The Mandatory Takeover Bid Through the Lens of the Turkish Law of Obligations: A Doctrinal Comparison with the Obligation to Contract
Abstract
This study compares the concept of the mandatory takeover bid regulated under Article 26 of the Capital Markets Law No. 6362, with the obligation to contract as understood in the Turkish Law of Obligations doctrine. The aim is to identify the differences between the mandatory takeover bid, sometimes portrayed as a manifestation of the obligation to contract, and the obligation to contract as developed in the law of obligations literature, as well as the legal consequences arising from those differences. Under the mandatory takeover bid regime, persons who acquire management control of a publicly held joint-stock company are obliged, by following the procedure prescribed by law, to make an offer to purchase the shares of the other shareholders. By contrast, under the obligation to contract, a person is required to accept an offer directed to them and thereby bring the contract into existence. While both share a common protective purpose aimed at safeguarding the weaker party, their essential difference lies in which declaration of intent is made mandatory. In other words, under the mandatory takeover bid, it is the offer that must be made; under the obligation to contract, it is the acceptance that is mandatory. After establishing this distinction, the study examines its normative significance and legal implications. These implications stem from the temporal sequence of offer and acceptance, which determines the specific distinctions between the two concepts. From this perspective, the analysis identifies divergences in terms of the emergence and maturity of the obligation, the moment of contract formation, the party whose manifestation of intent brings the contract into existence, the effect of a claim for specific performance on the formation of the contract, and the allocation of the burden of proof in compensating for delay-based loss in cases of debtor’s default.
Keywords
References
- Arslan F, Pay Alım Teklifine Dayalı Çıkarma ve Satma Hakkı (Adalet Yayınevi 2024). google scholar
- Atasoy K, Sözleşme Özgürlüğünün Kamu Düzenine Aykırılık Sınırı (On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2020). google scholar
- Aydoğan G, Anonim Şirketlerde Kamuyu Aydınlatma Belgelerinden Doğan Hukuki Sorumluluk (Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Araştırma Enstitüsü Yayını 2021). google scholar
- Ayrancı H, ‘Sözleşme Kurma Zorunluluğu’ (2003) 52(3) Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 229–252. google scholar
- Bahtiyar M, Sermaye Piyasası Hukukuna Giriş (Beta Basım 2019). google scholar
- Baş Süzel E, ‘Tüketici Hukukunda Sözleşme Kurma Zorunluluğu’ (2018) 13(167–168) Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 9–37.
- Bektaş İ, ‘Halka Açık Anonim Ortaklıkların Önemli Nitelikteki İşlemleri Nedeniyle Doğan Ayrılma Hakkı ve Pay Alım Teklifi Zorunluluğu’ in Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Araştırma Enstitüsü 60. Yıl Armağanı (2015) 751–827. google scholar
- Boğa S, Sermaye Piyasası Kanunu’na Tabi Anonim Ortaklıklarda Hisse Devri (Vedat Kitapçılık 2010). google scholar
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Law in Context (Other)
Journal Section
Research Article
Authors
F. Pelin Tokcan
*
0000-0002-4836-4474
Türkiye
Publication Date
January 16, 2026
Submission Date
July 7, 2024
Acceptance Date
November 25, 2024
Published in Issue
Year 2025 Volume: 83 Number: 4