BİRLEŞMELER VE DEVRALMALAR İÇİN İLKE KARARLARI’ ÇERÇEVESİNDE BİRLEŞİK KRALLIKTA ŞİRKET KONTROLÜ AMACIYLA PİYASAYA DOĞRUDAN DEVLET MÜDAHALESİ İHTİYACI

Abstract

Birleşmeler ve Devralmalar için İlke Kararları ve Devralmalar Paneli, Birleşik Krallık'ta halka açık şirketlerin dahil olduğu birleşme ve devralmaların kontrolünde önemli bir role sahiptir ve birleşme ve devralmaların düzenlenmesinin ayrılmaz bir parçasıdır. İlgili yasa ve panel Birleşik Krallık'ta hissedarların çıkarlarını korumaya, hissedarların bağımsızlığını tesis etmeye ve devralma süreçlerinde şeffaflığı teşvik etmeye hizmet eder. Bu nedenle, bir şekilde devralma süreçlerine dahil olan teşebbüslerin, Devralma ve Birleşmeler için İlke Kararlarına uyması gerekmektedir. Devralma ve Birleşmeler için İlke Kararları uyarınca, Devralmalar Paneli, kuralların gözetimi ve uygulanmasında önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Ancak son dönemde Birleşmeler ve Devralmalar için İlke Kararları ve Devralmalar Panelinin başarısı çokça eleştirilmektedir. Bu makale, Devralma Paneli ve Kurallarının tarihsel gelişiminin, temel kurallarının ve mevcut uygulamasının kendi kendini düzenleme (piyasa düzenlemesi) başarısızlığını gösterip göstermediğini eleştirel bir şekilde değerlendirmektedir. Çıkarılan sonuç ise, kurumsal kontrol için piyasanın doğrudan devlet düzenlemesine ihtiyaç duymakta olduğudur. Bu sebeple Birleşmeler ve Devralmalar için İlke Kararlarının niteliğinden kaynaklanan sorunların çözümünde bizzat Panelin kararlarından, mevzuattan ve akademik yorumlardan yola çıkarak tavsiyeler aranmaktadır.

Keywords

• rekabet hukuku
• birleşme ve devralmalar
• piyasa düzenlemesi
• Birleşmeler ve Devralmalar için İlke Kararları

THE NEED FOR DIRECT STATE REGULATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ‘TAKEOVER CODE’ FOR CORPORATE CONTROL IN THE UK

Abstract

The Takeover Code and Panel are integral to the regulation of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and have a substantial role in controlling mergers and acquisitions which involve publicly traded companies in the UK. They serve to safeguard the interests of shareholders, maintain the integrity of shareholders and promote transparency in takeover processes in the UK. Therefore, undertakings somehow involved in takeover processes and bids must adhere to the Takeover Codes’ rules. In line with the Takeover Code, the Takeover Panel plays a crucial role in overseeing and enforcing the rules of the Takeover Code. However, the success of the Takeover Code and Panel is argued a lot lately. This article critically evaluates whether the historical development, substantive rules and current practice of the Takeover Panel and Code demonstrate a failure of self-regulation (market regulation). As a result, the need for direct state regulation of the market for corporate control is found. Thus, the remedy to the problem arising from the nature of the Takeover Code is searched in line with the Panel decisions, statutes and academic commentary.

Keywords

• mergers and acquisitions
• The Takeover Code and Panel
• competition law
• corporate control
• self-regulation

References

1. Armour J. and Skeel D. “Who Writes the Rules for Hostile Takeovers, and Why? The Peculiar Divergence of US and UK Takeover Regulation.” Georgetown Law Journal 95, (2007): 1727-2007.
2. Bebchuk L., Cohen A. and Ferrell A. “What Matters in Corporate Governance?” The Review of Financial Studies 22, no.2 (2009): 783-827.
3. Berglöf E., Burkart M., Boeri T. Julian Franks J. “European Takeover Regulation.” Economic Policy 18, no. 6 (2003): 171-213.
4. Cheffins B. “Mergers and the Evolution of Patterns of Corporate Ownership and Control: The British Experience.” Business History 46, (2004): 256-284.
5. Definition of Market for Corporate Control, Available at: last modified: 12 September 2023. Directive 2004/25/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council Of 21 April 2004 on Takeover Bids (EU Takeover Directive).
6. Fernandez O. “Proposed Changes to the Takeover Code.” Practical Law Company Online (2011): Available at: last modified: 12 September 2023.
7. Fischel D. “Efficient Capital Market Theory, the Market for Corporate Control, and the Regulation of Cash Tender Offer.” Texas Law Review 57, no. 1 (1978): 1-46.
8. Girvin D., Frisby S. and Hudson A. Charlesworth’s Company Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2010.

9. Gower L. “Corporate Control: The Battle for the Berkeley.” Harvard Law Review 68, no. 7 (1955): 1176-1194.
10. Hannah L. “Takeover Bids in Britain before 1950: An Exercise in Business ‘Pre-History’.” Business History 16, (1974): 65-77.
11. Hurst T. “The Regulation of Tender Offers in the United States and the United Kingdom: Self-Regulation versus Legal Regulation.” N.C.J. Int’l L. & Com. Reg. 12, (1987): 389-416.
12. Johnston A. “Takeover Regulation: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on the City Code.” Cambridge Law Journal 66, no. 2 (2007): 422-460.
13. Kenyon-Slade S. Mergers and Takeovers in the US and UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
14. Kershaw D. “Corporate Law and Self-Regulation.” LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 5, (2015): 1-42.
15. Kershaw D. “Hostile Takeovers and the Non-Frustration Rule: Time for a Re-Evaluation.” LSE Legal Studies Working Paper 19, (2016): 1-50.
16. Kershaw D. Principles of Takeover Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
17. Kynaston D. The City of London. Volume IV: A club no more 1945-2000. London: Pimlico Press, 2002.
18. Linklaters LLP. Open for Business – Takeovers of UK companies and the involvement of the UK Government, 2014, Available at: last modified: 12 September 2023.
19. Manne H. “Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control.” Journal of Political Economy 73, (1965): 110-120.
20. Mukwiri J. “The Myth of Tactical Litigation in UK Takeovers.” Journal of Corporate Law Studies 8, (2008): 373-383.
21. Patrone M. “Sour Chocolate: The U.K. Takeover Panel’s Improper Reaction to Kraft’s Acquisition of Cadbury.” International Law & Management Review 8, (2011): 63-86.
22. Phrases.org.uk, Definition, “hard cases make bad law”; Available at: last modified: 12 September 2023.
23. Roberts R. “Regulatory Responses to the Rise of the Market for Corporate Control in Britain in the 1950s.” Business History 34, (1992): 183-200.
24. Rosenzweig B. “Private Versus Public Regulation: A Comparative Analysis of British and American Takeover Controls.” Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 18, (2007): 213-237.
25. Seretakis A. “Hostile Takeovers and Defensive Mechanisms in the United Kingdom and the United States: A Case Against the United States Regime.” Ohio State Entrepreneurial Business Law Journal 8, (2013): 248-283.
26. Tachmatzidi I. “Comparative Analysis of Takeover Defenses in Strong and Weak Economies: The Paradigm of the UK and Greece.” European Research Studies Journal 22, (2019): 254-264.
27. Takeover Panel. “Review of Certain Aspects of the Regulation of Takeover Bids.” (PCP 2010/2).
28. Takeover Panel. “Review of Certain Aspects of the Regulation of Takeover Bids, Proposed Amendments to the Takeover Code.” (PCP 2011/1).
29. Takeover Panel. “Response Statement by the Code Committee of the Panel Following the Consultation on PCP 2011/1.” (RS 2011/01).
30. Thapa R. “The Non-frustration Rule after the Brexit.” Business Law International 22, no. 2 (2021): 203-218.
31. The Companies Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo.6 c.38).
32. The Companies Act 2006 (c 46).
33. The City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (The Takeover Code).
34. The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, Instrument 2019/3.
35. The Takeovers (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/217.
36. Worthington S. Sealy & Worthington’s Company Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
37. Yee W. “Enforcing Public Takeover Regulation: Reconciling Public and Private Interests.” Singapore Academy of Law Journal 31, (2019): 285-307.