law & Economics Studies Law & Economics Research Paper No: 436.
• Göktürk, Kürşat (2017) “Anonim Şirket Pay Sahipliği Haklarının Kullanılmasında Muhalefet Şartı”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, V: 8 N: 2, p. 53-78.
• Griffin, Stephen (2011) “Case Comment: The Primacy Afforded to an Arbitration Agreement in the Context of a Petition Against Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct”, Sweet and Maxwell’s Company Law Newsletter, No: 305, pp. 1-4.
• Grundmann, Stefan (2011) European Company Law, Organization, Finance and Capital Markets, 2. edn, Intersentia Press.
• Günther, Konstantin/Roth, Barbara (2005) “Why Germany Needs Shareholders Reform”, International Financial Law Review, Vol: 24, pp. 17.
• Gürsoy, Güner/Aydoğan, Kürşat (2002) “Equity Ownership Structure, Risk-Taking and Performance: An Empirical Investigation in Turkish Companies”, Emerging Markets, Finance & Trade, Vol: 38, No: 6, p. 6-6.
• Hannigan, Brenda (2007) “Altering the Articles to Allow for Compulsory Transfer - Dragging Minority Shareholders to a Reluctant Exit”, Journal of Business Law, pp. 471-501.
• Hannigan, Brenda (2016) Company Law, Oxford University Press, USA.
• Hollington, Robin (2013) Hollington on Shareholders’ Rights, 7. edn, Sweet & Maxwell.
• Joffe, Victor/ Drake, David/ Richardson, Giles/ Lightman, Daniel/ Collingwood, Timothy (2015) Minority Shareholders: Law, Practice and Procedure, 4. edn, Oxford University Press.
• Karasu, Rauf (2014) "6402 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu'na Göre Anonim Şirketlerde Emredici Hükümler İlkesi", Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol: 18, No: 2, pp. 311-332.
• Kaya, Mustafa İsmail (2014) “Pay Sahiplerinin Anonim Şirket Genel Kurulunda Temsil Edilmesi”, Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi, V: 30, N: 4, p. 45-95.
• Kerem, Bilge (2017) Pay Sahipleri Sözleşmesi Kapsamında Anonim Şirketlerde Pay Devrinin Kısıtlanması, İstanbul, On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
• Kershaw, David (2012) Company Law in Context: Text and Materials, Oxford University Press.
• Kersting, Christian (2015) “The Role of Shareholders in Public Companies in Germany” in Holger Fleischer, Jesper Lau Hansen, Wolf -Geroger Ringe (eds) German and Nordic Perspectives on Company Law and Capital Markets Law, Mohr Siebeck.
• Khan, Tehmina (2006) “Company Dividends and Ownership Structure: Evidence from UK Panel Data”, The Economic Journal, Vol: 116, No: 510, pp. C172-C189.
• Kirchmaier, Thomas/Grant, Jeremy (2005) “Corporate Ownership Structure and Performance in Europe”, European Management Review, Vol: 2, No: 3, pp. 231-245.
• Kraakman, Reinier/Armour, John/Davies, Paul/Enriques, Luca/Hansmann, Henry/Hertig, Gerard/Hopt, Klaus/Kanda, Hideki/Rock, Edward (2017) The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, 3. edn, Oxford University Press.
• Kulms, Rainer (2001) “A Shareholder’s Freedom of Contract in Close Corporations - Shareholder Agreements in the USA and Germany”, European Business Organization Law Review, (EBOR), Vol: 2, No: 3-4, p. 685.
• La Porta, Rafael/Lopez-De-Silanes, Florencio/Shleifer, Andrei. (1999) “Corporate Ownership Around the World”, LIV the Journal of Finance, Vol: 54, No: 2, pp. 471- 517.
• Lee, Joseph (2015) “Intra-corporate Dispute Arbitration and Minority Shareholder Protection: A Corporate Governance Perspective”, Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, Vol: 83, No: 1.
• Lowry, John (2003) “Mapping the Boundaries of Unfair Prejudice”, The Reform of United Kingdom Company Law. Ed. Lacy, John de, Cavendish Publishing.
• Manavgat, Çağlar (2016) Hukuki Bakımdan Halka Açık Anonim Ortaklıklar ve Halka Arz, Ankara, Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Araştırma Enstitüsü.
• Mantysaari, Petri (2005) Comparative Corporate Governance: Shareholders as Rule Maker, Springer Science & Business Media.
• Moore, Marc T. (2014) “Private Ordering and Public Policy: The Paradoxical Foundations of Corporate ‘Contractarianism”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol: 34, No: 4, pp. 693-728.
• Moroğlu, Erdoğan (2017) Anonim Ortaklıkta Genel Kurul Kararlarının Hükümsüzlüğü, İstanbul, On İki Levha Yayıncılık.
• Mukwiri, Jonathan (2013) “Takeovers and Incidental Protection of Shareholders”, European Company & Financial Law Review, Vol: 10, No: 3, pp. 432-460.
• Nenova, Tatiana (2003) “The Value of Corporate Voting Rights and Control: A Cross- Country Analysis”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol: 68, pp. 325-351.
• Okutan-Nilsson, Gül (2003) Anonim Ortaklıklarda Paysahipleri Sözleşmeleri, Çağa Hukuk Vakfı Yayınları.
• O’Neal, F. Hodge (1987) “Oppression of Minority Shareholders: Protecting Minority Rights.”, Clev. St. L. Rev, Vol: 35, pp. 121.
• Porta, Rafael La/ Lopez-De-Silanes, Florencio/ Shleifer, Andrei (1999) “Corporate Ownership Around the World”, LIV the Journal of Finance, pp. 471-517.
• Pulaşlı, Hasan (2022) Şirketler Hukuku Genel Esaslar, Ankara, Adalet Yayınevi.
• Pulaşlı, Hasan (2022) Şirketler Hukuku Şerhi Cilt II. Ankara, Adalet Yayınevi.
• Rajak, Harry (1972) “The Oppression of Minority Shareholders”, The Modern Law Review, Vol: 35, No: 2, pp. 156.
• Roberts, Pauline/Poole, Jill (1999) “Shareholder Remedies-Efficient Litigation and Unfair Prejudice Remedy”, Journal of Business Law, Vol: Jan, pp. 38.
• Roe, Mark J. (2003) Political Determinants of Corporate Governance: Political Context, Corporate Impact, Oxford University Press.
• Roe, Mark J. (2004) “Modern Politics and Ownership Separation”: Gordon, Jeffrey N/Roe, Mark J. (eds.) Convergence and Persistence in Corporate Governance, Cambridge University Press.
• Sáez, Maria Isabel/ Riaño, Damaso (2013) Corporate Governance and the Shareholders’ Meeting: Voting and Litigation, European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR), Vol: 14, No: 3, pp. 343-399.
• Schlechtriem, Peter (1997) “Good Faith in German Law and in International Uniform Laws”, En Saggi, Conferenze e Seminari, Vol: 24, Roma, Centro di Studi e Richerche di Diritto Comparato e Straniero.
• Spindler, Gerald/Jaenig, Ronny (2010) “Informing Shareholders and Investors: A Behavioral and Economics Approach from a German Company Law Perspective”, The Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, Vol: 22, No: 1-2, pp. 89.
• Talbot, Lorraine (2008) Critical Company Law, Routledge Cavendish.
• Tekinalp, Ünal (2013) “Emredici Hükümler Açısından Genel Kurul Kararlarının İptali ve Butlanı Sorunu”, Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, N: 2013/2, s.13-18.
• Poroy, Reha/Tekinalp, Ünal/ /Çamoğlu, Ersin (2014) Ortaklıklar Hukuku I: Giriş, Adi Ortaklık, Ticaret Ortaklıklarına İlişkin Genel Hükümler, Kollektif, Komandit, Anonim, Halka Açık Anonim Şirketler, İstanbul, Vedat Kitapçılık.
• The Great Britain Law Commission (1996) Shareholder Remedies: A Consultation Paper (Law Com No 142).
• Vetoruzzo, Marco/Conac, Pierre-Henri/Goto, Gen/ Mock, Sebastian/Notari, Mario/Reisberg, Arad (2015) Comparative Corporate Law, West Academic.
• Yong, Cheng (2012) “On Protection of Rights and Interests of Minority Shareholders in Listed Company”, International Journal of Business Administration, Vol: 3, I: 2, pp. 54-58.
• Yurtoğlu, B. Burçin (2000) “Ownership, Control and Performance of Turkish Listed Firms”, Emprica 27, pp. 193-222.
• Yurtoğlu, B. Burçin (2003) “Corporate Governance and Implications for Minority Shareholders in Turkey”, Turkish Economic Association Discussion Paper 2003/7.
• Yüksel, Sinan H. (2018) “Pay Sahipleri Sözleşmesinden Kaynaklanan Uyuşmazlıkların Çözümünde Tahkim”, Akıncı, Z./ Yasan Tepetaş, C. (Editörler), Şirketler Hukuku Uyuşmazlıkları ve Tahkim, İstanbul, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, pp. 141-168.
• Wendy, Kennet (2013) “Arbitration of Intra-Corporate Disputes”, International Journal of Law and Management, Vol: 55, No: 5, pp. 333-360.
• Wirth, Gerhard/ Arnold, Michael/ Morshauser, Ralf (2010) Corporate Law in Germany, Verlag C. H. Beck, München.
• Wymeersch, Eddy/Baums, Theodor (1969) Shareholder Voting Rights and Practices in Europe and The United States, Kluwer Law.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 1995/8154, K: 1995/9165, T: 11.12.1995.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 2003/13751, K: 2004/10029, T: 19.10.2004.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 2013/13768, K: 2014/15745, T: 16.10.2014.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 2013/7332, K: 2014/14131, T: 16.04.2013.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 2014/12658, K: 2014/19476, T: 11.12.2014.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 2014/9351, K: 2014/18769, T: 02.12.2014.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 2015/8514, K: 2016/5320, T: 11.05.2016.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 2015/14626, K: 2016/6507, T: 13.06.2016.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 2015/8587, K: 2016/3001, T: 22.06.2015.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 2019/5331, K: 2020/3709, T: 30.09.2020.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 2019/4971, K: 2020/2971, T: 17.06.2020.
• Turkish Court of Cassation 11th Law Chamber, E: 2020/537, K: 2020/5167, T: 18.11.2020.
• [1897] Welton v Saffery AC 229.
• [1900] 1 Ch.656, CA.
• [1915] 2 Ch. 186.
• [1917] Phillips v Manufacturers’ Securities Ltd 86 LJ Ch 305, 116 LT 290.
• [1919] 1 Ch. 290.
• [1920] 1 Ch. 154, CA.
• [1920] 2 Ch. 124.
• [1926] All ER Rep 498.
• [1926] Southern Foundries Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 70.
• [1951] Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ch 286.
• [1973] Westbourne Galleries Ltd, Re A.C.360.
• [1974] 1 WLR 1133 (Chancery Division).
• [1978] Blount v Taft 246 S.E.2d 763 at 769 (Supreme Court of North Carolina).
• [1986] Re a Company BCLC 376.
• [1986] Re London School of Electronics Ltd Ch 211.
• [1987] 12 App Cas 589.
• [1991] Re Elgindata Ltd BCLC 959.
• [1991] BCLC 959.
• [1994] Re Unisoft Group Ltd 1 BCLC 609.
• [1994] Re Saul D Harrison & Sons plc [1995] 1 BCLC 14, BCC 475. [1994] 2 B.C.L.C. 354.
• [1995] 1 BCLC 14.
• [1996] Re Brenfield Squash Racquets Club Ltd 2 BCLC 184.
• [1998] Astec (BSR) Plc, Re 2 B.C.L.C. 556.
• [1998] Bermuda Cablevision Ltd v Colica Trust Co Ltd AC 198. [2005] Re Grandactual Ltd EWHC 1415 (Ch).
• [2005] Re Grandactual Ltd EWHC 1415 (Ch).
• [2005] Halton International Inc. (Holdings) Sarl v Guernroy Ltd.
• [2011] Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards EWCA Civ 855.
• ‘Aile Kavgası Uzel’i Bitirdi’ (Sabah, 13 July 2012) ˂http://www.sabah.com.tr/ekonomi/ 2012/07/13/aile-kavgasi-uzeli-bitirdi ˃ l.a.d. 10 March 2023.
• ‘Dev Şirkette Kardeş Kavgası Büyüyor’ (Milliyet, 2 May 2016) ˂http://www.milliyet. com.tr/dev-sirkette-kardes-kavgasi-buyuyor/ekonomi/detay/2238056/default.htm ˃ l.a.d. 13 March 2023.
• Nurettin Kurt, ‘Paylaşım Kavgası Bir Şirketi Böyle Bitirdi’ (Hürriyet, 21 September 2006) ˂http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/paylasim-kavgasi-bir-sirketi-boyle-bitirdi-5122356˃ l.a.d. 13 March 2023.