Injunctions Specific to Family Law

Limitations on the Voting Rights at the General Assembly
Although Switzerland and German Commercial and Corporate Law have been based on while creating the new Turkish Commercial Code, companies have yet failed to reach the institutionalization level stipulated in the Code.

This situation confronts us as a problem in the loan borrowing processes, mergers and transfers of companies.

Along with all these commercial matters, the lack of institutionalization of the company results with inequitable consequences against a party on the matters specific to the family law such as sharing of family assets, calculation of contribution and/or participation receivables.The controlling shareholder, the partner who is at the same time the director of company and decision maker on the corporate accounting may, when a claim is filed against them, ignore the company assets or business connections, decrease the value of company with credits they used, in brief, may use the opportunities in his/her possession maliciously against his/her plaintiff partner.Precisely at this point, the matter of injunctions specific to family law which is stated in the Article 169 of the Civil Code and evaluated in an uttermost wide framework by the Supreme Court comes to the fore.In a "transition to abnormal matrimonial property" case that we have filed on behalf of our foreign client on Family Court, of which base is conducted according to the foreign country law but Turkish Code is applied about the matter of injunction, a need for requesting a special injunction became apparent because we experienced the above-mentioned events.In order to prevent the foreign husband defendant from disposing the assets of companies in Turkey affiliated with a multinational holding at will, the Local Court accepted our request in direction of transfer of voting power in general assembly of shares registered on behalf of the husband defendant, to the client, as being used of voting right of shares in general assembly, jointly and with consent of the client.With the said injunction, the husband defendant started to vote at general assembly with the consent of the client.The Supreme Court Civil Chamber no:2, that investigated the objections by both companies and husband defendant ratified the injunction on limitation of voting in General Assembly by the Local Court.In this respect, the decision is precedent.