Decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation Regarding the Request for the Lifting the Corporate Veil Can Only Be Asserted by Third Parties Who Have Suffered Damages
Introduction
In the decision dated 14.06.2022 and numbered 2019/149 E. 2022/894 K., the Court of Cassation General Assembly (“CCGA”) evaluated the theory of piercing the corporate veil in the context of the relationship between the guarantor and the borrowing company in a dispute arising from a loan agreement. The CCGA ruled that the party requesting the piercing of the corporate veil must be a third party, and that the person who is a shareholder and a member of the board of directors of the relevant company cannot make a request based on this theory.
Dispute Subject to the Decision
The dispute arises from a loan agreement signed by the plaintiff as a guarantor. Upon the failure of the limited liability company to fulfill its payment obligation, the debt was paid by the guarantor. The plaintiff claimed that the loan agreement was signed by the limited liability company, but the loan was utilized by the sister joint stock company, that although the legal entities of the two companies are different, they are sister companies, that there is an organic bond between them, that the defendant joint stock company will be revealed to be among the principal debtors by piercing the corporate veil, and that both companies are jointly and severally liable for the debt arising from the collusive transactions they made, and claimed that both companies are jointly and severally liable for the debt arising from the collusive transactions they made, and exercised the right of recourse pursuant to Article 596 of the Turkish Code of Obligation and initiated enforcement proceedings against both companies, and filed a lawsuit for annulment of the objection upon the suspension of the enforcement proceedings due to objection. During the period when the loan was utilized, the plaintiff was also a shareholder and a member of the board of directors of the defendant joint stock company.
Evaluation by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Cassation
The court of first instance, examining the dispute, stated that the same persons were on the board of directors of the defendant joint stock and limited liability companies, and that these persons had joint or individual signatory powers in the defendant companies at the time the loan agreement was signed, the Court of Cassation and the doctrine generally accepted that this partial identity in the shareholding and management structure would be sufficient for the existence of an organic link, that this issue does not necessarily indicate that the defendant companies are absolutely identical in the organic sense, but points to this fact, and that the existence of an organic link or the phenomenon of commingling of assets, which is the essential condition that requires the corporate veil to be lifted, has occurred in the subject case.
The Court of Cassation, examining the dispute upon appeal, reversed the decision of the court of first instance on the grounds that the joint stock company shown as the defendant had nothing to do with the loan debt, that there was no organic connection between them and the limited liability company, and that the theory of piercing the corporate veil could not be applied in the subject case.
Evaluation by the Court of Cassation General Assembly
Upon the resistance of the court of first instance to the reversal decision of the Court of Cassation, the dispute was examined by the CCGA.
The CCGA emphasized that the theory of piercing the corporate veil should be used prudently only in exceptional and limited cases, and stated that this theory may be applied only in cases where the legal entity hides behind the concept of legal personality and violates the rule of honesty, where third parties are harmed by abusing the right granted to it, and where it is not possible to rely on another legal reason in order to decide on the liability of the legal entity causing the damage.
The decision emphasized that in order to lift the corporate veil between the sister companies, the complex chain of relationships between the parent company, the sister company and the shareholders must be clearly revealed, and that these companies, which appear as two different legal entities, are actually identical, and must have been established as two different legal entities in bad faith in order to evade creditors or to avoid liability.
Stating that the concept of organic bond has a broader meaning than the piercing of the corporate veil, the CCGA stated that the existence of an organic bond alone does not require the piercing of the corporate veil and that even if an organic bond is detected between the companies, in order to pierce the corporate veil and to claim the receivable from the person behind the veil, it must be proved with concrete data that malicious transactions have been carried out with the sole purpose of evading the creditor and damaging them. According to the CCGA, the fact that the shareholders of the companies are related is not sufficient for the acceptance of an organic bond between the companies or for the lifting of the corporate veil, nor is the fact that the companies operate in the same field sufficient for an organic bond.
The decision also emphasized that the person making the request must be a third party in order to lift the corporate veil. In this respect, it was stated that third parties should have the perception that they are doing business with a single company in an economic integrity, and as a result of this perception, by creating the appearance of having a strong structure while trading, the processes of sinking one of the companies into debt or eviscerating it and shifting the business area to the other will be considered as a typical abuse of right.
Considering the said principles, the CCGA determined that the above-mentioned elements did not occur for the defendant companies in the subject dispute and also emphasized once again that in order to apply the theory of piercing the corporate veil, the third party must be the one who claims to have suffered damage. In the subject case, considering that the plaintiff was a member of the board of directors and a shareholder of the defendant joint stock company at the time of the signing of the loan agreement, the CCGA ruled that the plaintiff was not in the position of a third party and was in a position to know the matters they claimed, and therefore could not make a claim based on the theory of piercing the corporate veil.
Conclusion
The decision, which sets out the criteria for the theory of piercing the veil of legal personality, is noteworthy for its assessment that this theory can only be asserted by third parties.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
The Turkish automobile and light commercial vehicle market left the 2000s behind with steadily rising sales figures and the 2010s with high and stable sales figures as well. In this period, the growth of the market was driven not only by high purchase power but also by easy access to credit and product diversity...
Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 ("TCC") provides the right to exit from the company to the shareholders of limited liability companies and the right to squeeze out the shareholder from the company, unlike the structure of joint stock companies, with the exit and squeeze out institutions specially regulated for...
Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (“TCC”) preserves the rule that the board of directors shall manage and represent joint stock companies. The TCC regulates how the power of representation shall be exercised, the registration and announcement of the persons authorized to represent, the transfer of the...
Ordinary partnerships are regulated under Turkish Law between Articles 620 and 645 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (“TCO” or the “Code”). The Law defines an ordinary partnership contract as a contract where two or more persons undertake to combine their labour or property to achieve a common...
Merger and acquisition processes are one of the legal processes that most seriously affect the identities and legal status of companies. After the completion of legal, tax, financial and operational due diligence reports, the parties initiate the negotiation process in case they reach an agreement on proceeding with the...
A popular business model for expanding market reach and brand recognition worldwide is franchising. Despite being less common than distribution agreements in the form of mono-brand store agreements, franchising is another significant method for extending luxury brands' distribution networks. Luxury brands use...
The European Union continues to be an important investment center for foreign investors. According to data from the European Commission's "Second Annual Report on the monitoring of foreign direct investment in the European Union", the European Union received €117 billion worth of foreign direct investment in...
Transfer of shares is arguably the first legal transaction that comes to mind among the legal transactions regarding the shares of a capital company, and the most common transaction in practice. However, the shares of a capital company may also be subject to various transactions, other than share purchase...
Law No. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce (E-commerce Law or Law) has recently undergone a radical change in order to regulate the behavior of the players in the rapidly growing and developing e-commerce sector. The new regulations that came into force as of January 1, 2023 envisage important...
On 11 June 2021, the German Federal Parliament approved the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (Lieferkettensorgfaltsgesetz) (“Act”) which affects not only German entities but also their suppliers in foreign countries (including Turkish entities). The main focus of the Act, which entered into force on...
On 21 December 2007, the Federal Council approved the draft revision of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which also includes amendments to company law. On 28 November 2014, the Federal Council referred the draft revision for consultation. Following extensive discussions and a long enactment process, the...
The Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 ("TCC") regulates maritime trade contracts under the fourth part of the fifth book of the Code. Among the types of contracts regulated in this section, the most frequently used contract in international maritime transport practice is the freight contract regulated under...
Prohibition on hidden income shifting is one of the most important issues that is broadly regulated under Capital Markets Law No. 6362 (“CML”). In conjunction with CML Article 21, which has a broader context than Article 15 of the abrogated Capital Markets Law No. 2499, another significant step has been taken...
As a result of developing commercial activities and large-scale investments, especially concluded in the fields of construction, energy and mining, companies are seeking to participate in these investments by uniting their powers and expertise to take advantage of financial opportunities together. This tendency...
The Turkish Commercial Code (“TCC” or “Law”) has enabled companies to apply different structural models and to implement new legal formations by including spin-off provisions to its Article 159 et seq. In accordance with the provisions of the law, companies may transfer a certain element, or elements, of their...
The International Federation of Consulting Engineers is a professional association established in 1913, known as the FIDIC (Fédération Internationale Des Ingénieurs-Counseils). Its members are duly elected from consultant-engineer associations of various countries, and membership to the association is...
Incoterms are a set of rules introduced by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) to explain the commercial terms that are widely used in international trade. The purpose of Incoterms rules is to facilitate and expedite international trade in a safe and secure manner...
The regulation applicable to all Turkish ports prepared by the Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications that entered into force after being published in the official gazette on October 31, 2012 (˝the Regulation˝), consolidates all the bylaws, regulations and instructions in a single Regulation...
As a rule, rights and obligations arising from an agreement have legal consequences only between the creditor and the debtor which are parties to the agreement. This principle is referred to as "privity of contract." In general, contracts for the benefit of third parties, where the fulfillment of an...
The rules of e-commerce, which grow and develop with the digitalizing world, are changing. E-commerce has become the driving force of the digital economy. However, considering the growth rate of e-commerce and the transformation it has undergone in a short time, it is obvious that some...
The dissolution of a company is a specific type of dissolution, which results in the cancellation of the legal personality which was gained by registration at incorporation. The specific proceeding which leads to the dissolution, and thus, the termination of a company upon the constitutive decision...
Companies in which shares or authority to manage is held by members of a family are considered to be “family businesses”. Family members can hold shares that control the company, as well as retain management authority. Having a family business means opportunity, security and income for...
Turkey ratified the Convention on the Contract for International Carriage of Goods by Road (“CMR”) in accordance with Act No. 3939 dated 7 December 1993, and the CMR entered into force in Turkey on 31 October 1995. In accordance with Article 1 / 1 of the CMR, the carriage of goods by road...
Ordinary partnerships are governed by Article 620 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (“TCO”). An ordinary partnership agreement is defined as an agreement whereby two or more persons undertake to join efforts and/or goods to reach a common goal...
The concept of disguised profit transfer in joint stock companies, in its broadest meaning, covers the transfer of company assets to related parties and may occur in different ways. This concept is regulated in detail under capital markets legislation...
Share subscription agreements, which are commonly encountered in start-up investments, set out the terms and conditions of an investor’s participation in a company as a shareholder by subscribing the new shares issued in a capital increase...
The electronic signature, which has the same legal consequences as wet signatures if it meets certain conditions, has taken its place in many legal systems and has enhanced commercial life. Although there are various types and applications in different legal systems...
INCOTERMS are a set of rules introduced by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) to explain the commercial terms that are widely used in international trade. The purpose of the Incoterms rules is to contribute to and facilitate the safe and swift conduct of international trade...