Halka Açık Anonim Ortaklıklarda Ayrılma Hakkını Kullanan Pay Sahibinin, Şirketler Topluluğu Düzenlemelerinden Yararlanma Olanağı (TTK m. 202/2 ve SerPK m. 24 Hükümlerinin Karşılıklı Uygulama Alanı)
Ayrılma hakkı bir boyutuyla, şirketler topluluğu kapsamında TTK m. 202/2; halka açık şirketler kapsamında ise SerPK m. 24 hükmü kapsamında düzenlenmiş olup anılan hükümlerin birlikte uygulanıp uygulanamayacağı ve uygulanabileceğinin kabulü hâlinde bu uygulamanın ne şekilde olabileceği tartışması, güncelliğini korumaktadır. Belirtelim ki, pay sahibi SerPK m. 24 hükmü uyarınca ayrılma hakkını kullansa dahi, ayrılma hakkı bedelinin ayrıca TTK m. 202/2 hükmüne göre hesaplanmasını da talep edebilecektir. Bu talep, payların yeniden satın alınması niteliğinde değildir; zira ayrılma hakkı yenilik doğuran bir hak olması nedeniyle kullanılmakla tükenmektedir; talep, sadece ayrılma bedelinin yeniden hesaplanmasına ilişkin olacaktır. Ayrılma hakkı doğuran işlemlerin sınırlı sayıda olup olmadığına yönelik tartışma bir yana, bu işlemlerin neler olduğu ve özellikle şirket işlemi niteliğinde olmasının gerekip gerekmediği bu çalışmanın konusunu oluşturmamaktadır. Pay sahibinin ayrılma bedelinin (yeniden/TTK m. 202/2 hükmüne göre) hesaplanmasına yönelik bu talebi, mahkemeler aracılığıyla ileri sürülebilmekte olup SPK’nın bu hususta idari bir yetkisi bulunmamaktadır; pay sahibi de bu hususta SPK’ya müracaat etme hakkını haiz değildir. SerPK m. 24 ve TTK m. 202/2 hükümlerinin birlikte uygulanıp uygulanamayacağı noktasında muhtelif ihtimaller gündeme gelmekteyse de, TTK m. 202/2 hükmünün lafzı ve SerPK m. 27 hükmünün TTK m. 208 hükmüne yönelik öngördüğü düzenlemenin SerPK m. 24 hükmünde TTK m. 202/2 hükmü için öngörülmemiş olması, SerPK m. 24 ve TTK m. 202/2 hükümlerinin birlikte uygulanabileceğine işaret eden başlıca hususlardır.
The Opportunity of the Shareholder, Who Has Used the Right of Leave/Appraisal Right in PubliclyHeld Joint-Stock Companies, to Benefit From the Regulations Regarding Group of Companies (Mutual/ Comparative Scopes of TCC art. 202/2 and CML art. 24)
The right of leave of a shareholder is regulated from one perspective both in Capital Market Law (CML) art. 24 and Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) art. 202/2, hence it is still an open discussion whether the shareholder, who has used the right of leave regulated in CML art. 24, could also have a demand arising from TCC art. 202/2 or not. It should be stated that, a shareholder, who has used the right of leave arising from CML art. 24, can also demand a recalculation of the seperation fee according to TCC art. 202/2, undoubtably by providing the other terms of TCC art. 202/2. This demand can only contain the recalculation of the seperation fee, in other words the shareholder cannot exercise the right of leave according to TCC art. 202/2, by using the right of demand according to CML art. 24 as he/she is no longer a shareholder. Even the TCC art. 202/2 itself states that the aforementioned regulation is also applicable to public companies as well, hence TCC art. 202/2 and CML art. 24 can be applied cummulatively. CML art. 27 is also another sign of this result, as it forbids TCC art. 208 to be applied to public companies, when CML art. 24 does not regulate the same for TCC art. 202/2. Capital Market Board (CMB) has no administrative discretion whether the separation fee calculated in accordance to CML art. 24 reflects the real value of the shares or not; this has to be clarified by courts on demand of the shareholder.
Contemporarily highly crucial, the right to leave of the shareholder regulated within Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) art. 202/2 in terms of group of companies and Capital Market Law (CML) art. 24 in terms of publicly held corporations is leading to a number of various debates, without losing importance. In this context, firstly, we will examine whether these provisions can be applied together, who shall be entitled to leave and if the shareholder exercising his right of withdrawal according to CML art. 24 has the right of demand granted by TCC art. 202/2. In our conclusion, it should be noted that even if the shareholder has used his or her right to leave according to CML art. 24, he or she can also demand the real value of the shares, according to TCC art. 202/2. It should be also noted that the aforementioned provisions can be implemented cumulatively, even if there are similar opinions, which can be summarized as the shareholder who has used its right to leave according to CML art. 24 or TCC art. 202/2 cannot demand anything according the other regulation, due to both the regulations have a different area of appliance. As mentioned above, a shareholder exercising the right to leave by taking the separation fee within the scope of CML art. 24, can also – undoubtably with the existence of a group of companies is given and the other criterias written in TCC art. 202/2 are fulfilled – ask for the recalculation of the separation fee according to the provisions of TCC art. 202/2 and claim the difference between the two as being a proximate damage. It should be also noted that, after using the right of leave according to TCC art. 202/2 or CML art. 24, the shareholder who has used the right to leave cannot also demand right of leave according to the alternative regulation, since the result of the right to leave is accomplished (as the “ex-shareholder” is no longer a shareholder), but can still demand the real value of the shares, which are subject to right of leave. Here TCC 202/2 itself states that it is applicable even if the shares are traded in stock exchange. In other words, TCC 202/2 itself states that the aforementioned regulation can also be applied to the right of leave arising from a public company. So, it should be stated again that those regulations can be applied cumulatively, as aforementioned above. Even it is an open question, which decisions of the company can lead to right of leave, it will not be discussed in this article. It is also an open discussion that if the right of leave can only arise from the decisions of the company itself or from other shareholders’ - especially the controller shareholder’s - processes. In this article this subject will not be examined either. But it can be simply notified that those decisions, which can lead to right of leave is not limited, even though there are opposite opinions. At this point it should also be stated that the Capital Market Board (CMB) has no administrative discretion whether the separation fee calculated in accordance to CML art. 24 reflects the real value of the shares or not; this has to be clarified by the courts at the request of the shareholder. This study also aims to find an answer on how the separation fee should be calculated within the scope of legislation (especially the provisions of TCC art. 202/2). It should also be noted that since in CML art. 27 it is written that the TCC art. 208 will/cannot be applied to public companies, the same is not stated in CML art. 24. Finally, it should be noted that a shareholder who has already used his right to leave in accordance with CML art. 24 is not allowed to use it again according to TCC art. 202/2; the demand is only valid if the separation fee calculated within the scope of CML art. 24 is not reflecting the real value, thus it has to be recalculated in terms of TCC 202/2.
