Share Option Plans in the Light of a Recent Decision of the Court of Cassation
Introduction
Employee shareholding, which means the ownership of some or all of the capital of a publicly traded or closed company by employees, has attracted great interest in many countries around the world, particularly in the United States of America, due to the advantages it provides to the national economy, the companies implementing it and the employees.[1] Increasing employee loyalty to the company by providing employees with the opportunity to acquire shares in the company they work for has been increasingly applied in our country in recent years, as it enables employees to benefit from the economic development and value increase of companies operating in qualified human resource-intensive sectors such as fast-growing start-ups and IT. Although employee stock option plans (“ESOP”) are related to many areas of law such as corporate law, labor law, contract law, tax law, etc., there are few Court of Cassation decisions on this subject.
In this context, the examination and evaluation of ESOP in the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 29.11.2022[2] (“Decision”) is essential as it contains hints reflecting the perspective of the Turkish judiciary on the nature of the ESOP and the implementation of its provisions.
Before analyzing the content of the Decision, it would be useful to make a brief assessment of the nature of the ESOP.
An Overview of Share Option Plans
Share certificates, stock options, or other equity instruments are granted as an element of remuneration in addition to salaries and other benefits provided to employees. It is also possible for shares and stock options to be granted as part of a bonus agreement rather than as an element of basic salary.[3] It is also possible to issue the ESOP as a share purchase option to provide physical share certificates to the employee, free of charge or at a value below the actual value of the shares, depending on the fulfillment of the specified conditions. In essence, the option granted to the employee regarding the transfer of ownership of the shares is a contractual formative right where the employee who has the option right can establish a share purchase agreement with a unilateral declaration of will.[4] Again, in practice, it is common to pay the employee the amount of the financial rights provided by the shares (phantom stock option) without transferring the ownership of the shares to the employee.
ESOP generally requires the employee to work for the agreed period of time in the company in order to have the option to purchase shares. Also, pursuant to ESOP, the employee's option right may be conditional upon meeting or exceeding certain performance criteria. ESOP contains provisions on how the transfer price of the shares or the financial rights to be provided in exchange for the shares will be determined. Although ESOP is usually made as a separate contract from the employment contract, the termination of the employment contract by the employer for a just cause or by the employee is regulated as one of the situations that terminate the option contract.
Summary of the Decision
In the receivable lawsuit filed by the employee against the employer company and the foreign company that granted the right to purchase shares, the Court of First Instance partially accepted the lawsuit, and upon the appeal of the decision by the defendants, the Regional Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, re-established a judgment on the merits and again partially accepted the lawsuit. The decision of the Regional Court of Appeal was appealed by both the defendants and the claimant.
While the claimant was working under an indefinite employment contract as the general manager of the Turkish subsidiary of the foreign defendant, which provides electronic payment services, his employment contract was terminated due to the allegation that he obtained an unfair advantage and embezzled money. Since there was a share purchase option agreement between the claimant employee and the main shareholder of the subsidiary company, a company of US origin, and therefore both defendants should be considered as employers, and since the criminal case against the claimant was rejected on the merits and finalized, the collection of unpaid severance and notice pay, premium, annual leave, and other receivables due to wrongful termination was sued. The defendant company claimed that the employment contract was terminated for just cause, that there were no annual leave receivables, and that it was not responsible for this agreement since the option agreement was made with the American company. The other defendant American company claimed that it was not the employer of the claimant, that American law applies to the share option agreement that the US courts were competent, and that the share option agreement was terminated due to the rightful termination of the claimant's employment contract and that the lawsuit should be dismissed.
In its decision, the Court of First Instance ruled that the termination was found to be unjustified by the decision of the Criminal Court, that the civil judge is not bound by the acquittal decision given by the criminal judge, but that all the facts put forward by the defendant's attorneys as grounds for just termination were evaluated in the criminal court and were not found to be fixed, therefore, the termination occurred without just cause and awarded severance and notice pay. The Court of First Instance also evaluated the Option Agreement and ruled that both defendants were jointly and severally liable for the labor rights including the stock option receivable of USD 1,665,973.62.
As a result of the evaluation made within the scope of the appeal application, the Regional Court of Appeal, in summary, decided that the termination was unjustified and that the claimant was entitled to severance and notice pay since the defendant subsidiary company, which had the burden of proof regarding the just cause termination of the employment contract of the employee claimant, could not prove that the employee was harmed by the acts of the employee or unfair competition. The District Court of Appeal ruled that the “Non-Qualified Share Option Grant” agreement signed between the claimant employee and the defendant American company gave the claimant the right to receive a certain number of shares in a certain period, the purpose of which was to ensure the continuation of loyalty to the company, and that these defined shares gave the right to purchase the shares of the parent company traded on the stock exchange at a low price and only after certain periods had passed, at the end of the period, for example, in the concrete case, it was decided that the first date of accrual was decided to start on July 1, 2010 by taking 25% and to end on July 1, 2016, with a further 25% every three months, and that this right provided was a premium in result and nature. In the evaluation made by the Court, it was ruled that although a certain amount of cash must be deposited by the employee in return for the “Non-qualified Share Option Donation” agreement, if there is an increase in value between the shares received and the amount given, the difference will belong to the claimant by deducting the difference during the sale, regardless of whether the option has been exercised in full or not in case the contract is terminated by justified termination of the employment contract, and in case of other reasons for termination, the options that are vested and exercisable can be exercised, but the options that are not vested and exercisable will be deprived. The Court found that in the share purchase transaction, the claimant was able to cash out the price by selling through an e-trade transaction without depositing any price and selling through a system where the difference would be paid to the claimant, and as per the Delaware Law report and other expert reports received by the Court, it was ruled that the claimant did not have the right to purchase shares after the date of termination of the employment relationship, but before. The Court of First Instance's reasoning that the dates of acquisition and the dates of utilization were confused was found erroneous and a total of USD 827,536.32 was ruled as it was understood that the 30000 USD bonus premium paid to the claimant with the explanation of quarterly bonus was not paid. The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its appellate review, upheld the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal, as the decision was by the procedure and law according to the mutual claims and defenses of the parties, the documents they relied on, the legal rules that should be applied to the dispute and the characterization of the legal relationship, the conditions of the case, the rules of trial and proof and the reasons stated in the decision, and the reasons put forward by the attorneys of the claimant and the defendants in their petitions for appeal were not deemed to be of a nature that would require the decision to be reversed.
Evaluation of the Decision
The Decision includes the assessments on whether the termination of the employee's employment is justified or not, and the assessments made by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal on ESOP are analyzed below. The most important and noteworthy issue in the Decision is the legal characterization of the share option agreement signed between the Claimant's general manager and the US-based parent company. The Court of First Instance evaluated the Option Agreement and the share incentive plan (equity investment plan) signed with the employee as “providing an incentive for the employees of the parent company and its subsidiaries to share in the success of the Parent Company and to continue working for the parent company and its subsidiaries” and ruled that the benefits provided to the employee by the share option granted to the employee are bonuses within the meaning of Article 32 of the Labor Law No. 4857 and therefore both defendants are jointly and severally liable for the labor rights including the stock option receivable. In its assessment of the Option Agreement, the Regional Court of Appeal stated that:
“Under the heading “Nature of the Option Agreement”, the first paragraph of the option agreement between the US-based parent company and the claimant states that the compensation committee of the company granted stock options within the framework of the .... Systems Inc.'s 2006 Equity Incentive Plan”. The amended and restated 2006 equity incentives plan of F1 Systems Inc. states in Article 1 of its purpose statement that the purpose of the equity incentives plan is to provide an incentive for officers, other employees, potential employees, directors and consultants of F1 Systems Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates to share in the success of the Company and to remain in the service of the Company and its subsidiaries. From this article and the formation of the stock incentive plan, it is clear that the existing option agreement is an option agreement granted to employees. In other words, unlike the general options traded in financial markets, the recognized share option is a type of option offered as an incentive to the employee based on the employment relationship (contract). For these reasons, the earnings provided to the claimant by F1 Systems Inc. with the share option agreement, in addition to the root wage and its supplements provided by F1 Turkey, are considered a premium within the meaning of Article 32 of the Labor Law No. 4857, and it is concluded that there is a joint employment with the event subject to the lawsuit and therefore the defendants are jointly liable for the labor rights provided by both companies.”
In this context, the assessment made by the Court of First Instance regarding the nature of the ESOP subject to a foreign law has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation. Although it is understood from the decision of the Regional Administrative Court that there is an expert opinion from a Delaware Lawyer, it is not understood whether the court evaluated the legal nature of the ESOP according to the law governing the Option Agreement. On the contrary, it is understood from the expression “.... recognized stock option, unlike the general options traded in financial markets, is a type of option offered as an incentive to the employee based on the employment relationship (contract). For these reasons, the earnings provided to the claimant by F1 Systems Inc. with the stock option agreement, in addition to the root wage and its supplements provided by F1 Turkey, are considered a premium in the sense of Article 32 of the Labor Law No. 4857, and there is an employment with a union with the event subject to the lawsuit ....”, in the judgment that the court evaluated the ESOP according to Turkish law. The first thing that comes to mind here regarding ESOP is that the court should apply the law of the State of Delaware, which the parties expressly chose, to the obligations arising from the ESOP pursuant to Article 24/1 of the International Private and Procedural Law No. 5718 (“IPPL”). Since there is a foreign element in the ESOP, another provision that may be applied by the courts that comes to mind is Article 27/1 (Employment contracts). However, even in this case, the court would have to apply the Delaware law chosen by the parties, without prejudice to the minimum protection that the employee would have under the mandatory provisions of Turkish law. For the aforementioned reasons, the decision of both the Court of First Instance and the Regional Court of Appeal that the share purchase option provided to the employee by evaluating the ESOP according to Turkish law is a bonus within the meaning of Article 32 of the Labor Law No. 4857 and that the defendants are jointly liable for this amount does not seem to be a decision taken at least in accordance with the IPPL.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, it is considered that it is not appropriate to apply Turkish labor law directly in the characterization of ESOP and to establish a judgment accordingly, while it is necessary to assess according to the foreign law chosen in the ESOP by the IPPL. In addition, the conclusion reached in the aforementioned Decision, that the ESOP is a premium for the creditor employee, is not a general rule independent from the provisions of the contract and is valid against every ESOP. In our opinion, the provisions of each ESOP agreement should be evaluated separately by the judge who will resolve the dispute, and in this evaluation, the conclusion should be reached by taking into account the purpose of the parties and the law applicable to the contract.
- Atasoy, Yasemin: Çalışanların Sermayeye Ortaklığı (Çalışanları Hisse Senedi Edindirme) Konusunda Şirketler ve Çalışanlar Üzerine Bir Uygulama ve Türkiye İçin Öneriler, PhD Thesis, T.C. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı, 2009, p. vii. https://dspace.ankara.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12575/33990/yasemin_atasoy_tez.pdf?sequence=1; Access Date: 28.12.2023.
- The decision of the 9th CC of the Court of Cassation, No. 7885/15517, 29.11.2022, www.lexpera.com.tr.
- Atasoy, p. 10.
- Ayoğlu, Tolga: Sermaye Şirketleri Özelinde Şirketler Hukuku Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümünde Tahkim, On İki Levha Yayıncılık, Ocak 2018, p. 213.
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
There are many different rules that newly established companies must consider and comply with when starting their commercial activities. One of these rules is the "Evasion of Law" article regulated under Article 356 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 ("TCC"). The relevant rule aims to prevent the...
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...
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...