Publication: Konkordato Sürecindeki Borçlu Şirketin Tasarruf Yetkisi Üzerindeki Sınırlar
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2022-09-01
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Ticari hayatın olağan akışı içerisinde, işletmeler muhtelif ekonomik tehlikelerle karşı karşıya kalmakta ve mali yapılarında olumsuzluklar ortaya çıkabilmektedir. Bu olumsuzlukların giderilmesi (veya asgari düzeye indirilmesi), ticaret alanında sağlıklı ve istikrarlı bir işleyişin gereğidir. Bu sebepledir ki birçok hukuk düzeninde olduğu gibi Türk Hukukunda da ödeme güçlüğü içinde olan borçluların mali durumlarını iyileştirebilmeleri amacıyla onlara
adeta “hukuki bir kalkan” sağlayan hukuki müesseseler kabul edilmiştir.
Bunlardan biri olan “iflasın ertelenmesi”, ülkemizde (30.07.2003 tarih
ve 4949 sayılı Kanun’la işlerlik kazandığı günden) 2018 yılına kadar, şartlarını taşıyan sermaye şirketleri ve kooperatifler bakımından uygulamada en
sık başvurulan hukuki araçlardan biri olmuştur. Ancak süreç içerisinde, kurumun doğru işletilememesi, sadece borçların ödenmesinin geciktirilmesi
amacıyla kullanılır hale gelmesi, alacaklıların yeterli düzeyde korunamaması
gibi sebepler kanun değişikliğini zorunlu kılmış ve 15.03.2018 tarih ve 7101
sayılı Kanun’la iflasın ertelenmesine ilişkin hükümler yürürlükten kaldırılmıştır. Kurumunun kaldırılmasıyla ortaya çıkan boşluğun doldurulması amacıyla İİK’nın konkordatoya ilişkin düzenlemeleri (m. 285-309) İsviçre Hukuku’ndaki son değişiklikler dikkate alınarak revize edilmiş ve konkordato
kurumuna yeniden işlerlik kazandırılmıştır.
Yeniden düzenlenen konkordato hükümleriyle, borçluya, konkordato
mühleti kararıyla beraber icra takibi veya baskısı olmaksızın faaliyetlerine
devam ederek mali durumunu düzeltme imkânı sağlanmış ve iflasın ertelenmesinden farklı olarak, borçlunun tasarruf yetkisi kaldırılmamıştır. Ancak
alacaklıların ve daha geniş ölçekte kamunun menfaatleri gözetilerek, sürecin
kural olarak komiser nezaretinde yürütülmesi öngörülmüş ve belli durumlarda borçlunun tasarruf yetkisine birtakım sınırlar getirilmiştir.
Temel kanuni sınır, borçlunun mühlet kararından itibaren hukuken geçerli şekilde rehin tesis etmesi, kefil olması, ivazsız tasarruflarda bulunması,
taşınmazını, işletmenin faaliyetinin devamı için önem arz eden taşınırını ve
işletmenin devamlı tesisatını devretmesi ve takyit etmesinin mahkemenin
iznine tabi tutulmasıdır (İİK m. 297/2). Aksi halde yapılan işlemler kesin
hükümsüz sayılacağından, hükümde sınırlayıcı şekilde sayılan işlemlerin
yorum yoluyla genişletilmesi mümkün değildir. Bu noktada, hükmün lafzının
İsviçre İİK’ya (m. 298/2) paralel olarak “malvarlığını kısmen veya tamamen
elden çıkaramaması, takyit edememesi” şeklinde revize edilmesi önerisinde
bulunabilir. Öte yandan, hükümde yer almamakla beraber, daha ağır hukuki
sonuçlar doğuran (garanti sözleşmesi, aval verme gibi işlemler) bakımından
da hükmün amacı gereği mahkeme izninin aranması gerekir.
İİK m. 297/2 hükmü gibi doğrudan olmasa da, geçici mühlet kararı veren mahkemenin, mühlet içinde bazı işlemlerin geçerli olarak ancak komiserin izni ile yapılmasına veya işletme faaliyetlerinin borçlu yerine bizzat komiser tarafından yürütülmesine karar verdiği durumlar da tasarruf yetkisi
üzerinde dolaylı bir etkiye sahiptir (İİK m. 297/1). Nitekim borçlu bu hükme
aykırı davranırsa mahkeme, borçlunun malları üzerindeki tasarruf yetkisini
kaldırabilir veya konkordato talebinin reddi ve borçlunun iflâsına karar verebilir (İİK m. 297/3, İİK m. 292/c).
Konkordato kural olarak komiser nezaretinde yürütülen bir süreç olduğundan (İİK m. 297/1), bahsi geçen hukuki sonuçlar, komiserin ihtarlarına
uyulmaması durumu için de geçerlidir. Bu çerçevede, komiser değerlendirmesinde dikkate alınacak hususların da borçlunun tasarruf yetkisinin sınırlarının tespitinde dolaylı da olsa faydalı olacağı düşünülmektedir. İşlemin konkordato ilan eden bir şirketin, amaç ve konusunu elde etmek için yapılması
gereken olağan işlemlerden olup olmadığı değerlendirmedeki en belirleyici
kriter olup, hangi işlerin olağan hangilerinin olağanüstü olduğu, şirket ön
projesi, şirketin türü, faaliyet kapasitesi, söz konusu işlemin şirket alacaklarının alacağına kavuşmasında olumsuz bir etki yaratıp yaratmadığı, böyle bir
işlemin konkordato sürecinin başarıya ulaşmasındaki etkisi gibi muhtelif
kriterlerin dikkate alınmasını gerektirir. Örneğin, şirkete ait bir işletmenin
sürekli zarar etmesi durumunda kapatılması veya şirkete faaliyet konusuyla
ilgili deneyimli bir kimsenin yönetici ortak olarak atanması, konkordato sürecine olumlu etki edecek iken, hâlihazırda zarar etmekle beraber ilerleyen
dönemlerde kâr getirebilecek bir işletmenin kapatılması veya teknik bilgi ve
deneyimden yoksun bir kimsenin yönetici ortak olarak atanması aksi yönde
bir sonuç doğuracaktır.
Konkordato talebine eklenecek belgeler arasında yer alan “konkordato
ön projesi” de mühlet kararı alan borçlunun tasarruf yetkisinin sınırları bakımından belirleyici bir role sahiptir. Zira hüküm gereği, ön projede, borçların hangi oranda veya vadede ödeyeceği, ödemelerin yapılması için borçlunun mevcut mallarını satıp satmayacağı, ödemelerin yapılabilmesinde kullanılacak malî kaynağın hangi yöntem kullanılarak (sermaye artırımı, kredi
temini vb.) sağlanacağı gibi hususların gösterilmesi gerekmektedir (İİK m.
286/1-a). Gerek mahkemenin mühlet kararı vermesi gerekse mühlet süresinde komiserin borçlu faaliyetlerini değerlendirmesinde ön projede gösteri
len hususlar dikkate alınmaktadır. Daha da önemlisi alacaklı menfaatlerinin
muhafazası ön projeye uygun davranılması halinde mümkündür. Nitekim
kanunkoyucu, borçlunun, alacaklılardan birine konkordato projesinde
öngörülenden fazla olarak yapılan vaatlerin hükümsüz olacağını açıkça hükme bağlamıştır (İİK m. 308/e).
Önemle belirtmek gerekir ki konkordatoya başvurabilecek borçluların
kapsamı, iflasın ertelenmesinden farklı olarak, geniş tutulmuş ve vadesi
geldiği hâlde ödeyemeyen veya vadesinde ödeyememe tehlikesi altında bulunan herhangi bir borçlunun bu yola başvurabilmesine olanak tanınmıştır.
Bu çalışmada borçlu çevresi ticaret şirketleriyle sınırlandırılmış ve borçlu
şirketin tasarruf yetkisinin sınırları doktrin ve yargı kararları ışığında değerlendirilmiştir.
Anahtar kelimeler: Tasarruf Yetkisi, Sınır, Borçlu Şirket, Yasak İşlem,
Olağan İşlem, Olağanüstü İşlem.
In the ordinary course of commercial life, businesses are faced with various economic dangers and problems may arise in their financial structures. Eliminating (or minimizing) these negativities is a requirement of a healthy and stable operation in the field of trade. For this reason, in Turkish Law, as in many other legal systems, legal institutions have been adopted that provide a “legal shield” for debtors who are in difficulty to improve their financial situation. One of these, “postponing the bankruptcy”, has been one of the most frequently applied legal instruments in practice in terms of capital companies and cooperatives meeting the conditions until 2018 (from the day it became operational with the Law No. 4949, dated 30.07.2003). However, during the process, reasons such as the institution's inability to operate properly, its use only for the purpose of delaying the payment of debts, and insufficient protection of creditors necessitated a change in the law and the provisions regarding the postponement of bankruptcy were abolished with the Law No. 7101, dated 15.03.2018. In order to fill the gap created by the abolition of the institution of “postponing the bankruptcy”, the articles relating the institution of concordat [Turkish Bankruptcy and Enforcement Law (BEL)] Art. 285-309), has been revised taking into account the latest changes in Swiss Law. With the re-arranged concordat provisions, the debtor was given the opportunity to improve his financial situation by continuing his activities without enforcement proceedings or pressure, together with the concordat deadline decision, and unlike the postponement of bankruptcy, the debtor's power of disposition was not abolished. However, it is foreseen that the process will be carried out under the supervision of the commissioner as a rule, taking into account the interests of the creditors and the wider public, and certain limits have been imposed on the debtor's power of disposition in certain situations. The basic legal limit is that the debtor's legally valid pledge, being a guarantor, making gratuitous dispositions, transferring and encumbrance of the immovable, the movables that are important for the continuation of the operation of the enterprise, and the continuous installation of the enterprise, are subject to the permission of the court (BEL Art. 297/2). Otherwise, since the transactions made will be deemed null and void, it is not possible to extend the transactions that are considered as restrictive in the provision through interpretation. At this point, it may propose to revise the wording of the provision in line with the Swiss BEL (Art. 298/2) as “not being able to dispose of its assets, partially or completely, or to limit it”. On the other hand, court permission should be sought for the purpose of the provision, in terms of not being included in the provision, but which have more severe legal consequences (such as guarantee contracts, delivery of bills). Although not directly, like the provision of BEL Art. 297/2, the cases where the court giving the temporary respite decision decides that some transactions are valid only with the permission of the commissioner or that the business activities are carried out by the commissioner himself instead of the debtor, also have an indirect effect on the power of disposition (BEL Art. 297/1). As a matter of fact, if the debtor acts in violation of this provision, the court may remove the power of disposition on the debtor's goods or reject the concordat request and decide on the bankruptcy of the debtor (BEL Art. 297/3, BEL Art. 292/c). Since the concordat is a process carried out under the supervision of the commissioner as a rule (BEL Art. 297/1), the aforementioned legal consequences are also valid in case of non-compliance with the warnings of the commissioner. In this context, it is thought that the issues to be taken into account in the evaluation of the commissioner will be beneficial, albeit indirectly, in determining the limits of the debtor's power of disposition. The most decisive criterion in the evaluation is whether the transaction is one of the ordinary transactions that must be made to achieve the purpose and subject of a company declaring a concordat. It requires the consideration of various criteria such as whether it has an effect or not, the effect of such a transaction on the success of the concordat process. For example, closure of a company owned by the company in case of permanent loss or appointment of an experienced person as a managing partner to the company will have a positive effect on the concordat process, while closing a business that is cur rently making a loss but may bring profit in the future, or a person lacking technical knowledge and experience. appointment as managing partner will have the opposite effect. The “concordat pre-project”, which is among the documents to be attached to the concordat request, also has a decisive role in terms of the limits of the savings authority of the debtor who has taken the respite decision. As per the provision, in the preliminary project, it is necessary to indicate in the preliminary project the issues such as at what rate or term the debts will be paid, whether the debtor will sell his existing goods in order to make the payments, which method will be used to make the payments (capital increase, loan supply, etc.) (BEL Art. 286/1-a). The issues shown in the preliminary project are taken into account both in the court's decision on the respite and in the evaluation of the debtor's activities of the commissioner during the respite period. More importantly, the protection of the creditor's interests is possible if the preliminary project is acted upon. As a matter of fact, the legislator has clearly decreed that the debtor's promises made to one of the creditors in excess of those envisaged in the concordat project will be null and void (BEL Art. 308/e). It should be emphasized that the scope of debtors who can apply for concordat, unlike the postponement of bankruptcy, has been kept wide and any debtor who is unable to pay when due or is in danger of not being able to pay on due date is allowed to apply for this method. In this study, the debtor's environment is limited to commercial companies and the limits of the debtor company's power of savings are evaluated in the light of doctrine and judicial decisions. Keywords: Power of Disposition, Border, Debtor Company, Prohibited Transaction, Ordinary Transaction, Extraordinary Transaction.
In the ordinary course of commercial life, businesses are faced with various economic dangers and problems may arise in their financial structures. Eliminating (or minimizing) these negativities is a requirement of a healthy and stable operation in the field of trade. For this reason, in Turkish Law, as in many other legal systems, legal institutions have been adopted that provide a “legal shield” for debtors who are in difficulty to improve their financial situation. One of these, “postponing the bankruptcy”, has been one of the most frequently applied legal instruments in practice in terms of capital companies and cooperatives meeting the conditions until 2018 (from the day it became operational with the Law No. 4949, dated 30.07.2003). However, during the process, reasons such as the institution's inability to operate properly, its use only for the purpose of delaying the payment of debts, and insufficient protection of creditors necessitated a change in the law and the provisions regarding the postponement of bankruptcy were abolished with the Law No. 7101, dated 15.03.2018. In order to fill the gap created by the abolition of the institution of “postponing the bankruptcy”, the articles relating the institution of concordat [Turkish Bankruptcy and Enforcement Law (BEL)] Art. 285-309), has been revised taking into account the latest changes in Swiss Law. With the re-arranged concordat provisions, the debtor was given the opportunity to improve his financial situation by continuing his activities without enforcement proceedings or pressure, together with the concordat deadline decision, and unlike the postponement of bankruptcy, the debtor's power of disposition was not abolished. However, it is foreseen that the process will be carried out under the supervision of the commissioner as a rule, taking into account the interests of the creditors and the wider public, and certain limits have been imposed on the debtor's power of disposition in certain situations. The basic legal limit is that the debtor's legally valid pledge, being a guarantor, making gratuitous dispositions, transferring and encumbrance of the immovable, the movables that are important for the continuation of the operation of the enterprise, and the continuous installation of the enterprise, are subject to the permission of the court (BEL Art. 297/2). Otherwise, since the transactions made will be deemed null and void, it is not possible to extend the transactions that are considered as restrictive in the provision through interpretation. At this point, it may propose to revise the wording of the provision in line with the Swiss BEL (Art. 298/2) as “not being able to dispose of its assets, partially or completely, or to limit it”. On the other hand, court permission should be sought for the purpose of the provision, in terms of not being included in the provision, but which have more severe legal consequences (such as guarantee contracts, delivery of bills). Although not directly, like the provision of BEL Art. 297/2, the cases where the court giving the temporary respite decision decides that some transactions are valid only with the permission of the commissioner or that the business activities are carried out by the commissioner himself instead of the debtor, also have an indirect effect on the power of disposition (BEL Art. 297/1). As a matter of fact, if the debtor acts in violation of this provision, the court may remove the power of disposition on the debtor's goods or reject the concordat request and decide on the bankruptcy of the debtor (BEL Art. 297/3, BEL Art. 292/c). Since the concordat is a process carried out under the supervision of the commissioner as a rule (BEL Art. 297/1), the aforementioned legal consequences are also valid in case of non-compliance with the warnings of the commissioner. In this context, it is thought that the issues to be taken into account in the evaluation of the commissioner will be beneficial, albeit indirectly, in determining the limits of the debtor's power of disposition. The most decisive criterion in the evaluation is whether the transaction is one of the ordinary transactions that must be made to achieve the purpose and subject of a company declaring a concordat. It requires the consideration of various criteria such as whether it has an effect or not, the effect of such a transaction on the success of the concordat process. For example, closure of a company owned by the company in case of permanent loss or appointment of an experienced person as a managing partner to the company will have a positive effect on the concordat process, while closing a business that is cur rently making a loss but may bring profit in the future, or a person lacking technical knowledge and experience. appointment as managing partner will have the opposite effect. The “concordat pre-project”, which is among the documents to be attached to the concordat request, also has a decisive role in terms of the limits of the savings authority of the debtor who has taken the respite decision. As per the provision, in the preliminary project, it is necessary to indicate in the preliminary project the issues such as at what rate or term the debts will be paid, whether the debtor will sell his existing goods in order to make the payments, which method will be used to make the payments (capital increase, loan supply, etc.) (BEL Art. 286/1-a). The issues shown in the preliminary project are taken into account both in the court's decision on the respite and in the evaluation of the debtor's activities of the commissioner during the respite period. More importantly, the protection of the creditor's interests is possible if the preliminary project is acted upon. As a matter of fact, the legislator has clearly decreed that the debtor's promises made to one of the creditors in excess of those envisaged in the concordat project will be null and void (BEL Art. 308/e). It should be emphasized that the scope of debtors who can apply for concordat, unlike the postponement of bankruptcy, has been kept wide and any debtor who is unable to pay when due or is in danger of not being able to pay on due date is allowed to apply for this method. In this study, the debtor's environment is limited to commercial companies and the limits of the debtor company's power of savings are evaluated in the light of doctrine and judicial decisions. Keywords: Power of Disposition, Border, Debtor Company, Prohibited Transaction, Ordinary Transaction, Extraordinary Transaction.
Description
Keywords
Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler, Hukuk, Ticaret Hukuku, Social Sciences and Humanities, Law, Commercial Law, Sosyal Bilimler (SOC), Sosyal Bilimler Genel, HUKUK, Social Sciences (SOC), SOCIAL SCIENCES, GENERAL, LAW, Sosyal Bilimler ve Beşeri Bilimler, Social Sciences & Humanities, Tasarruf Yetkisi, Sınır, Borçlu Şirket, Yasak İşlem, Olağan İşlem, Olağanüstü İşlem, Power of Disposition, Border, Debtor Company, Prohibited Transaction, Ordinary Transaction, Extraordinary Transaction.
Citation
Büyükkılıç G., \"Konkordato Sürecindeki Borçlu Şirketin Tasarruf Yetkisi Üzerindeki Sınırlar\", Uluslararası Akdeniz Hukuk Kongresi, Akdeniz Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi, Ankara, Türkiye, 04 Haziran 2023, ss.797-801