Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Les membres du conseil d'administration, qui sont l'organe représentatif et exécutif de la société anonyme, sont investis de pouvoirs et d'attributions étendus à tous les stades de leur activité (Code de Commerce turc art. 365, art. 374). En cas de perte résultant de la violation de ces obligations, il est inévitable que la responsabilité soit mise en avant. Ceci est principalement une conséquence naturelle de la règle générale de "l'équilibre autorité-responsabilité". Dans ce contexte, l'existence et l'effectivité des actions en responsabilité ont un rôle dissuasif pour que les administrateurs ne manquent pas à leurs obligations. D'autre part, en raison du principe de la responsabilité limitée avec les actifs contre les créanciers de la société anonyme (Code de Commerce turc art. 329/1), la protection des actifs est importante pour empêcher les créanciers de subir des pertes. De plus, la question de la responsabilité revêt une importance particulière au regard des principes de gouvernance d'entreprise. Parce que la comptabilité et la responsabilité sont les éléments clés du principe de gouvernance d'entreprise dans les sociétés anonymes qui sont les acteurs les plus importants de la vie économique d'aujourd'hui. Par conséquent, des réglementations détaillées prises en vertu du Code de Commerce turc concernant les obligations et les responsabilités des membres du conseil d'administration; en outre, les dispositions relatives aux poursuites en responsabilité ont été réglementées de manière plus détaillée et systématique et des changements importants ont également été introduits à cet égard. Dans ce cadre, un régime de responsabilité spéciale a été institué pour les administrateurs en dehors des dispositions de responsabilité générale, tandis que les articles 549 à 552 du Code de Commerce turc réglementent la responsabilité spéciale, l'article 553 et les articles suivants du Code de Commerce turc réglementent les dispositions relatives à la responsabilité générale. Ces articles sont relativement larges et complets par rapport à l'ancien code. Diverses études monographiques ont été réalisées en matière de responsabilité juridique des membres du conseil d'administration et ce sujet a été largement examiné dans les travaux sur le droit des sociétés anonymes. Cependant, l'aspect droit matériel de la responsabilité juridique a été principalement examiné dans la doctrine mais les questions liées aux actions en responsabilité et l'aspect procédurale de l'action ont trouvé une place limitée dans la doctrine. Les expressions similaires sont souvent utilisées concernant la nature du droit d'action des actionnaires et créanciers, mais l'aspect procédurale n'est généralement pas examiné avec une explication détaillée, des analyses et une caractérisation. Cependant, cette question est étroitement liée à des questions importantes telles que la relation entre les demandeurs, la litispendance, le jugement définitif, l'exécution du jugement et les caractéristiques des défenses. Dans notre étude, en raison de l'importance des actions en responsabilité et de l'augmentation du nombre des actions en pratique, nous essayons d'expliquer les caractéristiques de l'action en responsabilité (l'aspect procédural) ainsi que l'aspect du droit matériel. Cependant, notre étude n'est pas une thèse de procédure civile, c'est une thèse de droit matériel et il vise à examiner les questions liées au droit procédural en commençant par la nature de la responsabilité, l'engagement de l'action jusqu'à l'exécution du jugement définitif rendu. En conséquence, le sujet de notre étude est de décrire l'aspect de droit substantiel de l'action en responsabilité et d'examiner les domaines où la responsabilité des membres du conseil d'administration intersecter avec le droit procédural. Donc l'objectif de cette étude est l'aspect de droit substantiel de la responsabilité. Les problèmes procéduraux sont examinés dans cette perspective. La responsabilité civile des membres du conseil d'administration a été examiné conformément à l'article 553 et les dispositions suivantes. L'analyse a été faite pour les personnes qui ont le droit d'action avant la déclaration de faillite, mais pas pour les autres qui ont le droit d'action après la déclaration de faillite (administration de la faillite, créanciers). La responsabilité des membres du conseil d'administration et des dirigeants a été prise en considération. Par ailleurs, la responsabilité résultant de la fondation, les cas particuliers de responsabilité régis par l'article 549 et suivants du Code de Commerce turc, la responsabilité de contrôleur qui est régie par l'article 554 du Code de Commerce turc, l'action particulière en responsabilité régie par l'article 193 du Code de Commerce turc, l'action en responsabilité à l'égard d'un groupe de sociétés régi par l'article 202 et les dispositions suivantes du Code de Commerce turc et la révocation des personnes responsables entre elles selon leurs relations internes (action en révocation) sont exclues du champ de cette étude. Notre étude, préparée dans ce contexte, se compose de cinq grandes parties, dans la première partie, les principes de l'aspect droit matériel de l'action en responsabilité ont été examinés. Dans ce cadre, les réglementations légales antérieures et nouvelles en matière de responsabilité, les innovations apportées par la Code de Commerce turc, la base juridique (la source), le but, l'objet, l'intérêt qu'elle protège, ses éléments, sa relation avec divers actions et institutions et ses caractéristiques sont important. La source de responsabilité est basée sur la relation contractuelle entre les membres du conseil d'administration et la société, et les éléments de responsabilité sont l'illégalité, le dommage, le lien de causalité et la faute. La responsabilité des membres du conseil d'administration appartient à l'organe de gestion, est personnelle et fondée sur la faute. Sur cette note, la présomption de responsabilité a été révoquée et le fardeau de la preuve repose sur le demandeur. Alors que le principe de solidarité différenciée a été inclus dans l'article 557 du Code de Commerce turc, il a été mis l'accent sur l'application des dispositions de relation de causalité ainsi que les articles 51-52 du Code des Obligations turc. En ce qui concerne le devoir de diligence, la méthode de référence indirecte au devoir de diligence de l'employé qui était régie par l'article 320 du précédent Code de Commerce a été abandonnée par l'article 369 du Code de Commerce turc, et le devoir de diligence a acquis l'objectivité par l'adoption de « business judgement rule (agir avec diligence, bonne foi et loyauté en decision de gestion)». En outre, dans l'exposé des motifs de l'article, il a été clairement indiqué que le critère de prudence sont pertinents avec la « business judgement rule» Le devoir de diligence est lié à des éléments d'« illégalité » et de « faute ». Par conséquent, cet article signifie l'objectivation de la faute. De ce fait, la frontière entre les éléments d'illégalité et de faute est devenue encore plus incertaine. La délégation de gestion (art.367 du Code de Commerce turc) est une situation qui a un impact sur la responsabilité, avec une délégation valable il y aurait partage responsabilité primaire - responsabilité de surveillance (art. 553/2 du Code de Commerce turc). La nouvelle règle, régie par l'article 557/2 du Code de Commerce turc qui prévoit qu'une action en justice peut être intentée pour l'ensemble du dommage et qu'il peut être demandé au juge de déterminer l'indemnisation de chaque défendeur dans une même action en justice, est importante pour fixer qu'il n'est pas nécessaire que le demandeur tienne compte du principe de solidarité différenciée, et que ce principe est une règle qui ne s'adresse qu'au juge et à la décision qu'il établira. Dans la deuxième partie, les caractéristiques du droit d'intenter une action en responsabilité, les parties de l'action et les modalités d'exercice du droit d'action sont discutées. La caractéristique du droit d'action qui pourrait être exercé par d'autres personnes que la société est importante. Le résultat est étroitement liée aux questions critiques telles que les défenses qui pourraient être invoquées par les défendeurs, et avec quelles défenses pourraient être invoquées contre quel demandeur, la relation entre les demandeurs, la litispendance, le jugement définitif, l'exécution du jugement. Après une évaluation détaillée, notre opinion est que les actionnaires et les créanciers ont chacun individuellement un droit substantiel d'engager une action en responsabilité. En outre, la manière d'exercer le droit de la demande réglementé par la loi est également importante. Étant donné qu'il n'y a pas de disposition ou de déclaration restrictive dans la loi concernant la manière de demande du dommage de l'entreprise, il est également possible d'appliquer tous les recours disponibles en vertu du droit de la procédure civile, de l'exécution et de la faillite. Il est possible de demander des mesures provisoires. Bien qu'il existe une réglementation générale quant aux parties à l'action en responsabilité dans la loi, il est important d'examiner ce sujet. A cet égard, l'action intentée par l'actionnaire avant la faillite n'est soumise à aucune condition. Le montant (ratio) de l'action (la part) n'est pas important. En ce qui concerne le défendeur, les défendeurs sont comptés dans la loi. A ce propos, il est important de déterminer qui entrera dans le champ d'application du concept de « dirigeants», qui est réglementé pour être responsable aux côtés des membres du conseil d'administration. La position des personnes qui ont le droit d'action peut varier selon les avis sur la caractéristique du droit d'action. A notre avis, il n'y a pas d'obstacle légal au dépôt d'actions en responsabilité distinctes par des personnes ayant droit d'action, et cette situation ne constitue pas une litispendance. Dans la troisième partie de notre étude, les instruments de défense relatifs aux actions en responsabilité et à la question de la preuve sont abordés. Les moyens de défense sont importants en ce qui concerne l'instance pendante, la détermination de l'existence des éléments de responsabilité et le calcul du montant de l'indemnité. Parmi les conditions d'action, en tant que moyens de défense en matière de droit procédural, la décision de l'assemblée générale et l'intérêt à agir revêtent une importance particulière. À notre avis la décision de l'assemblée générale devait être recherchée comme condition d'action. En outre, bien que l'intérêt à agir soit une condition générale d'action, il prend plus d'importance pour le cette étude, car dans les actions en responsabilité l'événement qui constitue une violation de l'interdiction de l'abus de droit (art. 2 Code Civil turc). En outre, l'adoption du principe de solidarité différenciée a accru l'importance des motifs de défense individuels. Les motifs matériels de la défense peuvent être très divers, tels que le fait de ne pas être investi d'un organe de gestion, la libération, la prescription, la forclusion, l'exécution du devoir de diligence et la délégation de pouvoir. De plus, comme dans tous les procès, la question de la preuve est également très importante dans les actions en responsabilité. Cependant, un système de preuve spécial et une méthode de preuve n'ont pas été prévus en termes des actions en responsabilité. Par conséquent, des questions telles que la charge de la preuve, l'objet de la preuve, l'échelle de la preuve et les preuves propres doivent être déterminées en tenant compte des caractéristiques spécifiques de l'action en responsabilité, et cela a été examiné dans ce cadre dans notre étude. Dans le quatrième chapitre, le déroulement du procès, le jugement et l'exécution du jugement sont expliqués. En particulier, l'accent mis sur le lien de causalité et l'acceptation du principe de solidarité différenciée avec de nouvelles dispositions obligent le juge à procéder à un examen précis. Dans ce contexte, des questions telles que l'impossibilité du contrôle d'opportunité, la mise en œuvre du principe de solidarité différenciée et la prise en compte de la situation des responsables, qui ne sont pas parties au procès, sont les aspects originaux de la procédure. L'effet du jugement à la fin de l'action est également un sujet discuté dans la doctrine. À notre avis, le jugement ne constituera pas res iudicata (l'autorité de la chose jugée) pour les autres actions en responsabilité et les actions en révocation. Cependant, il convient de noter que l'effet de l'intervention en cas de dénonciation d'instance et d'intervention accessoire, pourrait être important en termes d'action en révocation, et de fait, il peut avoir un effet plus important que res iudicata. Une autre question importante est celle de savoir qui a le pouvoir d'exécuter le jugement et les possibilités dans cette question. Le point le plus prénant ici est que le droit de réclamation de l'actionnaire (le demandeur) comprend le pouvoir d'exécuter le jugement, mais le paiement perçu au stade de l'exécution doit être versée à la société. Dans le cinquième chapitre, quelques situations particulières liées aux actions en responsabilité sont examinées. Dans ce contexte, il a été analysé que l'effet du recouvrement partiel ou total du dommage sur les autres parties responsables dans le cadre de diverses possibilités, la transaction et le désistement d'action (la validité et caractère obligatoire), l'examen de la libération d'une ou plusieurs des personnes responsables au sens de l'article 166/3 du Code des obligations turc, la pertinence de la révocation dans le cadre de l'action en responsabilité et les opérations collusoires de l'entreprise dans le cadre de l'action en responsabilité. Notre avis a été indiqué en conjonction avec l'analyse des arguments de la doctrine et de la pratique sur ces questions.

This research paper seeks to address the role that good faith plays in South African contract law by first discussing its origin and then chronologically tracing its position from pre-1994 to today. The judgements of both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court will be unpacked, as a means to understand the development of good faith over the years. The position that good faith plays in foreign jurisdictions will also be discussed, for the sake of achieving a universal understanding of how good faith is perceived around the world. The research concludes by placing good faith in its current role and context in South Africa, and also proposing a way forward.

This subject matter of this work is the prohibition of competition with the company of members of board of directors in joint stock companies under art. 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code. The prohibition of competition is a limitation on the commercial activities and the freedom of competition of a restricted party who has access to information, means or resources due to the legal relationship between parties which grant the restricted party a leverage in competition with the other. The core idea underlying the prohibition of competition is the necessity to protect the party benefiting from this prohibition against competitive activities of the restricted party. The prohibition of competition bans the restricted party from establishing competition with the party benefiting from the prohibition through competitive actions, ultimately from becoming the competitor of the beneficiary. The said competition relationship will occur in the event the services or products serving the same or similar needs are provided to the entirety or part of the same customers or customer group. Board members in joint stock company, having the prevailing right of access to all information and resources of the company leads to the risk that it may use this power for its own or other parties' benefit instead of that of the company. Hence, the prohibition of competition on board members regulated under article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code is one of the concrete examples of the duty of loyalty of a board member towards the company aiming to prevent such usages prioritizing the benefit of the member or of a third person over that of the company. The focal point of this work is the determination of the scope of application and conditions of this prohibition as a whole. The first chapter of this thesis aims to convey the conceptual basis of the prohibition of competition. In this scope, we first assessed the economic and legal basis of competition. Economic competition is the race/competition of two or more market actors in a specific market in order to engage in a transaction with its counterparty in the market through offering better prices, conditions, goods or services in order to be superior from its competitors. However, the intention to supersede its competitors and the efforts for this purpose may result in the misuse of the right to compete or in an act limiting or eliminating the competitive environment. The Republic of Turkey provides for a constitutional protection over a person's right to engage in commercial activities and, although not expressly regulated, right to compete. However, as is the case for all rights and liberties, the right and liberty to compete cannot be exercised without any limitation. Second, the scope of the prohibition of competition is assessed. In this regard, we tried to determine the elements of the prohibition of competition, its definition, and its legal categorization. Moreover, a comparison of the prohibition of competition with the provisions governing unjust competition aiming to establish honest and undisrupted competition as well as with the rules of Competition Law aiming to prevent disruption of competition through restrictive actions is provided in order to specify the prominent characteristics of the prohibition of competition. Third, the attributes of the provisions governing the prohibition of competition are assessed. Provisions governing prohibition of competition which do not relate to the public order but to the internal relations of parties, and which serve the personal benefit of the beneficiary, are not of a peremptory nature. The prohibition of competition, which materially limits the liberty of engaging in commercial activities protected under the constitutional law, is of an exceptional nature and hence the provisions governing the prohibition of competition need to be construed in a limited manner. Fourth, the prohibition of competition can be regulated in the letter of a contract through mutual agreement thereon by its parties, or the legislator occasionally provides for a legal provision governing the prohibition of competition by attributing a special importance to this prohibition with respect to a specific relationship between the parties. Last, in this first chapter, we identify the reflections of this prohibition of competition within the scope of the Law of Obligations, and the Law of Corporations. The second chapter of this work takes into consideration the reasons of regulating a prohibition of competition on board members, and its scope of application regarding the persons concerned. In this context we first broadly assessed the position of the board of directors, board members and affiliated commercial auxiliaries in a company. Then, the legislative provisions respectively of German Law, Swiss Law and Turkish Law governing the board members' prohibition of competition are specified. While in German Law, just as is the case in Turkish law, the prohibition of competition of board members is stipulated in § 88 of the German Stock Corporation Act, the Swiss Law does not regulate this prohibition of competition of board members with a statutory provision, nonetheless, this prohibition is accepted by the scholars. Thereafter, the reason for regulating the prohibition of competition of board members is assessed. In this scope, the duty of loyalty of a board member arises from the legal relationship between the member and the corporation being based on the principle of trust. The member must refrain from conflicting its interests with the interests of the corporation, in other words, from conflict of interests, due to its duty of loyalty. When the member engages in competition with the company, the interests of the company and the board member conflict with each other. The member is in a considerably advantageous position in this conflict compared to the company, due to the information and resources to which it has access thanks to its position within the company. For this reason, the duty of loyalty aiming to prevent the conflict of interest between the company and the member lies at the basis of the board member's prohibition of competition. Lastly, in this chapter, the persons subject to the prohibition of competition pursuant to article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code are identified. In this respect, the members of the board of directors as well as persons to whom management authorities are delegated fall within the scope of the ratione personae of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code. The commercial representatives and commercial proxies of a company are prohibited from competition pursuant to the prohibition of competition regarding commercial auxiliaries pursuant to article 553 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. Whereas a shareholder is not subject to the prohibition of competition with the company; this prohibition may only be regulated by a contract subject to the Law of Obligations. Furthermore, when evaluating the prohibition of competition of shareholders, whether the shareholder has a duty of loyalty to the company has been assessed under German Law, Swiss Law and Turkish Law. The third chapter of this work sets forth the scope of application of the prohibition of competition of board members with respect to its subject matter, place, and time. In order for a board member to violate the prohibition of competition with the company, the member must engage in an activity competing with the company. Pursuant to the first paragraph of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code, two types of competitive actions of board members are banned. The first type is the member engaging in an action which is a commercial transaction that falls within the scope of the field of activity of the company, on behalf of itself or a third party. Accordingly, all kinds of acts and actions of the member realized on behalf of itself or third parties which fall within the scope of activity of the corporation would constitute the breach of the prohibition. The scope of this prohibition also encompasses joining the managing body of another corporation. Furthermore, depending on the specifics of a concrete case, the same member being an employee of a competitor corporation under a service contract, or providing consultancy services or extending facilities to a competitor, or benefiting from a job opportunity which belonged to the company may also be construed to be within the scope of the prohibition of competition. The second type is the member being engaged as a partner with unlimited liability in a corporation engaging in the same types of commercial activities. In this regard, if a member becomes a partner of an ordinary partnership or a collective corporation, or a partner with unlimited liability of a commandite corporation, which engages in activities that fall within the scope of activities of the joint stock company, the prohibition will be breached. The prohibition of competition of the board member with the company may be lifted by an authorization granted by the general assembly pursuant to article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code. This permission to compete to be granted to a board member may be in the form of a prior approval or a later acknowledgement (ratification), in an expressed or implied manner. As a result of the member being permitted to compete, article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code will no longer apply even if the member engages in activities in competition with the company. The prohibition to compete of the board member lasts for the duration of the board membership. Once the membership ends, the parties must conclude an agreement in order to continue the prohibition of competition. The said agreement regarding the prohibition of competition will be subject to form requirements to be valid. Pursuant to the liberty of contract inherent in the Law of Obligations, the parties may freely execute an agreement regarding the prohibition of competition, provided they comply with the provisions in paragraph 2 of article 23 of the Civil Code or article 26 and first paragraph of article 27 of the Turkish Commercial Code. The prohibition to compete of board members is valid as long as they execute the activities of the company, and within the geography where the clientele of the corporation is located. The fourth and last chapter of this work is devoted to the consequences of breach of the prohibition to compete by a board member. If a member of the board of directors violates this prohibition, the consequence of this breach is regulated in the first paragraph of art. 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code. Accordingly, the joint stock company is granted with certain elective rights. Such that, primarily the company may request compensation from the member in breach of the prohibition of competition. Second, it may be requested that the transaction is deemed concluded on behalf of the joint stock company, third, that the benefits arising from the agreement the member concludes on behalf of third parties belong to the joint stock company. In its request for compensation, the joint stock company must prove the action of the board member violating the prohibition of competition, that the corporation suffered losses from this activity, and the causal link between this activity and the loss of the company. In its request for the transaction to be deemed concluded on its behalf, the company requests for the economic consequences of the transactions the member concluded in violation of the prohibition of competition on its behalf. In its request for the benefits arising from the agreement, the company requests that benefits arising from the agreement the member concluded on behalf of third parties are left to itself. At this point, we materially benefited from the German doctrine and jurisprudence in explaining the claims requesting that a transaction is deemed concluded on behalf of the company and that the benefits from the transactions are left to the company. These rights granted in the first paragraph of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code are not cumulative but elective. Pursuant to the second paragraph of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code, the authority to chose one of the elective rights granted to the company belongs to the members of the board of directors, excluding the member having violated the prohibition of competition. The third paragraph of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code regulates a dual prescription period of three months and one year. These periods are with respect to the exercise by the company of its elective right to make a claim. The first is the period of three months whose commencement will be determined based on the knowledge by other members that an action subject to the prohibition of competition is realized or that a board member joined another corporation. The second period is the period of one year commencing from the realization of the action violating the prohibition to compete. This one-year period is independent from other members' knowledge that the prohibition to compete has been breached. The corporation may raise other claims against the member violating the prohibition of competition which are not stipulated under article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code. Accordingly, the corporation may request that the member violating the prohibition of competition through joining a competing corporation as a partner with unlimited liability or joining the managing body of a competitive corporation resigns from this corporation or managing body. Further, the company may dismiss the member violating the prohibition of competition from board membership. Again, the company may initiate a lawsuit to cease the ongoing violation of the prohibition of competition by a board member, or a lawsuit of preclusion prior to probable breaches which have not yet occurred. In this chapter, lastly, the fourth paragraph of article 396 of the Turkish Commercial Code is assessed. This paragraph regulates that provisions governing liability of the members of the board of directors are reserved. This is a new provision which was not present in the abrogated Turkish Commercial Code no. 6762, newly introduced under the Turkish Commercial Code. In this context, we tried to determine the purpose and characteristics of this provision and concluded this work.

There is a growing concern over the qualifications and social interactions of investment treaty arbitrators. The characteristics of this class of international adjudicators have significantly evolved over the past few decades. The contemporary arbitration panelist interacts within a broad and complex network of arbitration participants. Their patterns of social behavior both within the community of panelists and within the broader network of actors in arbitration proceedings have fundamentally reshaped the composition, dynamics and culture of the arbitration community. These new forms of relationships and patterns of conduct are new in the context of public international law. These have created unprecedented challenges to the investment treaty arbitration system. New manifestations of attributes and social behavior of panelists demonstrate inadequacies of the existing standards, rules and procedures that govern panelists. This study surveys problematic patterns of social behavior of investment treaty adjudicators and shows how certain instances of social behavior inevitably or potentially jeopardize the very foundations of the system. This research empirically examines the voting behavior of two distinct groups of party-appointed panelists, and the results reveal a relationship between appointments and the decision-making attitude of adjudicators. It further methodically maps the pool of ICSID panelists and answers the question ‘who are ICSID panelists?’ It reviews the evolution of the attributes of ICSID adjudicators, assesses the composition of the ICSID pool, and evaluates the social interactions of this group of investment treaty adjudicators. To address the challenges that investment treaty arbitration faces, a radical and multidimensional shift is occurring in the system. This transformation is directed towards greater control over the qualifications and conduct of adjudicators. These developments reconstruct the composition of the pool of adjudicators and influence how they interact with other actors in investment treaty arbitration proceedings. The ongoing reform progress indicates that the attributes and behavior of future investment treaty adjudicators would likely be different from the characteristics and conduct of the contemporary generation of panelists.

Klasik anlamdaki şirketten çıkarma düzenlemeleri, "haklı sebep" temeline dayanmaktadır. Bu düzenlemelerin en tipik özelliği, düzenlemiş oldukları çıkarma hakkı ile şirketin feshi kurumu arasında bir bağlantıya yer vermiş olmalarıdır. Bu bağlantı, haklı sebebe dayalı çıkarma düzenlemelerinin hizmet ettiği birincil amacı da ortaya koymaktadır: Şirketin devamlılığını sağlamak suretiyle ortaklar arasındaki menfaatler dengesi korumak. Türk hukukuna 6102 sayılı Türk Ticaret Kanunu ve 6362 sayılı Sermaye Piyasası Kanunu ile kazandırılan "squeeze-out" müessesesi ise daha farklı bir kuramsal temele dayanmaktadır. Bu müessese ile, şirkette genellikle %90-95 arasında nitelikli bir pay ve/veya oy oranına ulaşmış olan hâkim pay sahibine, azınlığın paylarını herhangi bir sebep göstermeden iktisap edip, onu şirketten çıkarma hakkı tanınmıştır. Böylece çıkarmanın ekseni, "haklı sebep" olgusundan "hâkimiyet" olgusuna kaymıştır. Kanun koyucuların bu şekilde bir çıkarma hakkını öngörmelerindeki temel sebep ise kurumsal nitelikte bazı amaçları gerçekleştirmek isteyen hâkim konumdaki pay sahiplerine bir imkân sunmaktır. Tezimizde, klasik anlamdaki çıkarma müesseselerinin dayanmış olduğu kuramsal temelden ayrılan "squeeze-out" kurumunun kuramsal temeli, düzenlemenin hangi amaçlarla öngörüldüğü meseleleri ele alınmakta; bu bağlamda, kurumun karşılaştırmalı hukuktaki ne şekilde düzenlendiği, kurumun ortaya çıkardığı sorunlar ve bu sorunların çözümüne yönelik önerilere yer verilmektedir. The classic rules designed for exclusion of a partner has a simple theoretical basis: A/an justified/objective reason (or in other words "good cause"). The most typical feature of these rules is they build a bridge between the exclusion right and the dissolution of the company. This bridge also shows the the primary purpose served by these rules which is to maintain the balance of interests among the partners by ensuring the continuity of the company. In comparison with the classical rules, the "squeeze-out" rules which have been introduced into Turkish law with the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 and the Capital Markets Law No. 6362, have a different theoretical basis. The controlling shareholder who has reached a qualified percentage of capital and/or voting rights (usually %90-95), has been granted the right to acquire the minority's shares without asserting any justified reason and exclude him from the company. Thus the idea behind the exclusion has been changed from "good cause" to the "dominance/control". The main reason for designing such an exclusion right is to provide an opportunity to the controlling shareholders trying to achieve institutional objectives in the company. In our thesis, the theoretical basis of the "squeeze-out" rules and the reasons for designing such a new exclusion right will be examined within the framework of other squeeze-out rules in comparative law. Within this context, the most common problems in squeeze-outs and suggestions for solving these problems are analyzed.

Tez çalışmasının amacı, kripto varlıkların ödeme aracı olarak kullanımını dış ticaretin bileşenleri kapsamında değerlendirmek ve kripto varlıkların yurtdışı ödemelerde ve bireysel yatırımlarda kullanılmaları bağlamında, bireylerin tutumlarını etkileyen faktörleri incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda öncelikli olarak, kripto varlıkların para işlev ve özelliklerine ne ölçüde uyum sağladıkları hususunda tespitlerde bulunulmuştur. Ulusal paralara eşdeğer kılınan stabil fiyatlı kripto varlıkların geleneksel ve modern para işlevlerine uyumlu oldukları yönünde görüş bildirilmiştir. Para özellikleri açısından ele alındığında da "kabul edilebilirlik" ve "sıradanlık" dışındaki para özelliklerine, tüm kripto varlıkların uyum sağladıkları değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca kripto varlık birimleri parasal niteliklerine göre tasnif edilerek, değişken fiyatlı, stabil fiyatlı ve finansal ürünlere bağlanan kripto varlıklar olmak üzere, üç kategoriden oluşan bir sınıflandırma geliştirilmiştir. Para işlev ve özellikleri kapsamındaki tespitlerin ardından, önceden belirlenen dış ticaret bileşenlerinin özelinde kripto varlıkların mevcut ve muhtemel kullanım alanları incelenmiştir. Belirlenmiş olan dış ticaret bileşenleri, uluslararası para birimleri, uluslararası bankacılık, uluslararası lojistik, dış ticaret hukuku ve gümrük işlemleridir. Dış ticaret bileşenlerine yönelik değerlendirmelerde kripto varlıkların ödeme aracı olarak kullanımları esas alınmıştır ve değerlendirme sürecinde çalışma kapsamında oluşturulmuş olan kripto varlık sınıflandırmasının kategorileri için de görüşler oluşturulmuştur. Çalışma kapsamında kripto varlıklara yönelik bireysel tutumları irdelemek amacıyla ampirik bir araştırma gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında UTAUT-2 modelini temel alan bir araştırma modeli oluşturulmuş ve yurtdışı ödemelerde kullanım niyeti ile yatırımda bulunma niyeti olmak üzere, iki farklı bağımlı yapıyı etkileyen unsurlar irdelenmiştir. Yol katsayısı değerine (β) göre yurtdışı ödemelerde kullanım niyetini anlamlı ölçüde etkileyen yapıların önem sırasına göre, "performans beklentisi", "sosyal etki" ve "algılanan risk" adlı boyutlar olduğu bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Yatırımda bulunma niyetini anlamlı düzeyde etkileyen bileşenler ise sırasıyla; "performans beklentisi", "sosyal etki", "farkındalık" ve "algılanan risktir". Araştırma kapsamında bağımlı ve bağımsız yapılar arasındaki etkileşimi incelemek amacıyla etki büyüklüğü (f²) ve tahmin gücü (q²) değerleri de hesaplanmıştır. Yol katsayısı değerlerine göre modelin bağımlı yapılarını anlamlı düzeyde ve negatif yönde etkileyen "algılanan risk" boyutunun, f² değeri açısından anlamlı bir katkısının olmadığı görülmüştür. Ayrıca yol katsayılarına göre "performans beklentisi" bağımlı yapılar üzerinde en çok etkiye sahipken, etki büyüklüğüne göre en önemli yapı "sosyal etkidir". Bağımsız yapıların tahmin gücü (q²) değerleri de etki büyüklüğü (f²) değerleri ile paralel sonuçlar ortaya koymuştur. Ortaya koyulan ampirik araştırmanın sonucunda, örneklemin yurtdışı ödemelerde ve yatırım kararlarında kripto varlıkları kullanma eğilimleri açısından en önemli etmenlerin "performans beklentisi" ve "sosyal etki" olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. The aim of the thesis study is to evaluate the use of crypto assets as a payment instrument within the scope of the components of foreign trade and to examine the factors affecting the attitudes of individuals in the context of the use of crypto assets in foreign payments and individual investments. For this purpose, first, it was evaluated that to what extent crypto assets are compatible with money functions and features. It was stated that stable priced crypto assets, which are equivalent to national currencies, are compatible with traditional and modern money functions. When considered in terms of money features, it was evaluated that all crypto assets are compatible with money features other than "acceptability" and "ordinariness". In addition, crypto assets were classified according to their monetary characteristics, and a classification was developed consisting of three categories: variable priced, stable priced and crypto assets linked to financial products. After the evaluations within the scope of money functions and features, the current and possible usage areas of crypto assets were examined specifically for the previously determined foreign trade components. The determined foreign trade components are international currencies, international banking, international logistics, foreign trade law and customs procedures. Evaluations for foreign trade components were based on the use of crypto assets as a payment instrument and arguments were formed for the categories of the crypto asset classification created within the scope of the study during the evaluation process. Within the scope of the study, an empirical research was carried out to examine individual attitudes towards crypto assets. A research model based on the UTAUT-2 model was formed and the factors affecting two different dependent structures, namely "intention to use in foreign payments" and "intention to invest", were examined. According to the value of the path coefficient (β), it was found that the structures that significantly affect the intention to use in foreign payments are the dimensions called "performance expectancy", "social impact" and "perceived risk", in order of importance. The components that significantly affect the intention to invest are "performance expectancy", "social impact", "awareness", and "perceived risk", respectively. Effect size (f²) and predictive relevance (q²) values were also calculated to examine the interaction between dependent and independent structures within the scope of the research. It was seen that the "perceived risk" dimension, which affects the dependent structures of the model significantly and negatively according to the path coefficient values, does not have a significant contribution in terms of f² value. In addition, according to the path coefficients, "performance expectancy" has the largest impact on the dependent structures, while the most important structure according to the effect size is "social impact". The predictive relevance (q²) values of the independent structures also showed similar results with the effect size (f²) values. As a result of the empirical research, it was concluded that the most significant factors in terms of the tendency of the participants to use crypto assets in foreign payments and investment decisions are "performance expectancy " and "social impact".

South Africa is currently undergoing harsh economic times, and as such, many companies are feeling the brunt of the situation. As a result, these companies begin to trade at a loss and are left without any other option but to liquidate their affairs in order to pay off creditors. However, with the development brought by the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“the Act”), business rescue was introduced. Business rescue is an alternative to liquidation and it allows the company to undergo rehabilitation and continue trading if certain requirements are met. Chapter 6 of the Act aims to assist businesses in providing some sort of relief in the form of business rescue to provide them with the breathing space that they require to try and become a viable business again. Just like any new formulated concept, it is susceptible to abuse. Many companies that are already under liquidation are suspending their liquidation in favour of business rescue, despite, in some instances, the liquidation order having already been granted against the company. The Covid-19 pandemic has made the question of whether a business can suspend liquidation proceedings in favour of business rescue more prevalent as the pandemic has caused a detrimental financial impact on a number of businesses. Now more than ever businesses find themselves struggling to keep afloat, and as a result many of them have to consider the avenues of liquidation or business rescue. This dissertation aims to look at both liquidation and business rescue proceedings and decipher whether the courts were correct in their decision regarding when business rescue proceedings can be instituted during liquidation proceedings. The importance of taking into account the above is due to the fact that many companies in present day are experiencing financial difficulties, and liquidation or business rescue proceedings are the options that they are left with. However, one has to carefully consider both options, taking into account the company’s financial circumstances. This is of importance, as one needs to establish if there is a reasonable prospect of rescuing the company or not. If there were, then business rescue would indeed be the route to be taken, but if not, then liquidation proceedings would be. However, many companies that have no prospect of being rescued, and that have already opted for liquidation may want to institute business rescue proceedings to delay the inevitable and frustrate creditors, thus leading to the abuse of the newly formulated concept, which has to be curbed.