The Protection of Minority Shareholders within the Legal Framework: Conceptual Evidence from Turkey

  • Abdullah BARWARI Duhok Polytechnic University, Duhok, Iraq
  • Luqman SAEED Erbil Polytechnic University, Cihan University Erbil, Iraq
  • Mustafa AREE University of Duhok, Nawroz University, Research Center, Duhok, Iraq

Abstract

As the equity capital has begun to surface as an essential corporate finance mechanism in emerging markets, regulations providing adequate protection for the interests of minority shareholders and investors will enable companies to access global equity capital. Turkey. as an official candidate for European Union (EU) membership, must introduce a code of corporate governance ensuring the protection of investors, particularly minority shareholders to encourage them to partake in capital markets. Consequently, this code will ease the access of Turkish companies to equity capital. Turkey has made substantial improvements in promoting the interests of shareholders and investors by focusing on the absence of an equity culture in Turkey. The application of provisions of EU capital market and company laws in Turkish law will assist in creating a legal framework for protecting minority interests. The purpose of this study is to make a contribution to the attempts to develop a corporate governance structure to protect the interests of minority shareholders and investors, which is a main requirement for developing a Turkish equity culture.

References

[1] Mustafa, A. Che-Ahmad, and S. Chandren. 2018. Board diversity, audit committee characteristics and audit quality: The moderating role of control-ownership wedge, Business Economic Horizons, 14(3): 587–614.
[2] Mustafa, A. Che-Ahmad, Chandren, and Sitraselvi. 2017. Board diversity and audit quality: Evidence from Turkey, Journal of Advanced Research in Business and Management Studies, 6(1): 50–60,.
[3] Mustafa, A. and Che-Ahmad, A. 2017. Ownership Patterns and Control of Top 100 Turkish Listed Companies, Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting, 9(1): 192–209.
[4] Mohammed N. H. and Saeed, A. 2018. Determinants of Audit Fees: Evidence from UK Alternative Investment Market, Academic Journal of Nawroz University, 7(3): 34–47.
[5] Ararat, M., Aksu, M. H. and Tansel Cetin, A. 2010. ‘The Impact of Board Diversity on Boards’ Monitoring Intensity and Firm Performance: Evidence from the Istanbul Stock Exchange.
[6] Ararat, M. and Ugur, M. 2003. Corporate governance in Turkey: an overview and some policy recommendations, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 3(1): 58–75.
[7] Akdogan, Y. E. and Boyacioglu, M. A. 2010. Türkiyede Kurumsal Yönetim: Genel Bir Degerlendirme/ Corporate Governance In Turkey: An Overview, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sos. Bilim. Enstitüsü Derg., no. 24, p. 11.
[8] Caliskan, N. 2011. Turkish Corporate Governance Principles and its Implications for ISE Corporate Governance Index Companies, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 60–75.
[9] Karaibrahimoglu, Y. 2010. The role of corporate governance on earnings management: Quarterly evidence from Turkey, Unpubl. Dr. Diss. Izmir Univ. Econ. Turkey.
[10] Kahyaoglu, H. and Bozkus, S. 2010. The Relationship Between Stock Return Asymmetries and Corporate Governance: an Empirical Work on the Turkish Case, Corporate Governance, 18(5): 2938–2948.
[11] Colli, A. and Colpan, A. M. 2016. Business Groups and Corporate Governance: Review, Synthesis, and Extension, Corporate Governance An International Review, 24(3): 274–302.
[12] Yildirim - Öktem, Ö. and Üsdiken, B. 2010. Contingencies versus External Pressure: Professionalization in Boards of Firms Affiliated to Family Business Groups in Late‐Industrializing Countries, British Journal of Management, 21(1), 115-130.
[13] Ali, A. Chen, T.-Y. and Radhakrishnan, S. 2007. Corporate disclosures by family firms, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 44(1): 238–286.
[14] Mohammed, N. H. 2018. Board characteristics and industry specialist auditor: The moderating role of concentrated ownership, Academic Journal of Nawroz University, 7(3): 55–65.
[15] Gürsoy, G. and Aydoğan, K. 2002. Equity ownership structure, risk taking, and performance: an empirical investigation in Turkish listed companies, Emerging Markets, Finance and Trade, 38(6): 6–25,.
[16] Ararat, M. Black, B. S. and Yurtoglu, B. B. 2014. Corporate Governance, Business Groups, and Market Value : Time-Series Evidence from Turkey Corporate Governance, Business Groups, and Market Value: Time-Series Evidence from Turkey, no. 13.
[17] Egeli, M. Borak, A. and Acar, D. 2005. Corporate Governance in Turkey: An Investor Perspective, Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4), 617-633.
[18] Karaibrahimoglu, Y. Z. 2013. Is Corporate Governance A Determinant of Auditor Choice? Evidence from Turkey, Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 13(2), 273-284.
[19] Bainbridge, S. M. 2002. Director primacy: The means and ends of corporate governance, Nw. UL Rev., vol. 97, pp. 547.
[20] Kahan, M. and Rock, E. B. 2009. Hedge funds in corporate governance and corporate control, vol. 389, no. 461. Routledge in association with GSE Research.
[21] OECD. 2015. OECD Corporate Governance Factbook.
[22] IIF. 2005. Corporate Governance in Turkey — An Investor Perspective, Corporate Governence, no. April.
[23] Aksu, M. and Kosedag, A. 2006. Transparency and disclosure scores and their determinants in the istanbul stock exchange, Corporate Governance, 14(4): 277–296.
[24] Aksu, M. and Espahbodi, H. 2016. The Impact of IFRS Adoption and Corporate Governance Principles on Transparency and Disclosure: The Case of Borsa Istanbu, Emerging Markets, Finance and Trade, 52(4): 1013–1028.
Published
2019-10-22
How to Cite
BARWARI, Abdullah; SAEED, Luqman; AREE, Mustafa. The Protection of Minority Shareholders within the Legal Framework: Conceptual Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 9, n. 6, p. 1884-1892, oct. 2019. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/3943>. Date accessed: 21 dec. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v9.6(36).02.