Journals / Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE PRINCIPLE OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION

AZINLIK PAY SAHİPLERİNİN KORUNMASI İLKESİNE YÖNELİK TARTIŞMALAR

Pages
265–282
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this article, the principle of minority shareholder protection will also be considered in the light of Turkish and English company law to see how different jurisdictions found the solutions for similar problems regarding minority shareholders.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article analyses the arguments of those who do not necessarily agree with certain rights to be granted to the minority shareholders in companies to protect their interests.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Since majority shareholders have higher percentage of the capital, so that the voting powers, their approach unfortunately ignores the rights of minority shareholders in most cases.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this article, the principle of minority shareholder protection will also be considered in the light of Turkish and English company law to see how different jurisdictions found the solutions for similar problems regarding minority shareholders.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:azınlık pay sahiplerinin korunması · çoğunluk pay sahipleri · Türk Ticaret Kanunu

Abstract

This article analyses the arguments of those who do not necessarily agree with certain rights to be granted to the minority shareholders in companies to protect their interests. Following the presentation of those arguments, the attention will be given on opposite views in this regard to understand the necessity of the existence of minority shareholder protection. Since majority shareholders have higher percentage of the capital, so that the voting powers, their approach unfortunately ignores the rights of minority shareholders in most cases. This abusive approach of majority shareholders affects the interests of minority shareholders and companies in a negative way. In addition, whole national economy is adversely affected from this situation. To find a solution for this problem, inclusive protection is provided to minority shareholders. With regard to this situation, while inclusive protection is provided for minority shareholders to gain an adequate remedy, there should nevertheless be a legal framework which prevents majority shareholders’ misuse of their corporate powers. In this article, the principle of minority shareholder protection will also be considered in the light of Turkish and English company law to see how different jurisdictions found the solutions for similar problems regarding minority shareholders.

Özet

Bu makale, azınlık pay sahiplerinin menfaatlerini korumak için onlara tanınan hakların gerekliliğine ilişkin öğretide yer alan farklı tartışmalara yer vermektedir. Öncelikle azınlık hissedarların korunmasının gerekliliğine karşı geliştirilen argümanlara yer verilecek sonrasında ise karşıt görüş olarak azınlıkların korunması gerektiğini savunan görüşler ve gerekçeleri sunulacaktır. Çoğunluk paylara sahip olan pay sahipleri şirkette sahip oldukları yüksek oy oranı ve bu kapsamda sahip oldukları yetkiler ile azınlık hissedarların haklarını göz ardı edebilmektedirve bu durum azınlık pay sahipleri üzerinde olumsuz sonuçlar doğurmaktadır. Hatta geniş çerçevede düşünüldüğünde bu durumun ülke ekonomisine bile olumsuz yansımaları olabilmektedir. İşte bu olumsuz etkileri bertaraf edebilmek için azınlık pay sahiplerine kapsamlı bir koruma sağlanmaktadır. Ancak, sadece azınlıkların koruması yeterli olmayıp, şirkette payların çoğunluğuna sahip olan çoğunluk pay sahiplerinin de şirketteki yetkilerini kötüye kullanmalarının önüne geçmek için düzenlemeler yapılması gerekmektedir. Bu makalede, azınlık pay sahiplerinin karşılaşabileceği benzer sorunlara farklı hukuk sistemlerinde nasıl çözümler bulduğunu görmek için azınlık hissedarların korunması ilkesi Türk şirketler hukuku ve İngiliz şirketler hukuku kapsamında ele alınacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYA, M. K. (2020). DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING THE PRINCIPLE OF MINORITY SHAREHOLDER PROTECTION. Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 265–282. https://ajindex.com/articles/361377

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Ararat, Melsa&Uğur, Mehmet (2003), `Corporate Governance in Turkey: An Overview and Some Policy Recommendations` Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, V:3. Briano-Turrent, Guadalupe del Carmen& Rodríguez-Ariza, Lázaro (2016), 'Corporate Governance Ratings on Listed Companies: An Institutional Perspective in Latin America', European Journal of Management and Business Economics, V:25. Brown Richard E (2005), 'Enron/Andersen: Crisis in U.S. Accounting and Lessons for Government', Public Budgeting & Finance, V:25. Çamoglu, Ersin (2010), Anonim Ortaklık Yönetim Kurulu Üyelerinin Hukuki Sorumluluğu / The Liability of Directors in Joint Stock Companies, 1. Edition,
  2. Vedat Press,
  3. İstanbul.
  4. Cheffins, Brian (2000) 'Minority Shareholders and Corporate Governance' Company Lawyer, V:21, p. 41. Dahya, Jay& Dimitrov Orlin& McConnell John J. (2008), 'Dominant Shareholders, Corporate Boards, and Corporate Value: A Cross-Country Analysis', Journal of Financial Economics V:87. Dignam, Alan (2011),
  5. Andrew Hicks and S.H. Goo, Hicks & Goo's Cases and Materials on Company Law, 7. Edition,
  6. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  7. Engin, Cem&Golluce, Esra (2016), 'Küresel Finans Krizi ve Türkiye Üzerine Yansımaları / The Global Financial Crisis in 2008 and Its Reflections on Turkey' Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, V:1. Erdem, Nuri (2019), Anonim Ortaklığın Haklı Sebeple Feshi, 2. Edition,
  8. Vedat Press,
  9. İstanbul.
  10. Hallington, Robin (2007), 'Oppression of Minority Shareholders: Reflections on Blisset v Daniel', Denning Law Journal, V:19. Hannigan, Brenda (2009), ‘Drawing boundaries between derivative claims and unfairly prejudicial petitions’, Journal of Business Law, V:6. Jeeballah, A Abubaker (2016)., 'To What Extent Does The Libyan Shareholder Protection Regime Offer Equivalent Protection To That Found In Similar Selected Corporate Law Systems?', Ph.D thesis, Lancaster University. Joffe, Victor (2008), Minority Shareholders, 1. Edition,
  11. Oxford University Press,
  12. Oxford. Keay Andrew (2015), 'Assessing and Rethinking the Statutory Scheme for Derivative Actions under the Companies Act 2006',
  13. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, V:16. Keay, Andrew & Loughrey, Joan (2010), 'Derivative Proceedings in a Brave New World for Company Management and Shareholders', Journal of Business Law, V:3. Kershaw, David (2015), ‘The Rule in Foss v Harbottle is Dead: Long Live the Rule in Foss v Harbottle’, Journal of Business Law. K