AZINLIK HİSSEDARLARININ KORUNMASI KAVRAMI; TEORİK ÇERÇEVE

Year 2020, Volume: 5 Issue: 9, 195 - 219, 30.09.2020

Meltem Karatepe Kaya

Abstract

Bu makale, kurumsal yönetim kapsamında azınlık pay sahiplerinin korunması kavramını teorik çerçevede analiz etmektedir. Konuyu daha iyi analiz edebilmek adına azınlık hissedarı ve çoğunluk hissedarının anlamı da bu makalede sunulacaktır. Bu makalede ele alınan temel soru şudur: Azınlık pay sahipleri korumak için teorik temeller nasıl kurulmuştur? Bu soruyu cevaplamak için bu yazıda, kurumsal yönetim teorilerinin azınlık hissedarlarının korunmasına ilişkin gerekçelendirme ve açıklamaları analiz edilecektir . Buna göre, bu makale, azınlık pay sahiplerinin korunmasına yönelik teorilere değinecek ve kurumsal yönetim için model oluşturacaktır. Ayrıca çalışma, Türk hukuku bağlamında azınlık pay sahiplerinin korunmasının teorik temelini de ayrıca inceleyecektir.

Keywords

azınlık pay sahiplerinin koruması, çoğunluk hissedarlar, temsilcilik çatışması, kurumsal yönetim

NOTION OF PROTECTION OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS; THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Abstract

This article analyses the preferred specific theoretical frameworks of corporate governance and minority shareholder protection. To have better understanding on the issue, the meaning of minority shareholder and majority shareholder will also be given in this paper. The main question in this chapter is: How were the theoretical foundations established for protecting minority shareholders? To answer this question, the article analyses the explanation of theories of corporate governance on minority shareholder protection. Accordingly, this paper will address the theories for development of minority shareholder protection and models corporate governance. Furthermore, the study will examine theoretical foundation of protection of minority shareholders in Turkish law context.

Keywords

minority shareholder protection, majority shareholders, agency conflict, corporate governance

References

• Aguilera R and Jackson G, 'The Cross-National Diversity of Corporate Governance: Dimensions and Determinants' (2003) 28 The Academy of Management Review.
• Armour J, Hansmann H and Kraakman R,Agency Problems and Legal Strategies (Oxford University Press 2009).
• Aygun M, Ic S and Sayim M, 'The Effects Of Corporate Ownership Structure and Board Size on Earnings Management: Evidence From Turkey' (2014) 9 International Journal of Business and Management 123-132.
• Bebchuk L, Kraakman R and Triantis G, 'Stock Pyramids, Cross-Ownership, And Dual Class Equity: The Mechanisms and Agency Costs of Separating Control From Cash-Flow Rights', Concentrated Corporate Ownership, NBER Chapters (University of Chicago Press 2000).
• Bilgili F and Demirkapı E, Şirketler Hukuku Dersleri / Company Law (6th edn, Dora Press 2018).
• Berle A and Means G,The Modern Corporation And Private Property (Macmillan Co 1933).
• Brightview Ltd, Re [2004] BCC 542.
• Ciyun Z, ‘A Critical Analysis of the Majority Rule Principle and Controlling Shareholders Fiduciary Duties: A Chinese Perspective (2004) 16 Australian Journal of Corporate Law 256.
• Cubbin J and Leech D, 'The Effect Of Shareholding Dispersion On The Degree Of Control In British Companies: Theory And Measurement' (1983) 93 The Economic Journal 351.
• Davies P L, Gower and Davies: Principles of Modern Company Law (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2008).
• Desender K, 'The Relationship Between The Ownership Structure And Board Effectiveness' SSRN Electronic Journal 3.
• Dignam A and Galanis M, The Globalization of Corporate Governance (Ashgate 2009).
• Donaldson T and Preston L, 'The Stakeholder Theory Of The Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, And Implications' (1995) 20 The Academy of Management Review 65-91.
• Eisenhardt K, 'Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review.' (1989) 14 Academy of Management Review 57-74.
• Fama E and Jensen M, 'Separation of Ownership and Control' (1983) 26 Journal of Law and Economics 301, 303.
• Foss v Harbottle (1843), 67 ER 189.
• Freeman R, 'Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation' (2004), General Issues in Business Ethics 144, 145.
• Friedman M, `The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits`, (1970) New York Times Magazine, September 13.
• Hannigan B, Company Law (3rd edn. Oxford University Press 2012).
• Hemraj M, ‘The Business Judgment Rule in Corporate Law’ (2004) 15(6) ICCLR 192 and Branson Douglas, ‘The Rule that Isn’t a Rule-the Business Judgment Rule’ (2002) 36 Valparaiso University Law Review.
• Grant J and Kirchmaier T, ‘Corporate Ownership Structure and Performance in Europe’ (2005) 2 European Management Review 231.
• Göçen C, 'Kurumsal Yönetim, Iç Kontrol Ve Bağimsiz Denetim: Parmalat Vakasi Corporate Governance, Internal Audit And Independent Audit: Parmalat Case' (2010) 97 Mali Cozum, 110.
• Jensen M and Meckling W, 'Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure' (1976) 3 Journal of Financial Economics 305.
• John K and Makhija A, International Corporate Governance (Emerald 2011).
• Karatepe Kaya, M., `Shareholder`s rights and remedies related to corporate governance principles` (2019) Corporate Governance: Search for the Advanced Practices, 48-51.
• Kershaw D, Company Law in Context (Oxford University Press 2012).
• Kim K, Kitsabunnarat-Chatjuthamard P , Nofsinger J, 'Large Shareholders, Board Independence, and Minority Shareholder Rights: Evidence From Europe' (2007) 13 Journal of Corporate Finance 859.
• Letza S, Sun X and Kirkbride J, 'Shareholding Versus Stakeholding: A Critical Review Of Corporate Governance' (2004) 12 Corporate Governance An International Review 242.
• La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F and Shleifer A, 'Corporate Ownership Around The World' (1999) 54 The Journal of Finance 471-517.
• La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A and Vishny R, 'Law And Finance' (1998) 106 Journal of Political Economy 1113.
• Lazarides T.G, `Minority Shareholder Choices and Rights in the New Market Environment`, (2010) 7 The IUP Journal of Corporate and Securities Law 7.
• Leuz C, Nanda D and Wysocki P, 'Earnings Management and Investor Protection: An International Comparison' (2003) 69 Journal of Financial Economics 505-527.
• London Stock Exchange, ‘The Listing Rules’ (The Yellow Book) (London, The Stock Exchange, 1993).
• Lopes A and Walker M, 'Asset Revaluations, Future Firm Performance And Firm-Level Corporate Governance Arrangements: New Evidence From Brazil' (2012) 44 The British Accounting Review 53-67.
• Mäntysaari P, Comparative Corporate Governance (Springer 2005).
• Majority Rule, | Meaning In the Cambridge English Dictionary' (Dictionary.cambridge.org, 2018) <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/majority-rule> accessed 20/11/2018.
• 'Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi' (Mevzuat.gov.tr, <http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin1.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.6102&MevzuatIlis ki=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=1&Tertip=5&No=6102> accessed 20 September 2016.
• Melis A, 'Corporate Governance Failures. To What Extent Is Parmalat A Particularly Italian Case?' SSRN Electronic Journal.
• Mueller D, ‘Corporate Governance and Economic Performance’ (2006) 20(5) International Review of Applied Economics 623, 628.
• Nomer Ertan F, `Anonim Ortaklığın Haklı Sebeple Feshi Davası - TTK m. 531 Üzerine Düşünceler / Dissolution for Just Causes of Joint Stock Companies – Considerations of Article 531 of Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102' (2015) 23 Istanbul University Law School Journal 423.
• OECD, 'OECD Principles of Corporate Governance' (oecd.org, 2004) <http://www.oecd.org/corporate/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/31557724.pd f> accessed 17 November 2016.
• Pulaşlı H, Şirketler Hukuku / Company Law (4th edn, Adalet Press 2016).
• Sarkar P, `Common law vs. Civil law: which system provides more protection to shareholders and promotes financial development`, (2017) 2 Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 143.
• Segato L, 'A Comparative Analysis Of Shareholder Protections In Italy And The United States: Parmalat As A Case Study' (2005) 26 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business.
• Shapiro S.P, 'Agency Theory' (2005) 31 Annual Review of Sociology, 263. Solomon J, Corporate Governance and Accountability (2nd edn, John Wiley 2007).
• The Republic of Turkey Turkish Commercial Code Law No. 6102 (31 January 2011), <http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/kanunlar/k6102.html> accessed 25 October 2018.UK Companies Act 2006.
• Uğurlu M., 'Agency Costs and Corporate Control Devices in the Turkish Manufacturing Industry' (2000) 27 Journal of Economic Studies 566.
• Ulusoy E, Anonim Şirketlerde Bireysel ve Azınlık Pay Sahibi Hakları / Minority shareholders` rights in joint stock companies (2nd edn, Bilge Press 2016).
• Wright P, Mukherji A and Kroll M, 'A Reexamination Of Agency Theory Assumptions: Extensions And Extrapolations' (2001) 30 The Journal of Socio- Economics 413-429.
• Yigit I, 'Ownership Structure, Executive Structure And Firm Performance: Evidence From Turkey' (2014), 36 Marmara Üniversitesi İ.İ.B. Dergisi 349-364.
• Yurtoglu B, `Ownership, Control and Performance of Turkish Listed Firms` (2000) 27 Kluwer Academic Publishers 193–222.
• Zahir M, Company and Securities Law (3rd edn, The University Press Limited 2000).
• 6102 Sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu Gerekçesi (Preamble of Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102)<http://www.basbakanlik.gov.tr/docs/kkgm/kanuntasarilari/TURK%20TIC ARET/madde%20gerekc e.doc> accessed 08 January 2017.
• (Bankacılık Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu (BDDK), 2016) <https://www.bddk.org.tr/websitesi/turkce/Mevzuat/Bankacilik_Kanunu/154054 11_sayili_bankacilik_kanunu.pdf> accessed 20 September 2016.
• 'CORPORA TE GOVERNANCE CODE' (2016) <http://www.borsaitaliana.it/borsaitaliana/regolamenti/corporategovernance/cod e2015.en.pdf> accessed 10 October 2016.