Shareholder disputes are one of the most common “business killers” in Turkey—especially in LLCs (Ltd. Şti.) with few partners, where personal trust and daily operations overlap. When cooperation collapses, the dispute usually turns into one of two legal directions: exit (withdrawal) of a shareholder or expulsion of a shareholder. These disputes are rarely only about law; they are about control, cashflow, information access, and leverage.
This guide explains shareholder disputes in Turkey with a practical focus: why disputes escalate, what “exit/expulsion” typically means, how strategy differs for minority vs majority, and what founders should build into governance documents to prevent litigation.
1) Why Shareholder Disputes Escalate So Fast
Most disputes follow the same pattern:
- Information is cut off (no reporting, no bank visibility)
- Control tightens (signing authority, management capture)
- Money becomes the battlefield (expenses, related-party payments, dividends)
- Deadlock happens (50/50 or veto rights)
- One side seeks a forced solution: exit, expulsion, or liquidation
The real trigger is often not a single event—it’s loss of trust plus lack of a workable governance mechanism.
2) The Two Core Lawsuit Paths: Exit vs Expulsion
A) Exit (Withdrawal) — When a Shareholder Wants to Leave
In practice, “exit” is the path where a shareholder tries to leave the company and receive fair value for their shares. Exit disputes usually arise when:
- the shareholder is blocked from management or information,
- dividends are not distributed and value is “locked,”
- the relationship becomes unworkable.
B) Expulsion — When the Company/Other Shareholders Want to Remove Someone
“Expulsion” disputes arise when the remaining shareholders argue that one partner:
- harms the company,
- breaches duties or agreements,
- blocks operations (deadlock behavior),
- acts in bad faith or creates reputational/financial damage.
Practical reality: Exit and expulsion are often mirror stories. Each side claims the other is the problem.
3) The Most Common Evidence Patterns in Turkey
Whether you’re pushing for exit or expulsion, cases usually turn on documents. Common evidence themes include:
- corporate resolutions (or lack of them)
- signing authority decisions and misuse
- bank transfers and payment approvals
- related-party contracts and pricing
- emails/WhatsApp messages showing intent or obstruction
- accounting records, invoices, and payroll evidence
- meeting minutes and formal objections
If you want to win—or settle well—you must build an evidence record early.
4) Strategy for Minority Shareholders (How to Avoid Being Crushed)
Minority shareholders often lose because they:
- act late,
- rely on verbal promises,
- don’t formalize objections,
- don’t document denial of information.
Practical steps that improve leverage:
- demand structured reporting (financials, key contracts, payment summaries) in writing
- record objections and requests through formal channels
- focus on “high-impact” issues: related-party payments, asset sales, borrowing
- preserve evidence before relationships break completely
- connect the dispute to valuation: show value leakage and governance abuse
Minority shareholders should usually aim for a structured settlement (buyout with safeguards) rather than years of operational paralysis.
5) Strategy for Majority Shareholders (How to Remove a Destructive Partner Safely)
Majority shareholders often assume control equals safety. It doesn’t. The biggest majority mistakes are:
- using broad signing authority without approvals,
- making related-party payments without documentation,
- blocking information rights completely (which creates liability risk),
- trying to pressure a minority into leaving without clean process.
Best practice strategy:
- keep governance clean (approvals, minutes, clear authority)
- document operational obstruction or harmful behavior precisely
- avoid “dirty leverage” that creates counterclaims
- create an exit path with a defensible valuation method
- keep the company compliant (tax/SGK, corporate books) during the dispute
In Turkey, a majority that “wins the company” but creates legal exposure often pays later.
6) Deadlock (50/50) Situations: The Most Dangerous Setup
Deadlock disputes typically happen when:
- both partners have veto rights,
- neither can remove the other,
- business operations require joint approvals.
The best solutions are contractual (in advance):
- escalation + time-limited negotiation steps
- mediation clause
- buy-sell mechanism (call/put, shotgun, third-party sale process)
- clear interim operational authority rules
Without a deadlock mechanism, the dispute often ends in value destruction.
7) Settlement Is Often the Best “Legal Strategy”
In shareholder disputes, the best outcome is usually a controlled exit—not a “court victory.”
A strong settlement package often includes:
- a clear valuation method (EBITDA multiple, net asset value, or hybrid)
- installment plan + security (pledge, escrow, guarantees)
- non-compete/non-solicit rules where necessary
- release clauses and confidentiality
- immediate signing authority updates and governance cleanup
If you can’t enforce payment after transfer, the settlement is not complete—security matters.
8) Prevention: What to Put in the Shareholders’ Agreement
If you want to avoid litigation, build these into your SHA:
- reserved matters + approval thresholds
- reporting and audit rights (monthly/quarterly)
- signing authority matrix with thresholds
- related-party transaction rules and pricing logic
- deadlock resolution mechanism
- exit clauses: call/put options, tag/drag, valuation rules
- default remedies (what happens if someone breaches)
Most shareholder disputes are not “inevitable”—they are governance failures.
FAQ
Are shareholder disputes more common in LLCs or JSCs in Turkey?
In practice, disputes are very common in LLCs with few partners because management and ownership are tightly linked. JSCs can also have disputes, but governance can be more structured if designed well.
What is the best first move in a shareholder dispute?
Secure documentation and transparency: request information formally, preserve records, and stop value leakage (unapproved spending, related-party payments).
Is litigation always necessary?
Often no. A structured buyout settlement with enforceable security is frequently the most efficient outcome.
Yanıt yok