Publication: ANONİM ORTAKLIKLARDA KAR PAYINDA TANINAN İMTİYAZIN İÇ KAYNAKLARDAN YAPILAN SERMAYE ARTIRIMI KARŞISINDAKİ DURUMU
Abstract
İmtiyazlı paylar anonim ortaklık uygulamasında önemli bir yere sahiptir. İmtiyazların ihlal edilmesi durumunda kanun koyucu bir koru-ma mekanizması öngörmüştür. Ancak ihlalin gerçekleşmesi dahi çoğu zaman üzerinde tartışılan bir husus olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Çalış-mamızda iç kaynaklardan yapılan sermaye artırımının, kâr payında imti-yaz hakkı üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. İç kaynaklardan yapılan ser-maye artırımında, şirketteki serbest yedek akçelerin sermayeye eklenme-si söz konusu olmakla birlikte, bu yedek akçeler esas itibariyle geçmiş yıllar kârından oluşmaktadır. Şirkette biriken kârın dağıtılmayarak ser-mayeye eklenmesiyle pay sahiplerine bedelsiz paylar verilmekte ve söz konusu kâr bir anlamda pay sahiplerine eşit olarak dağıtılmış olmaktadır. Bu durum ise kârdan imtiyazlı olarak yararlanacak pay sahiplerinin hak-larını ihlal etmekte, imtiyazları etkisizleştirmektedir. Benzer bir durum bedelsiz payların imtiyazlı olarak çıkartılmamasında da gündeme gel-mekte olup bu gibi hallerde ihlalin mevcut olması sebebiyle özel kurulun toplantıya çağırılarak onama kararının aranması gerekmektedir. Özel kurul tarafından onamama kararı verilmesi durumunda ise yönetim kuru-lu tarafından iptal davası açılması yoluna gidilerek bu davada imtiyazla-rın ihlal edilmediğinin ispatlanması gerekmektedir.
Privileged shares have an important place in joint stock compa-nies practice. There is a protection mechanism in case of the concessi-ons are violated. However, even if the violation has occurred, it often appears as an issue that is discussed. In our study, we examined the ef-fects of the capital increase made from internal resources on the right to privilege in dividend. In the capital increase made from internal resour-ces, free reserves in the company are added to the capital. The reserves added to the capital are based on previous years' profits. Free shares are given to the shareholders by adding the profit accumulated in the company to the capital, and the profit in question is distributed to the shareholders equally. Free shares given to shareholders consist of un-distributed profit. Thus, the profit in question is distributed equally to shareholders. This situation violates the rights of shareholders who will benefit from profit privately and neutralizes privileges. A similar situa-tion comes to the fore when the free shares are not privileged, and in such cases, the approval of the special committee should be sought and the decision of approval should be sought. In case of a decision not to approve by the special committee, it is necessary to prove that the privi-leges are not violated in this case by going to the case of annulment by the board of directors.
Privileged shares have an important place in joint stock compa-nies practice. There is a protection mechanism in case of the concessi-ons are violated. However, even if the violation has occurred, it often appears as an issue that is discussed. In our study, we examined the ef-fects of the capital increase made from internal resources on the right to privilege in dividend. In the capital increase made from internal resour-ces, free reserves in the company are added to the capital. The reserves added to the capital are based on previous years' profits. Free shares are given to the shareholders by adding the profit accumulated in the company to the capital, and the profit in question is distributed to the shareholders equally. Free shares given to shareholders consist of un-distributed profit. Thus, the profit in question is distributed equally to shareholders. This situation violates the rights of shareholders who will benefit from profit privately and neutralizes privileges. A similar situa-tion comes to the fore when the free shares are not privileged, and in such cases, the approval of the special committee should be sought and the decision of approval should be sought. In case of a decision not to approve by the special committee, it is necessary to prove that the privi-leges are not violated in this case by going to the case of annulment by the board of directors.