Lawsuit for Dissolution of Companies for Just Cause
Introduction
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 of the court, is regulated separate but almost identical provisions for joint stock companies and limited liability companies under the Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102 (“TCC”).
The subject of this article is the lawsuit for dissolution of companies for just cause, which is applicable for both joint stock companies and limited liability companies. First of all, the legal framework will be explained alongside with scholars’ contributions on the issue. Finally, a rather recent decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated February 2022, will be examined.
Legislation Regarding Dissolution Proceedings against a Company
During the transition from repealed Turkish Commercial Code No. 6762 (“rTCC”) to the TCC, the lawsuit for dissolution of the company for just cause was introduced under Article 531 of the TCC for joint stock companies, and under Article 636/3 of the TCC for limited liability companies. The common feature of both articles is to strengthen the position of the minority shareholder, who would be the plaintiff of the dissolution lawsuit, against the majority shareholders. As a right granted to the minority in joint stock companies, it is one of the provisions of the TCC to protect the rights of minority shareholders.[1] In limited liability companies, each partner has the right to file a lawsuit for dissolution for just cause.
It is commonly known that a minority in joint stock companies is a shareholder or a group of shareholders constituting at least ten percent of the capital in private companies. In public companies, this threshold is set as five percent, but for the sake of simplicity, this article will focus on private companies. Article 531 of the TCC defines the plaintiff as “owners of shares representing at least one tenth of the capital.” Both due to the usage of the plural, and from the explanation in the Recital of the relevant article which states that “More than one shareholder can exercise the right in question together,” it is understood that it is not necessary for a single shareholder to meet the ten percent threshold in order to have the title of plaintiff, and that multiple shareholders can join together and file a lawsuit. Finally, the scholars consider that the threshold shall not be increased with the articles of association, however it is controversial among scholars whether it is possible to set the threshold below ten percent in the articles of association.[2]
The dissolution lawsuit for just cause is not one of the innovations created by the TCC for limited liability companies, as it also existed under Article 549(1)(4) of the rTCC. In the period covered by the repealed law, the right of action in limited liability companies was granted to every partner, without their being a specific condition such as having a minority share. During the transition to the TCC, every partner’s right to claim dissolution in a limited liability company was preserved. This has been interpreted by some scholars as bringing limited liability companies closer to personal partnerships in terms of dissolution with just cause.[3]
Another important point to be emphasized regarding the parties of the case is the identity of the defendant. Although the relevant articles were introduced to protect minority shareholders against the majority in both joint stock companies and limited liability companies,[4] the defendant is not the majority shareholders but the company. This is due to the fact that even though the court has wide discretion in terms of solutions, the ultimate demand of the plaintiff is the dissolution of the company,[5] and the such relief should be addressed to the company.
Finally, arguably the most important feature of the lawsuit for dissolution for just cause under the TCC is the wide discretion granted to the judge for both the determination of just cause and the remedy. According to commentators on this Article, possible reasons for a finding of just cause include (i) constant violation of shareholder rights, especially minority rights, (ii) the failure to call the general assembly repeatedly and in violation of the TCC, and (iii) the company’s continuous loss of money.[6] In addition, personal tensions or intra-family conflicts may also constitute just cause in joint stock companies which are family businesses, and for limited companies in general. However, whether or not violations of the shareholders’ agreement can constitute just cause is controversial. Professor Ayoğlu claims that they can, and argues that a reason which would cause inconvenience to the continuation of the partnership and which is stipulated under a contract among all of the shareholders, should not be less corporative than family tension.[7] In addition, Professor Altay states that in joint ventures established as joint-stock companies where the equity subscription is equal, a situation that will cause a permanent deadlock could be considered just cause for dissolution.[8]
In each case, if the court accepts the existence of just cause, Articles 531 and 636 of the TCC provide for a unique remedy. Accordingly, the court may order a squeeze-out of the claimant shareholder from the partnership or “another remedy appropriate to the situation.” Undoubtedly, the dissolution of the company is the last resort (ultima ratio) that the court may decide.[9]
Professor Kendigelen has written a critical review of Article 531 of the TCC. As per the explicit wording of Article 531, if the judge decides to squeeze-out a claimant shareholder from a company, the “real value at the closest date to the decision date” will be the share price. Kendigelen draws attention to the fact that this language was added to the article by the Justice Commission at the Parliament, and may not be suitable to meet the article’s ratio legis. Underlining that the reason for the addition was only to ensure that the shareholder also benefits from the increase in the value of the shares over time, he states that if the provision is applied in absolute terms, the shareholder would be adversely affected by the decrease in the share value.[10]
A Novel Decision by the Court of Cassation
In a decision dated 15.02.2022 and numbered E. 2020/8247, K. 2022/1130 (“Decision”), the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (“Chamber”) evaluated a claim for the dissolution of two limited companies for just cause.[11] In this case, two shareholders each held 50% of two limited liability companies. The claim of the plaintiff regarding the existence of just cause was that the other shareholder (i) had completely abandoned dealing with the companies, (ii) had given his administrative powers in the companies to his son, (iii) the son of the other shareholder had made sales in a way that would cause a loss to one of the companies and a corresponding amount had been transferred out from the company, and (iv) that the other shareholder and his son had commercial relations with rivals of the defendant companies. As a result, the plaintiff claimed that the continuation of the company was intolerable and demanded a decision to dissolve the companies.
The counterclaims of the other shareholder focused on two points: (i) it was possible to squeeze-out the plaintiff from the partnership and (ii) the claims were not made in good faith. In the lower court decision, the plaintiff’s claim was accepted and the dissolution of the company was ordered on the grounds that the company (i) had not been active for ten years, (ii) the company had no opportunity to realize its purpose, (iii) there was no possibility for the shareholders to come together and (iv) there was no attempt to make the company active again.
In its Decision, the Chamber underlined that dissolution is the last resort (ultima ratio) under Article 363/3 of the TCC and revoked the decision to dissolve the company without resorting to any other remedy. The Chamber found that both the plaintiff and the claimant requested squeeze-out of the plaintiff among their claims for relief. Therefore, the Chamber reversed the lower instance decision since it did not decide to squeeze-out the plaintiff, but rather decided to the dissolution the company.
Conclusion
The right to claim dissolution for just cause is granted to every partner in limited liability companies, whereas it is a newly introduced minority right for joint stock companies. Although the alleged just cause generally arises from the actions of the majority shareholders, the company is the defendant in a dissolution proceeding. Arguably, the most important feature of a suit for dissolution for just cause is the judge’s wide discretionary power, both in determining just cause and in choosing an appropriate remedy. In its Decision dated 15.02.2022, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation found the decision for dissolution contrary to the principle of ultima ratio and revoked the decision by stating that squeezing-out the plaintiff from the partnership should have been regarded as a solution.
- Tekinalp (Poroy/Çamoğlu): Ortaklıklar Hukuku II, İstanbul 2017, N. 1562a; Ayoğlu, Tolga: “Anonim Ortaklıkların Haklı Nedenle Feshi”, GSÜHFD, Year 2013 Issue 2, p. 221; Erdem, Nuri: “Anonim Ortaklığın Haklı Sebeple Feshi” PhD Thesis, İstanbul 2012, p. 6 ff.
- For the view against decreasing the threshold of 10% with the articles of association, see. Tekinalp, Ünal: Sermaye Ortaklıklarının Yeni Hukuku, 3rd Edition, İstanbul 2013, p. 287 N. 14-09; Tekinalp (Poroy/Çamoğlu), N. 1563a.
- Yıldırım, Ali Haydar: “6102 sayılı yeni Türk Ticaret Kanununa göre limited ortaklığın haklı sebeple feshi”, PhD Thesis, İzmir 2012, p. 7.
- Yıldırım, p. 30 ff.
- Ayoğlu, p. 239.
- For extensive explanations on just cause, see. Tekinalp (Poroy/Çamoğlu), N. 1564a ff.; Erdem, p. 74 ff.
- Ayoğlu, p. 231.
- Altay, Sıtkı Anlam: Anonim Ortaklıklar Hukuku’nda Sermayeye Katılmalı Ortak Girişimler, Vedat Kitapçılık, 2009, p. 689.
- Tekinalp, s. 287 N. 14-12 b; Çamoğlu, Ersin: “Anonim Ortaklığın Haklı Sebeple Feshinde Hakimin Takdir Yetkisi” BATİDER, Issue 31, 2015, p. 10.
- Kendigelen, Abuzer: Yeni Türk Ticaret Kanunu: Değişiklikler, Yenilikler ve İlk Tespitler, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, 2016, p. 435.
- For the full text of the decision in Turkish, please see https://lib.kazanci.com.tr/kho3/ibb/files/dsp.php?fn=11hd-2020-8247.htm&kw=`2022/1130`&cr=yargitay#fm (Access date: 04.07.2022).
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...
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 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...
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...