İNGİLİZ HUKUKUNDA BİR AZINLIK ORTAĞIN KULLANABİLECEĞİ HUKUKÎ ÇARELERE GENEL BİR BAKIŞ

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 131 - 142, 25.06.2019

Hasan Kadir Yılmaztekin

Abstract

Bir azınlık ortağı korumak, tartışmalı ve karmaşık bir konudur.
İngiliz hukuku, şirket işlerinin idaresinde ortaklardan birinin veya tamamen
şirketin bir menfaatine zarar veren bir ihlal ortaya çıkması halinde, anonim
şirket ve limited şirketteki bir azınlık ortak için üç ana dava türünü
düzenlemektedir. Bunlar; 2006 tarihli Şirketler Kanununun 260 ila 264’üncü
maddelerinde düzenlenen kanunî türev dava, yine aynı kanunun 994’üncü
maddesinde (önceden 1985 tarihli Şirketler Kanununun 459’uncu maddesinde)
düzenlenen zarar doğuran haksız işlemlere karşı açılan dava ve 1986 tarihli
İflas Kanununun 122(1)(g) maddesinde düzenlenen haklı nedene ve hakkaniyet
kurallarına dayalı iflas davasıdır. Bu makalenin amacı, bu davaların kısa bir
karşılaştırmalı analizini sunmaktır.

Keywords

Azınlık ortakların korunması, türev dava, zarar doğuran haksız işleme karşı dava, haklı nedene ve hakkaniyet kurallarına dayalı iflas

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO A MINORITY SHAREHOLDER UNDER THE UK LAW

Abstract

When a breach occurs in conducting company’s affairs which harms
the interests of some members of the company or the company as a whole, the
affected minority shareholders have the right to seek redress. There are three
main types of action available to minority shareholders of public limited
companies and limited liability companies in UK law. These are: a statutory
derivative claim under ss 260-264 of Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”), a petition
for unfairly prejudicial conduct under s 994 of CA 2006 (formerly s 459 of the
Companies Act 1985) or a petition for the just and equitable winding up of the
company under s 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”). While the
statutory derivative claim is a corporate remedy, the latter two are personal
remedies.

The purpose of this article is to analyse, compare and contrast
the remedies available to a minority shareholder under UK law. The second
section of the paper draws a concise picture of current case and statutory law
on these remedies, while the third section comparatively assesses their
weakness and strengths to illustrate where to use them under which
circumstances by considering several factors.

Keywords

Minority shareholder protection, derivative action, unfair prejudice petition, just and equitable winding up

References

• I. Primary Resources
• A. Statutes Companies Act 2006. Insolvency Act 1986. Civil Procedure Rules Law Commission Report Shareholder Remedies (Law Commission) 1997, [No 246]
• B. Cases Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461. Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1972] 2 All ER 492. O’Neil v Philips [1999] 2 BCLC 1. Smith v Croft [1986] 1 WLR 580, 597. Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373. Edwards v Halliwell [1950] 2 All ER 1064. Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) [1982] 1 Ch 204 Gamlestaden Fastigheter AB v Baltic Partners Ltd [2007] UKPC 26. Abbey Leisure Ltd Re [1990] B.C.C. 60. Allmark v Burnham [2005] EWHC 2717 (Ch); [2006] 2 BCLC 437 Anderson v Hogg [2002] BCC 923 CS (IH). Baumler, Re [2005] 1 BCLC 92; [2005] B.C.C. 181. Brightview Ltd, Re [2004] BCC 542. Dalby v Bodilly [2004] EWHC 3078 (Ch); [2005] BCC 627. Elgindata, Re [1991] BCLC 959. Grace v Biagioli [2006] 2 BCLC 70 100-1. Hawkes v Cuddy [2009] EWCA Civ 291; [2009] BCLC 427. Jesner v Jarrad Properties Ltd [1992] BCC 807. Lloyd v Casey [2001] All ER (D) 371 (Dec). Macro (Ipswich) Ltd, Re [1994] 2 BCLC 354 Ch D. McCarthy Surfacing Ltd, Re [2008] EWHC 2279 (Ch); [2009] 1 BCLC 622. Oak Investment Partners XII, Limited Partnership v Boughtwood [2009] EWHC 176 (Ch). RA Noble& Sons (Clothing) Ltd, Re [1983] BCLC 273. Re a Company (No 003160 of 1986) (1986) 2 BCC 99. Re Bovey Hotel Ventures Ltd 31 July 1981, Unreported, cited by Nourse J in Re RA Noble & Sons (Clothing) Ltd [1983] BCLC 273. Re Citybranch Group Ltd, Gross v Rackind [2004] 4 All ER 735. Re German Date Coffee Company [1882] 20 Ch 169. Re Saul D Harrison & Sons plc [1995] 1 BCLC 14. Re Thomas Edward Brimsmead & Sons Ltd [1897] 1 Ch 45, 46 (CA). Re Yenidje Tobacco Ltd [1916-17] ALL ER Rep 1050. Unisoft Group Ltd (No3) [1994] 1 BCLC 609. Woven Rugs Ltd, Re [2008] B.C.C. 903.
• II. Secondary Resources 1. Almadani M, Derivative Actions: Does the Companies Act 2006 Offer a Way Forward? 2009 30(5) Company Lawyer 131. 2. Dignam A and Lowry J, Company Law (10th edn, OUP 2018). 3. Griffin S, “Alternative Shareholder Remedies Following Corporate Mismanagement - Which Remedy to Pursue?” (2010) Company Law News Letter 1 (Griffin, Which Remedy to Pursue). 4. Griffin S, Shareholder Remedies and The No Reflective Loss Principle - Problems Surrounding The Identification of a Membership Interest [2010] 6 Journal of Business Law 461. 5. Hannigan B, Company Law (5th edn, OUP, 2016). 6. Keay A and Loughrey J, ‘Derivative Proceedings In A Brave New World For Company Management and Shareholders’ (2010) JBL 151. 7. Keay A and Loughrey J, 'Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed: An Analysis of the New Derivative Action under the Companies Act 2006' (2008) LQR 469. 8. Mujih E C, ‘The New Statutory Derivative Claim: A Delicate Balancing Act’ (2012) Company Lawyer 33(3) (Part 1) 76. 9. Sealy L S, “Foss v. Harbottle - a Marathon Where Nobody Wins” (1981) 40 Cambridge Law Journal 29. 10. Victor Joffe, David Drake, Giles Richardson and Daniel Lightman, Minority Shareholders Law, Practice and Procedure (3rd edn. OUP, 2008). 11. Watkins S, “The Common Law Derivative Action: an Outmoded Relic?” (1999) 30 Cambrian Law Review 40. 12. Wild C and Weinstein S, Smith and Keenan’s Company Law (7th edn, Pearson Education Limited, 2016).