Issues Concerning the Inheritance of Capital Shares in a Limited Liability Company and Proposed Solutions
If the deceased partner has more than one heir, a community of heirs is established within the framework of Article 640 of the Turkish Civil Code, which is based on joint ownership. Since a community of heirs is a partnership without legal personality, it cannot acquire the title of partner in a limited liability company. Therefore, even after the partition of the estate, all heirs jointly hold the shareholder status provided by the shares. The appointment of a representative by the heirs should be seen as an opportunity for the joint exercise of rights for both the heirs and the company. In accordance with the provisions on joint ownership, the heirs should be able to exercise their rights arising from the capital share without appointing a representative. The company does not have the possibility of accepting some heirs and rejecting others. Therefore, if the company wishes to accept only some of the heirs, the only method that the company can resort to is to first acquire the relevant shares in its own name and then transfer them back to the heirs it wishes to remain in the company in accordance with the transfer conditions. The general assembly is the authorised body to make decisions regarding the heirs, and the rejection decision made by the general assembly is a condition subsequent arising from the law, and its provisions have retroactive effect within the framework of paragraph 3 of Article 596 of the Turkish Commercial Code.
Limited Şirket Esas Sermaye Payının Miras Yoluyla İntikaline İlişkin Bazı Sorunlar ve Bunlara Dair Çözüm Önerileri
Ölen ortağın birden fazla mirasçısı olması durumunda Türk Medenî Kanunu’nun 640. maddesi çerçevesinde elbirliği ile hak sahipliğinin esas olduğu bir miras ortaklığı kurulur. Miras ortaklığı, tüzel kişiliği bulunmayan bir ortaklık olduğu için, limited şirkette ortak sıfatını kazanamaz. Dolayısıyla henüz mirasın paylaştırılmasından önce, tüm mirasçılar payların sağladığı ortak konumuna birlikte sahiptir. Limited şirketlere yönelik Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun 594 ve 596. maddeleri karşısında birden fazla mirasçının bulunduğu durumlarda, şirkete başvurunun kimler tarafından (tek bir mirasçı/mirasçıların tamamı) yapılacağına yönelik bir tartışmanın yapılmasına gerek bulunmamaktadır. Mirasçılar tarafından temsilci atanması, hakların birlikte kullanılması açısından hem mirasçılar hem de şirket bakımından öngörülen bir imkân olarak görülmelidir. Mirasçılar, esas sermaye payından kaynaklanan haklarını elbirliği hak sahipliğine ilişkin hükümlere uygun bir şekilde temsilci atamadan da kullanabilmelidir. Şirketin birtakım mirasçıları kabul ederek diğerlerini reddetme imkânı bulunmamaktadır. Dolayısıyla şirketin mirasçıların yalnızca bir kısmını kabul etmek istemesi durumunda başvurabileceği tek yöntem, ilgili payları önce kendi adına iktisap edip ardından devre ilişkin şartlar çerçevesinde şirkette kalmasını istediği mirasçılara tekrardan devretmesidir. Mirasçılara yönelik karar almaya yetkili organ genel kuruldur ve genel kurul tarafından verilen ret kararı, kanundan kaynaklanan bir bozucu şart olup hükümlerini Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nun 596. maddesinin 3. fıkrası çerçevesinde geçmişe etkili olarak göstermektedir.
Since the partners of limited liability companies are mostly real persons, limited liability company capital shares are frequently transferred to heirs. Article 596 of the TCC has been insufficient in solving these problems, and the issue has received less attention in Turkish law than in comparative law. This study first discusses the manner in which the share of the share capital will be transferred to the heirs and then determines whether there is an obligation for the heirs to apply to the company. In addition, some discussions have been made regarding the voting rights of the heirs, whether the heirs are deprived of voting rights in the general assembly, and the manner in which they use their votes. The legal nature of the company’s approval and rejection decisions for the heirs to whom the capital shares are transferred and whether the general assembly can make a partial rejection decision are also analysed.
Considering the discussions, although many conclusions have been reached in terms of the current law, some of the conclusions reached do not meet the needs in practice. In such cases, some suggestions have been made to the legislator regarding the law that should be in place.
Since there are no provisions and grounds for departing from the principle of universal succession under Turkish law, a community of heirs is established under Article 640 of the Turkish Civil Code, which is based on the principle of joint ownership, in the event that the deceased partner has more than one heir. Therefore, even before the partition of the estate, all heirs jointly hold the position provided by the shares. In this sense, under Turkish law, there is no provision and justification for departing from the principle of joint ownership. The Court of Cassation’s contrary approach is not compatible with the principle that the heirs should be in the same position as the deceased partner.
Pursuant to Articles 594 and 596 of the Turkish Code of Commercial for limited liability companies, in cases where there is more than one heir, there is no need to discuss who should make the application to the company (a single heir/all of the heirs). However, although this is the case de lege lata, de lege ferenda, an obligation to notify by the heirs should be stipulated for the company to exercise its right of refusal properly and not to learn about the heirs by surprise at the general assembly. In such an arrangement, it should be accepted that each heir is authorised to make the notification.
The general assembly is the authorised body to take the decision regarding the heirs. In terms of the applicable law, the heirs who have acquired the shares of the share capital may participate in the general assembly to vote on whether they will continue in the company or not due to the wording of Article 596 of the Turkish Code of Commercial and the exceptional character of the exclusion from voting rights. Nevertheless, de lege ferenda, the provision should be rewritten in accordance with the Swiss Obligation Code and stipulate that the heirs do not have voting rights until the approval of the general assembly.
In cases where there is more than one heir, the heirs are required to appoint a joint representative to exercise the rights arising from the capital share within the scope of Article 599 of the Turkish Code of Commercial Law. However, since the appointment of a joint representative is an opportunity foreseen for both the heirs and the company in terms of the joint exercise of rights, in accordance with the provisions regarding joint ownership, the heirs should be able to exercise their rights arising from the capital share without appointing a representative.
The company does not have the possibility of accepting some heirs and rejecting others. However, the TCC should allow the company to accept some heirs and reject others in accordance with certain objective criteria stipulated in the articles of association.
The fact that the effect created by the rejection decision within the framework of Article 596 of the TCC is the same as the effect created by the revocable validity does not indicate that the heirs’ acquisition of the capital shares is revocable. The rejection decision is a revocation condition arising from the law, and its provisions are retroactive within the framework of Article 596 of the TCC, paragraph 3.
