Birleşik Krallık Hukuku Çerçevesinde Çoklu Türev Davalar ve Muhtemel Davalılar

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 29, 103 - 120, 15.01.2025

Güray Özsu

Öz

Dünyada genel olarak şirket paysahipleri, kanunen şirket adına dava açma yetkisine sahip değildir. Bu tür bir dava, yalnızca şirketin yönetim kurulu aracılığıyla şirket tarafından açılabilmektedir. Ancak pratikte, şirket adına bu tip davaların açılmasında zorluklar yaşanabilmektedir. Şirket aleyhine olarak zarar doğurucu haksız fiilde bulunan kişiler yönetim kurulu üyeleri olduğunda ve bu nedenle aynı kişiler şirket adına dava açılıp açılmayacağına da karar verebilecek bir konumda olduklarında, yönetim kurulu söz konusu haksız fiilde bulunanlara karşı dava başlatmaktan kaçınabilmektedir.
Bu yasal çerçevenin adaletsizliğe yol açtığı değerlendirilmiş ve bu nedenle zamanla, ‘türev dava’ olarak bilinen, şirket aleyhine haksız fiilde bulunanlara karşı şirket adına dava açma hakkı paysahiplerine de verilmiştir. Ardından, teamül hukuku ile ‘çoklu türev dava’ adı verilen bir başka türev dava türü oluşturulmuştur. Çoklu türev davalar, şirket toplulukları ile ilgili olarak açılmaktadır. Bu davalar, şirket aleyhine haksız fiilde bulunanın kontrolündeki bir şirketler topluluğu söz konusu olduğunda, bir ana şirketin paysahibi tarafından, doğrudan ya da dolaylı bir bağlı ortaklık adına açılabilmektedir. Bu davalar, yöneticiler üzerinde caydırıcı etkiye sahip olup, işletme yönetiminin dürüstlüğünü korumayı da amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çoklu türev davalar, ana şirket, yönetim kurulu, hukuki sorumluluk.

MULTIPLE DERIVATIVE CLAIMS AND POTENTIAL DEFENDANTS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF UK LAW

Öz

Shareholders are not permitted by law to bring a claim on behalf of the company. Such an action can only be carried out by the company itself through its board of directors. However, in practice, there may be difficulties in bringing an action against wrongdoers on behalf of the company. When the wrongdoers are directors, and are therefore in a position to decide whether to bring an action on the company’s behalf, the board of directors may avoid initiating proceedings against the wrongdoers.
This legal framework was considered by the courts to cause injustice, and therefore, over time, the right to bring a claim against wrongdoers on behalf of the company, known as a ‘derivative claim,’ was granted to shareholders. Subsequently, another type of derivative claim, called a ‘multiple derivative claim,’ was created by common law. Multiple derivative actions are brought in relation to corporate groups. These actions can be initiated by a member of a parent company on behalf of a direct or indirect subsidiary where the corporate group is under the control of the wrongdoer. Additionally, it aims to preserve the integrity of business administration by deterring directors from engaging in misconduct.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Multiple derivative claims, parent company, board of directors, civil liability.

Kaynakça

• Banks C, and Jus-Burke F, ‘Shadow Directors: What Are They and What Liability Do They Have?’ (Greenwoods Legal, 23 February 2024) <https://www.greenwoods.co.uk/article/shadow-directors-what-are-they-and-what-liability-do-they-have/> accessed 11 September 2024.
• Chance C, ‘Lender as A Shadow Director’ (University of Oxford, 02 Jun 2017) <https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2017/06/lender-shadow-director> accessed 11 September 2024.
• CMS Law-Now, ‘Shadow and de facto directors - a reminder of the risks’ (CMS Law-Now, 22.01.2004)<https://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2004/01/shadow-and-de-facto-directors-a-reminder-of-therisks?cc_lang=en> accessed 11 September 2024.
• Coffee J. C. Jr. and Schwartz D. E, ‘The Survival of the Derivative Suit: An Explanation and a Proposal for Legislative Reform’ (1981) Columbia Law Review 81.
• CompaniesAct2006,ExplanatoryNotes,para308<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/notes/division/5/30?view=plain> accessed 9 September 2024.
• Corsi A and Birney N, ‘Shareholder claims and the “no reflective loss” rule’ (Norton Rose Fulbright, December2018)<https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/engb/knowledge/publications/0688bcea/shareholder-claims-and-the-no-reflective-loss-rule> accessed 9 September 2024.
• Dignam A. and Lowry J, Company Law (11th edn, OUP Oxford 2020)
• Goo S. H, ‘Multiple Derivative Action and Common Law Derivative Action Revisited: A Tale of Two Jurisdictions’ (2010) Journal of Corporate Law Studies 10 1
• Hill,L,‘Thefamilyholdingcompany’(Deloitte,28February2018)<https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/blog/deloitte-private/2018/the-family-holding-company.html>accessed 11 September 2024.
• Institute of Directors, ‘De facto directors and their liabilities’ (Institute of Directors, 22 August 2019)<https://www.iod.com/resources/factsheets/company-structure/de-facto-directors-and-their-liabilities2/#:~:text=A%20shadow%20director%20is%20’a,seen%20as%20a%20shadow%20director> accessed 11 September 2024.
• Keay A, ‘Assessing and rethinking the statutory scheme for derivative actions under the Companies Act 2006’ (2016) Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 16 1
• Ohrenstein D, ‘Reflective Losses & Derivative Claims’ (Radcliffe Chambers, November 2019) <https://radcliffechambers.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/Reflective_Losses_and_Derivative_Claims-DO.pdf> accessed 9 September 2024.
• Ratcliff M, ‘D&O: de facto directors and policy implications’ (Womble Bond Dickinson, 18 October2019)<https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/articles-and-briefings/de-facto-directors> accessed 9 September 2024.
• Roach L, Company Law (1st edn, Oxford 2019)
• Rotem Y, ‘The Law Applicable to a Derivative Action on Behalf of a Foreign Corporation - Corporate Law in Conflict,’ (2013) Cornell International Law Journal, 46 2
• Smith A and McArdle L, ‘How do you obtain permission to bring a derivative action?’ (DLA PIPER, 21 February 2020) <https://www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2020/02/saatchi-v-gajjar-and-another-2019-3472-ewhc-ch-and-derivative-actions/> accessed 9 September 2024.
• Tsang K. F, ‘International Multiple Derivative Actions’ (2019) Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 52 1.
• Witney S, ‘Duties owed by shadow directors: closing in on the puppet masters?’ (2016) Journal of Business Law 4 311,312 < http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/66225/> accessed 11 September 2024.
• Xiaoning L, ‘A comparative study of shareholders’ derivative actions’ (PhD Thesis, University of Groningen 2006).
• Yiannopoulos A. N, ‘Conflict of Laws and Unification of Law by International Convention: The Experience of the Brussels Convention of 1924’ (1961) Louisiana Law Review 21 3.
• Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 233)
• Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) [1982] Ch
• R (Rottman) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2002] 2 AC 692
• Sevilleja (Respondent) v Marex Financial Ltd (Appellant) [2020] UKSC 31 On appeal from [2018] EWCA Civ 146 [9]
• The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and another v. Holland, [2010] UKSC 51
• Universal Project Management Services Limited v. (1) Fort Gilkicker Limited (2) Mr Ian Pearce (3) Fort Gilkicker Properties Limited [2013] EWHC 348 (Ch)
• Waleed Abouraya v. (1) Ms Anja Sigmund (2) Triangle Metals & Minerals Trading Limited (3) Triangle Metals & Minerals Limited [2014] EWHC 277 (Ch)