Istanbul Law Review

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007    Full Text (PDF)

Thoughts on the Squeeze-out Right: Appraisal Payment in a Group of Companies and Exclusion of a Partner in a Joint-Stock Company

Muhammed Sulu

For the first time in our law, the group of companies regulated in the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) numbered 6102 refers to an organization that does not have a legal personality and is financially and administratively united. Conflicts of interest are common, both between persons within a company and between companies within a group. In the TCC Art 208, it is regulated that when the minority shareholder in a subsidiary company hinders the operation of the company, acts against good faith, causes noticeable distress, or acts recklessly, its shares can be forcibly purchased and removed from the company. The purpose of the provision is to remove a minority shareholder that hinders the operation of the company against good faith and ensure peace within the company. Inherently, there should be a right to leave as opposed to the right to extract (purchase). Thus, the minority, who is oppressed by the majority, will be able to sell their shares to the company and leave the company. Problems regarding the determination and the appraisal payment regulated in various parts of our Commercial Code are also valid in the TCC Art 208. Appraisal payment is basically a value that is equivalent to the demand right corresponding to a capital share. Various and alternative solutions for determining and paying this value are emphasized in this study. Finally, it is observed that the provision of the TCC Art 208 has not been implemented since the adoption of the law, whereas the practitioners are trying to extend this provision to closed-type joint-stock companies. Various suggestions about the acceptance of the right to purchase for jointstock companies have been presented at the end of this study in line with the needs of trade life.

Keywords: Group of companies, Squeeze-out right, Appraisal payment, Appraisal right, Good faith
DOI :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007   IUP :10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007    Full Text (PDF)

Şirketler Topluluğunda Satın Alma Hakkı, Ayrılma Akçesi ve Anonim Şirketten Çıkarma Üzerine Düşünceler

Muhammed Sulu

Hukukumuzda ilk kez 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu’nda düzenlenen şirketler topluluğu, tüzel kişiliği olmayan, mali ve idari açıdan birleşmiş bir organizasyonu ifade etmektedir. Hem şirket içindeki kişiler hem de topluluk içindeki şirketler arasında menfaat çatışmalarının yaşanması olağandır. Bu bağlamda TTK m 208 hükmünde, şirketin çalışmasını engelleyen, dürüstlük kuralına aykırı davranan, fark edilir sıkıntı yaratan veya pervasızca hareket eden bağlı şirketteki azınlık pay sahibinin paylarının zorla satın alınıp şirketten çıkarılabileceği düzenleme altına alınmıştır. Hükmün amacı dürüstlük kuralına aykırı olarak şirketin işleyişine engel olan azınlığı şirketten çıkartıp şirket içi barışı sağlamak ve topluluktaki menfaat ihtilaflarını topluluk menfaati doğrultusunda çözümlemektir. Meselenin tabiatı icabı, çıkarma (satın alma) hakkının karşısında ayrılma hakkının bulunması gerekmektedir. Böylece çoğunluk tahakkümü altında bulunan azınlığa, paylarını şirkete satıp şirketten ayrılmasına imkân sağlanmış olacaktır. Ticaret Kanunumuzun çeşitli yerlerinde düzenlenen ayrılma akçesinin belirlenmesine ve ödenmesine ilişkin sorunlar TTK m 208 bakımından da geçerlidir. Ayrılma akçesi, en temelde şirket ortağının sermaye payına tekabül eden talep hakkının karşılığını oluşturan bir değerdir. Çalışmada bu değerin belirlenmesi ve ödenmesine ilişkin alternatif çözümler üzerinde durulmuştur. Nihai olarak, TTK m 208 hükmünün, Kanunun kabulünden bu yana hiç bir yüksek yargı kararına yansımadığı, buna mukabil uygulamacıların bu hükmü kapalı tip anonim şirketlere teşmil ettirmeye çalıştıkları müşahede edilmiştir. Bu itibarla, çalışmanın sonunda ticaret hayatının ihtiyaçları doğrultusunda anonim şirketler için de satın alma hakkının kabulüne ilişkin çeşitli öneriler sunulmuştur.

Keywords: Şirketler topluluğu, Satın alma hakkı, Ayrılma akçesi, Ayrılma hakkı, Dürüstlük kuralı

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


For the first time in our law, the group of companies regulated in the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) numbered 6102 refers to an organization that does not have a legal personality and is financially and administratively united. The legislator aimed to resolve conflicts of interest between persons within a company as well as companies within the community in favor of the community interest. In TCC Art 208, when the minority shareholder in a subsidiary company hinders the operation of the company, acts against good faith, causes noticeable distress, or acts recklessly, its shares can be forcibly purchased and removed from the company. The regulation on the appraisal right of the controlling company has led to an important paradigm change in joint-stock companies because, in practice, companies that make up a group of companies are largely joint-stock companies. As a rule, it is not possible for a shareholder of a joint-stock company to be squeezed out from the company against its will. It is no doubt that it is not a coincidence that this regulation, which may be against the structure of joint-stock companies, is allowed for a group of companies. This is because the emergence of conflicts of interest in a group of companies is higher than that of individual companies.

The appraisal payment is basically a value that is equivalent to the demand right corresponding to the capital share of the company partner. In accordance with the principle of protecting the capital of stock companies, while the company continues its existence, the partners cannot reclaim what they have given to the company as capital. However, although the shareholder who leaves the company will no longer benefit from being a partner, the capital share s/he has brought to the company still belongs to the company. To prevent this situation that will cause unjust enrichment, the legislator has established the appraisal payment system. Three valuation methods are used in determining the value of company shares in our country. Among these, the asset-based valuation method is the most frequently used in judgments because of its easy auditing and applicability. In the classical sense, the equity value is determined by subtracting the liabilities from the company’s assets, and this value is proportioned with the relevant share. In today’s world, it is obvious that it is unfair for companies to be valued only with elements such as tables, chairs, and computers. The second frequently used method is the market-based valuation method. In this method, the value of a company is determined by comparing it with companies that are in a similar market situation with it. This method does not include the expectation determinations about the future of a company, but in this method, the annual cash flow in the company is largely determinant. The least used generally accepted valuation method is the income-based valuation method. In this method, in addition to the procedures of the first two methods, a company’s future expectations are also added to the calculations.

In both TCC Art 208 and other relevant cases in the TCC, determining the cash equivalent of the appraisal payment corresponding to the capital share in the company of the leaving partner is important in preventing disputes. After the determination of the payment amount, in our opinion, there is no objection to the appraisal payment with benefits. According to TCC Art 4, disputes about appraisal payment are absolute commercial cases. In this respect, according to TCC Art 5/A, it is required to apply to a mediator to file a lawsuit for the appraisal payment. The emergence of various and versatile solutions in the mediation practice of our country, which aims to create a “win-win” situation, is promising in terms of our consensus culture. Alternative solutions, such as hiring the applicant or a relative under certain conditions and selling the company’s property to the applicant at a discount instead of cashing out the appraisal payment, are some of the examples that are in the interest of both parties. After it has been agreed that the appraisal payment is to be settled with a non-cash benefit, in the event of default on this debt, the debtor company may be requested to pay the initial cash provision.

The current legal regulation does not allow the squeezing out of a partner of a jointstock company who violates the obligation of loyalty, prevents the company from working, and disturbs the peace within the company by violating good faith, except when it is a partner of a subsidiary company in a group of companies. However, in practice, to establish peace within the company and to sustain the existence of the company, the provisions about the squeezing out of a partner of a joint-stock company for a just cause should be regulated in the law. 


PDF View

References

  • Aker H, ‘Anonim ve Limited Şirketlerde Ortaklık Sıfatının Sona Ermesi ve Özellikle Haklı Sebeple Fesih Davasına İlişkin Bazı Değerlendirmeler’(2016)32(1) Batider 63-150. google scholar
  • Akın İ, ‘Şirket Değerleme Yöntemlerinin Sermaye Şirketlerinde Çıkma, Çıkarılma ve Fesih Davalarına Etkisi’, iç Tekin Memiş, Bahar Şimşek ve Özge Selin Şener (edr), Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi Başkanı Merhum Mehmet Kılıç’a Armağan (On İki Levha 2020). google scholar
  • Akın MY, Anonim Ortaklıkta Bağlı Nama Yazılı Hisseler, (2. Baskı, Vedat 2014). google scholar
  • Akın MY, Şirketler Hukukunda ve Özellikle A.Ş.lerde Pay Sahibinin Sadakat Borcu (1. Baskı, İstanbul Menkul Kıymetler Borsası 2002). google scholar
  • Altay SA, ‘ Türk ve İsviçre Anonim Ortaklıklar Hukuku’nda Esas Sözleşmesel Bağlam’, İsviçre Borçlar Kanunu’nun İktibasının 80.Yılında İsviçre Borçlar Hukuku’nun Türk Ticaret Hukuku’na Etkileri (Vedat 2009) 563-637. google scholar
  • Antalya OG, Hukuk Metodolojisi II (1. Baskı, Seçkin 2021). google scholar
  • Antalya OG ve Topuz M, Medeni Hukuk I (3. Baskı, Seçkin 2019). google scholar
  • Araman Ü ve Kibar H, Hisse Senetlerinin Gerçek Değerinin Hesaplanması (1. Baskı, Türkmen 1999). google scholar
  • Arslanlı H ve Domaniç H, Limited Şirketler Hukuku ve Uygulaması (TTK Şerhi III), (Temel Yayınları 1989). google scholar
  • Ataay A, Medeni Hukukun Genel Teorisi (3. Baskı, İÜHF 1980). google scholar
  • Atakan MC, Şirketler Topluluğunda Hâkimiyet (1. Baskı, Aristo 2021). google scholar
  • Ayhan R, Çağlar H ve Özdamar M, Şirketler Hukuku Genel Esaslar (3. Baskı, Yetkin 2021). google scholar
  • Bahtiyar M, Ortaklıklar Hukuku (13. Baskı, Beta 2019). google scholar
  • Battal A, ‘Anonim Şirketlerde Ortaklıktan Iskat Prosedürü (TTK m 408) ile İlgili Yargıtay Uygulaması’, Ticaret Hukuku ve Yargıtay Kararları Sempozyumu XVII, 9-10 Haziran 2000, (BTHAE 2000). google scholar
  • Baums PA, ‘Der Ausschluss von Minderheitsaktionaren nach §§ 327 a ff AktG n. F.’ WM 2001, 1843-1850. google scholar
  • Bilgili F ve Demirkapı E, Şirketler Hukuku (9. Baskı, Dora 2013). google scholar
  • Bozkurt T, Anonim Şirketlerde Pay Devrinin Sınırlandırılması, (1. Baskı, On İki Levha 2016). google scholar
  • Böckli P, Davies PL, Ferran E, and etc., ‘A Proposal for the Reform of Group Law in Europe’ (2017) 18 (1) European Business Organization Law Review 1-49. google scholar
  • Böckli P, Schweizer Aktienrecht (4th edn, Schulthess 2009). google scholar
  • Çamoğlu E, ‘Limited Ortaklıktan Çıkarılma’ (2014)30(3) Batider 5-20. google scholar
  • Çamoğlu E, Kollektif Ortaklığın Haklı Sebeple Feshi ve Ortağın Haklı Sebeple Çıkarılması (1.Baskı, Vedat 2008). (Haklı Sebep) google scholar
  • Çelik A, ‘Anonim Şirketlerde Ortaklıktan Çıkarılma’ (2009)17(2) SÜHFD 171-215. google scholar
  • Cenkci E, ‘Çıkan ya da Çıkarılan Limited Ortağına Ayrılma Akçesinin Ödenmesi (TTK m. 642)’ (2018)76(4) Ankara Barosu Dergisi 1-50. google scholar
  • Çırak R, Şirket Değerleme Yöntemleri (1. Baskı, Seçkin 2018). google scholar
  • Değirmenci C, Anonim Ortaklıkta Iskat (1. Baskı, Vedat 2006). google scholar
  • Dettling H, Die Entstehungsgeschichte des Konzernrechts im Aktiengesetz von 1965 (1st, Mohr Siebeck 1997). google scholar
  • Domaniç H, Anonim Şirketler Hukuku ve Uygulaması (TTK Şerhi II), (Temel 1988). google scholar
  • Eryiğit H, 6102 Sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu Çerçevesinde Anonim Ortaklıklarda Sermayenin Korunması İlkesi (1. Baskı, On İki Levha 2020). google scholar
  • Göktürk K, Şirketler Topluluğunda Sorumluluk Esasları (1. Baskı, Adalet 2015). google scholar
  • Göle C, Anonim Ortaklıklarda Nakdî Sermaye Koyma Borcu ve Bu Borcu İfada Temerrüt (BTHAE 1976). google scholar
  • Gündoğdu G, ‘Bir Şirketler Topluluğu En Az Kaç Bağlı Şirketten Oluşur Ticaret Sicil Yönetmeliği m 105 Hükmünün Türk Ticaret Kanunu m 195 Hükmü ile Uyumsuzluğu Sorunu’ (2014)12(133) Legal Hukuk Dergisi 107-126. google scholar
  • Helvacı S ve Erlüle F, Medeni Hukuk (6. Baskı, Legal 2020). google scholar
  • Hirsch EE, Türk Ticaret Kanununun Esaslarına Göre Ticaret Hukuku (Cihan 1935). google scholar
  • Hüffer U und Koch J, Aktiengesetz, (15. Auflage, Verlag München 2021). google scholar
  • Karababa S, Anonim Ortaklıkta Satın Alma (Squeeze-Out) ve Çıkarma Hakları (1. Baskı, Seçkin 2016). google scholar
  • Karacan Aİ, Ortaklıktan Çıkarma-Sermaye Piyasası Hukuku Açısından Bir İnceleme (1. Baskı, Legal 2015). google scholar
  • Karasu R, Türk Ticaret Kanunu Tasarısına Göre Anonim Şirketlerde Emredici Hükümler İlkesi (1. Baskı, Yetkin 2009). google scholar
  • Karayalçın Y, ‘Anonim Şirkette Çoğunluk-Azınlık İlişkisi Bakımından Kontrol (Blok) Satışı ve Genel Alım Önerisi’ iç Turhan Esener (ed), Prof. Dr. Haluk Tandoğan’ın Hatırasına Armağan (BTHAE 1990). google scholar
  • Kaya B, Halka Açık Anonim Ortaklıklarda Pay Sahiplerinin Ortaklıktan Ayrılma Hakkı (1. Baskı, Beta 2018). google scholar
  • Kaya Mİ, ‘Büyük Pay Sahiplerinin Azınlığı Ortaklıktan Çıkarma Hakkı (Squeeze-Out Right)’(2007)11(1-2) EÜHFD 307-332. google scholar
  • Kendigelen A, Yeni Türk Ticaret Kanunu: Değişiklikler, Yenilikler ve İlk Tespitler (3. Baskı, On İki Levha 2016). google scholar
  • Kılıçoğlu AM, Medeni Hukuk (3. Baskı, Turhan 2019). google scholar
  • Klay H, Die Vinkulierung: Theorie und Praxis im neuen Aktienrecht (1st, Helbing & Lichtenhahn 1997). google scholar
  • Mahoney PG and Weinstein M, ‘The Appraisal Remedy and Merger Premiums’ (1999)1(1-2) American Law and Economics Review 239-275. google scholar
  • Manavgat Ç, Hukuki Bakımdan Halka Açık Anonim Ortaklıklar ve Halka Arz (1. Baskı, BTHAE 2016). google scholar
  • Memiş T ve Turan G, Sermaye Piyasası Hukuku, (5. Baskı, Seçkin 2020). google scholar
  • Nomer NF, Anonim Ortaklıkta Pay Sahibinin Sadakat Yükümlülüğü (1. Baskı, Beta 1999). google scholar
  • Okutan Nilsson G, Türk Ticaret Kanunu Tasarısı’na Göre Şirketler Topluluğu Hukuku (1. Baskı, On İki Levha 2009). google scholar
  • Orak Çelikboya L, Türk Ticaret Kanunu Madde 208 Uyarınca Anonim Şirketlerde Satın Alma Hakkı (1. Baskı, On İki Levha 2017). google scholar
  • Özcanlı FB, ‘Şirketler Topluluğu Hukukuna İlişkin Avrupa’da Ortaya Çıkan Yeni Yaklaşımlar’ (2017)(2) GSÜHFD 355-387. google scholar
  • Öztürk Dirikkan H, Limited Şirket Ortağının Ayrılması ve Ayrılma Payı (1. Baskı, Yetkin 2005). google scholar
  • Paslı A ve Akay HO, ‘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)’ (2019) 77(1) İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 49-70. google scholar
  • Pekcanıtez Usul, Medeni Usul Hukuku (Dinamik Kitap, On İki Levha 2018). google scholar
  • Poroy R, Tekinalp Ü ve Çamoğlu E, Ortaklıklar Hukuku II (14. Baskı, Vedat 2019) . google scholar
  • Pulaşlı H, Şirketler Hukuku Şerhi I (3. Baskı, Adalet 2018). google scholar
  • Pulaşlı H, Şirketler Hukuku Şerhi II (3. Baskı, Adalet 2018). google scholar
  • Şahin A, Anonim Ortaklığın Haklı Sebeple Feshi (1. Baskı, Vedat 2013). google scholar
  • Şahin G, Anonim Şirketlerde Iskat Müessesesi (1. Baskı, Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü 2020). google scholar
  • Sekmen O, ‘Şirketler Hukukunda, TTK m.208 Hükmü ile Hâkim Şirkete Tanınan Satın Alma Hakkı (Squeeze-Out Right)’ (2021)16(197-198) BUHFD 29-93. google scholar
  • Semerci Vuraloğlu T, Sermaye Piyasası Kanunu’na Göre Anonim Ortaklıkta Ayrılma Hakkı (1. Baskı, On İki Levha 2018). google scholar
  • Sevi AM, ‘Sermaye Şirketlerinin Birleşmesinde Zorunlu Ayrılma Akçesi ve Bu Yolla Çıkarılacak Ortakların Menfaatlerinin Korunması’ iç Tekin Memiş, Bahar Şimşek ve Özge Selin Şener (edr), Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi Başkanı Merhum Mehmet Kılıç’a Armağan (On İki Levha 2020). google scholar
  • Steinberg MI and Lindahl EN, ‘The New Law of Squeeze-Out Mergers’ (1984)62(3) Washington University Law Quarterly 351-414. google scholar
  • Sulu M, Anonim Ortaklıklarda Şirket Menfaati Kavramı (1. Baskı, On İki Levha 2019). google scholar
  • Tekil M, ‘Fransız Temyiz Mahkemesi’nin “Rozenblum Kararı” ve “Grup Çıkarı” Kavramı’ (2005) 1 (3) Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi 213-217. google scholar
  • Tekinalp Ü, ‘Birleşmede Ayrılma Akçesi’, (2012)2(1) Regesta Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi 21-27. google scholar
  • Tütüncü M, Hakim Şirketin Azınlığın Paylarını Satın Alma Hakkı (1. Baskı, On İki Levha 2017). google scholar
  • Ulmer P and Schafer C,Münchener Kommentarzum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (7th edn, C.H. Beck 2017). google scholar
  • Uzel, N ‘Nama Yazılı Payların Satın Alma Teklifinde Bulunma Hakkına Konu Olması Halinde Gerçek Değer Ve Faizin Tespiti İle Kâr Payının Mahsup Edilmesine Dair İlkeler’ (2013)71(2) İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 555-562. google scholar
  • Van Der Elst C and Van Den Steen L, ‘Balancing the Interests of Minority and Majority Shareholders: A Comparative Analysis of Squeeze-out and Sell-out Rights’, (2009)4(6) European Company and Financial Law Review 391-439. google scholar
  • beck-online.GROSSKOMMENTAR google scholar
  • karararama.yargitay.gov.tr google scholar
  • www.kazanci.com google scholar
  • www.legalbank.net google scholar
  • www.lexpera.com.tr google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Sulu, M. (2022). Thoughts on the Squeeze-out Right: Appraisal Payment in a Group of Companies and Exclusion of a Partner in a Joint-Stock Company. Istanbul Law Review, 80(1), 213-248. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007


AMA

Sulu M. Thoughts on the Squeeze-out Right: Appraisal Payment in a Group of Companies and Exclusion of a Partner in a Joint-Stock Company. Istanbul Law Review. 2022;80(1):213-248. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007


ABNT

Sulu, M. Thoughts on the Squeeze-out Right: Appraisal Payment in a Group of Companies and Exclusion of a Partner in a Joint-Stock Company. Istanbul Law Review, [Publisher Location], v. 80, n. 1, p. 213-248, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Sulu, Muhammed,. 2022. “Thoughts on the Squeeze-out Right: Appraisal Payment in a Group of Companies and Exclusion of a Partner in a Joint-Stock Company.” Istanbul Law Review 80, no. 1: 213-248. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007


Chicago: Humanities Style

Sulu, Muhammed,. “Thoughts on the Squeeze-out Right: Appraisal Payment in a Group of Companies and Exclusion of a Partner in a Joint-Stock Company.” Istanbul Law Review 80, no. 1 (May. 2023): 213-248. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007


Harvard: Australian Style

Sulu, M 2022, 'Thoughts on the Squeeze-out Right: Appraisal Payment in a Group of Companies and Exclusion of a Partner in a Joint-Stock Company', Istanbul Law Review, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 213-248, viewed 28 May. 2023, https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Sulu, M. (2022) ‘Thoughts on the Squeeze-out Right: Appraisal Payment in a Group of Companies and Exclusion of a Partner in a Joint-Stock Company’, Istanbul Law Review, 80(1), pp. 213-248. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007 (28 May. 2023).


MLA

Sulu, Muhammed,. “Thoughts on the Squeeze-out Right: Appraisal Payment in a Group of Companies and Exclusion of a Partner in a Joint-Stock Company.” Istanbul Law Review, vol. 80, no. 1, 2022, pp. 213-248. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007


Vancouver

Sulu M. Thoughts on the Squeeze-out Right: Appraisal Payment in a Group of Companies and Exclusion of a Partner in a Joint-Stock Company. Istanbul Law Review [Internet]. 28 May. 2023 [cited 28 May. 2023];80(1):213-248. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007 doi: 10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007


ISNAD

Sulu, Muhammed. “Thoughts on the Squeeze-out Right: Appraisal Payment in a Group of Companies and Exclusion of a Partner in a Joint-Stock Company”. Istanbul Law Review 80/1 (May. 2023): 213-248. https://doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2022.80.1.0007



TIMELINE


Submitted26.04.2021
Accepted19.03.2022
Published Online15.04.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.