LIFTING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN GROUP OF COMPANIES: WOULD THE SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT DOCTRINE OF EU COMPETITION LAW SET A PRECEDENT?

Günümüzde, sermaye şirketlerine hâkim olan sınırlı sorumluluk ilkesi sebep oldu- ğu hakkaniyetsiz sonuçlar sebebiyle eleştirilebilmektedir. Ayrı bir tüzel kişiliğe sahip olmakla birlikte şirketler onu kontrol eden şahısların iradeleri dâhilinde faaliyet göstermektedirler. Bu kişiler şirketin elde ettiği kârı çeşitli yollardan temellük ederken, şirketin başarısızlığı halinde sınırlı sorumluluk ilkesini gerekçe göstererek şirket borçlarından kendilerini ayrıştırabilmektedirler. Dolayısıyla bir nimet külfet dengesizliği bulunmaktadır. Şirketler topluluğu söz konusu olduğunda durum daha da karmaşık bir hal almaktadır. Sağladığı ekonomik avantajlar sebebiyle sınırlı sorumluluk ilkesinden tamamen vazgeçmek mümkün değildir. Bu ortamda, tüzel kişilik perdesinin kaldırılması yaklaşımı adaletin tesisi açısından mümkün olan tek imkân olarak göze çarpmaktadır.

Şirketler Topluluğunda Tüzel Kişilik Perdesinin Kaldırılması: AB Rekabet Hukukunun Single Ecomomic Unit Doktrini Emsal Olabilir mi?

Today, the limited liability, which became an indispensable principle in company law, may be criticised for unfair results it may cause. Although a company enjoys a separate legal personality, it operates under the will of its controllers. Whereas controllers are able to acquire company revenues through several ways, they can also externalise company debts thanks to limited liability. Therefore, it gives rise to an unfair pros and cons balance. When it comes to the group of companies works are getting more and more complicated. It is obvious that the abolishment of limited liability is impossible because of the economic advantages it brings about. In this regard, lifting the corporate veil seems to be the sole way to render justice.

___

BOOKS

M. Andenas and F. Wooldridge, European Comparative Company Law. 1st ed.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Cambridge Books Online. Web. 05 August 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511770494

D. K. Avgitidis, Groups of Companies, The Liability of the Parent Company for the Debts of its Subsidiary, Athens Komotini, 1996

P. I. Blumberg, The law of corporate groups: tort, contract, and other common law problems in the substantive law of parent and subsidiary corporations, Boston: Little, Brown, 1987

Boyle & Birds company law / editors, John Birds ... [et al.]; consultant editor, A.J. Boyle, Bristol: Jordans, 2011

D. Brodie, The enterprise, Enterprise Liability and the Common Law.

1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. pp. 55-65. Cambridge Books Online. Web. 06 August 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511778711.006

S. M. Colino, Competition Law Of The EU And UK, New York, 2011

A. Dignam and J. Lowry, Company Law, Core Text Series, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012

J. Dine, The Governance of Corporate Groups, Cambridge University Press, 2006

J. Dine and M. Koutsias, Company Law, Palgrave Macmillan,7th edition, 2009 A. Ezrachi, EU Competition Law, An Analytical Guide to the Leading Cases, Third Edition, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2012

J. H. Farrar, Farrars company law / John H. Farrar, Brenda Hannigan; with contributions by Nigel E. Furey and Philip Wylie. London: Butterworths, 1998

Gower & Davies: Principles of Modern Company Law, by Professor Paul Davies (Author, Editor), Professor Sarah Worthington (Author), Sarah Worthington (Editor), Ninth Edition, Sweet&Maxwell, 2012

S. Grundmann and F. Möslein, European Company Law; Organization, Finance and Capital Markets, Antwerpen; Oxford: Intersentia, 2007

B. Hannigan, Company Law, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 2012

A. Jones and B. Sufrin, EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, fifth edition, Oxford: Oxford University Pres, 2014, 128 50

D. Kershaw, Company Law in Context: text and materials, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012

V. Rose and D. Bailey, Bellamy & Child, European Union Law of Competition, Oxford University Press, 7th Edition, 2013

L. Sealy and S. Wortington, Sealy and Worthingtons Cases and Materials in Company Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013

S. Tully (ed), International Corporate Legal Responsibility, 2012, Kluwer Law Int K. Vandekerckhove, Piercing The Corporate Veil, Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2007

ARTICLES

J. E. Antunes, The Liability of Parent Corporations and their Directors, Paper Presented at the Universidade Autonoma de Madrid, February 27th 2004

J D. Briggs and S Jordan, Developments in the law: the presumption of shareholder liability and the implications for shareholders in private damages actions and otherwise, Global Competition Litigation Review, 2009

M. Bronckers and A. Vallery, No Longer Presumed Guilty? The Impact Of Fundamental Rights On Certain Dogmas Of EU Competition Law, 2011, 34 W.Comp. 4

T. K. Cheng, The Corporate Veil Doctrine Revisited: A Comparative Study of the English and the U.S. Corporate Veil Doctrines, 34 B.C. Intl & Comp. L. Rev. 329 (2011), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol34/iss2/2

A, Daehnert, Lifting the corporate veil: English and German perspectives on group liability, International Company and Commercial Law Review, 2007

M. Dearborn, Enterprise Liability: Reviewing and Revitalizing Liability for Corporate Groups 97 Cal. L. Rev. 195 2009,

L. Gallagher and P. Ziegler, Lifting the corporate veil in the pursuit of justice, Journal of Business Law, 1990

S Griffin, Holding companies and subsidiaries - the corporate veil, Comp. Law. 16, 1991 51

H Hansmann and R Kraakman, Toward Unlimited Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts, The Yale Law Journal, vol: 100, 1991, pp. 1879 1934

H Hansmann and R Kraakman, Toward Unlimited Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts, 100 Yale L. J. 1879, 1990 1991.

H Hansmann and R Kraakman, The End of History for Corporate Law, International Center for Finance Working Paper No. 00-09, 2000,

H Hansmann and R Kraakman, What is Corporate Law? THE ANATOMY OF CORPORATE LAW: COMPARATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL APPROACH, R. Kraakmann, P. Davies, H. Hansmann, G. Hertig, K. Hopt, H. Kanda, and E. Rock, Oxford University Pres, pp. 1-19, 2004. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=568623

K. Hofstetter, Parent Responsibility for Subsidiary Corporations: Evaluating European Trends, International and Comparative Law Quarterly / Volume 39 / Issue 03 / July 1990, pp 576 598

K. Hofstetter and M. Ludescher, Fines against Parent Companies in EU Antitrust Law Setting Incentives for Best Practice Compliance World Competition,Volume 33, No. 1 March 2010

A. Jones, The boundaries of an undertaking in EU Competition Law, [2012] 8(2) European Competition Journal 301-331

J. Joshua, Y. Botteman and L. Atlee, You Cant Beat the Percentage The Parental Liability Presumption in EU Cartel Enforcement, The European Antitrust Review, 2012

J. M. Landers, A Unified Approach To Parent, Subsidiary, and Affiliate Questions in Bankruptcy, 42 U. Chi. L. Rev. 589 1974-1975

P. Muchlinski, Limited liability and multinational enterprises: a case for reform? Cambridge Journal of Economics 2010, 34, 915928

M. Olaerts and C. Cauffman, Química: Further Developing the Rules on Parent Company Liability (October 14, 2011). Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper No. 2011/33. Available at:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1944053,

S. Ottolenghi, From Peeping Behind the Corporate Veil, to Ignoring it Completely The Modern Law Review, Volume 53, Issue 3, pages 338353, May 1990

B. Pettet, Limited Liability A Principle For The 21st Century Current Legal Problems, 1995, V.48, Part: 2

F.G. Rixon, Lifting The Veil Between Holding And Subsidiary Companies, Law Quarterly Review, 1986

W. Wils, The undertaking as subject of E.C. competition law and the imputation of infringements to natural or legal persons, European Law Review, 2000 52 CASES EU Competition Law

Case T-203/01 Michelin v Commission [2003] ECR II-4071

Case C-41/90 Höfner and Esler v Macrotron GmbH [1991]

C-217/05 Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio [2006] ECR I-11987

Case 48-69. Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v Commission of the European Communities, 14 July 1972

97/08 P - Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission ECLI:EU:C:2009

Case T-314/01 Avebe v Commission [2006] ECR II-3085

Cases 6 and 7-73, Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano S.p.A. and Commercial Solvents Corporation v Commission of the European Communities, 6 March 1974

Case T-132/07, Fuji Electric System Co Ltd. v. Commission 12 July 2011

Case T-354/94 Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB v Commission (2002)

C-90/09 P - General Química and Others v Commission 20 January 2011 English Company Law

Albacruz (Cargo Owners) Respondents v Albazero (Owners) Appellants House of Lords [1977] A.C. 774

Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] A.C. 22

Atlas Maritime Co. S.A. v Avalon Maritime Ltd. 1991 WL 837902 Faiza Ben Hashem v Abdulhadi Ali Shayif 22 September 2008

Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation & Others v Oleg Stepanovs [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm)

D.H.N. Food Distributors Ltd. (In Liquidation) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, Court of Appeal, (1976) 32 P. & C.R. 240

Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council 1978 S.C. (H.L.) 90.

Beckett Investment Management Group Ltd & ors v Glyn Hall & ors, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), [2007] EWCA Civ 613 53

Chandler v Cape Plc, [2012] EWCA Civ 525.

The Gramophone And Typewrıter, Lımıted V. Stanley, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 34), Sched. D

In re Southard & Co. Ltd, [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1198

Littlewoods Organisation Ltd v Haris [1977] 1 WLR 1472

Linsen International Ltd v Humpus Sea Transport Pte Ltd High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division Commercial Court , [2011] EWHC 2339 (Comm) Smith Stone & Knight Ltd. v Birmingham Corpn [1939] 4 All ER 116