Intégrer rapidement les réfugiés

Kolb, Holger; Plyer, Ségolène

doi:10.3917/vin.143.0081

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ancak birleşme amaçlı ortaklıkla birleşmek suretiyle halka açılmak, bu risklerin hiçbirini taşımaz, bu yöntemin hedef şirket için getirileri oldukça nettir: piyasa riskine veya ağır halka arz prosedürüne maruz kalmadan halka açılmak, sonunda çok iyi bir yönetim ekibi ile çalışmak, saygın bir yatırımcı profiline 39 ve ciddi miktarda hazır bir fona sahip olmak. 40 Halka açık olmayan bir şirketin, sermaye piyasası düzenlemelerini dolanarak geleneksel yoldan değil de halka açık bir şirketi kullanarak halka açılmasını önleyici düzenlemeler, Birleşme Tebliği m. 12/4, 5, 6' da öngörülmüştür; ancak bu hükümlerin birleşme amaçlı ortaklıklara uygulanmayacağı aynı maddenin 8. fıkrasında açıkça belirtilmiştir. Yine de birleşme amaçlı ortaklıklar açısından aşağıda ayrıntılı olarak açıklanan gönüllü geri alım işlemi gibi başka koruyucu mekanizmalar öngörülmüştür.…”

Section: Bi̇rleşme İçi̇n Halka Açik Olmayan şİrket Arayişiunclassified

Birleşme Amaçlı Ortaklıklar ve Hedef Şirketle Birleşmesine İlişkin Özellik Arz Eden Durumlar

MERAL

2021

Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SPACs or 'birleşme amaçlı ortaklıklar' as regulated in Turkish law, have burst in recent years in international markets. Turkish SPACs modelled after their US counterparts, are founded through the initial public offering (IPO), and do not have any commercial operation until then. SPACs seek to merge with an operating non-public company called as target company. However, this merger process has its own risks. Bearing in mind that the IPO procedure is challenging, non-public companies may wish to merge with SPACs, by evading the relevant securities regulations. Hence, target companies seem to have an increasing demand to merge with SPACs, because merger procedure is easier to oblige than that of IPO's and they can become public in a shorter time. The merger with SPACs will diminish the failure risk in an IPO and ensure the cash flow into the target company, which is already financially small sized. Moreover, SPACs are obliged to merge with a target company within the timeframe and within the scope of investment strategy determined in their prospectuses in IPOs. However, some shareholders may wish to redeem their shares since the merger has not taken place for a reason or despite the shareholder approval of the merger, they are not satisfied of this merger. In case the merger has not consummated within the timeframe, the shareholders except sponsors are required to receive the 90% of the fund from the IPO must. In the other case, the voluntary buy-back process must be observed for the shareholders who would like to redeem their shares despite shareholder approval of the merger. Therefore, how this voluntary buy-back should be processed should be examined in detail.

show abstract

Section: Bi̇rleşme İçi̇n Halka Açik Olmayan şİrket Arayişiunclassified

Birleşme Amaçlı Ortaklıklar ve Hedef Şirketle Birleşmesine İlişkin Özellik Arz Eden Durumlar

MERAL

2021

Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…101 Furthermore, the fact that a state appears to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court does not mean there is a dispute. 102…”

Section: B the Icj And The Existence Of Disputes Between Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear Weapons Before the International Court of Justice: A Critique of the Marshall Islands v United Kingdom Decision

Awmee¹

2018

VUWLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Court of Justice recently gave judgment in Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament. The case concerned three parallel claims brought by the Marshall Islands against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom for their alleged failure to fulfil obligations concerning negotiations relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament under art VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law. The Court in all three proceedings dismissed the claims at the preliminary objections phase on the sole ground that a legal dispute did not exist between the parties. In determining whether a legal dispute existed, the Court appears to have deviated from the objective determination taken in its previous jurisprudence by introducing, for the first time, a new requirement of "awareness". The Court also failed to address the other preliminary objections brought by the United Kingdom such as the Monetary Gold principle, which appears to have been a more credible avenue for the Court to dismiss the case. The case illustrates the failure by the Court to yet again confront the issue of nuclear weapons.

show abstract

Intégrer rapidement les réfugiés

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Birleşme Amaçlı Ortaklıklar ve Hedef Şirketle Birleşmesine İlişkin Özellik Arz Eden Durumlar

Birleşme Amaçlı Ortaklıklar ve Hedef Şirketle Birleşmesine İlişkin Özellik Arz Eden Durumlar

Nuclear Weapons Before the International Court of Justice: A Critique of the Marshall Islands v United Kingdom Decision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About