Search

Ekseriyetle son çeyrek yüzyılda en az temettü dağıtımı kadar önem kazanan ve uygulaması yaygınlaşan pay geri alım programları fiyat kazanç, mali rantabilite ve benzeri finansal faydalarından ötürü oldukça ön plana çıkmıştır. Pay geri alımları aynı zamanda düşmanca devralma ve manipülasyonlar yoluyla şirketlerin kendi iradeleri haricinde dışarıdan yönetilmesine karşı en etkili çözümlerden biri olarak da anılmaktadır. Şirketlerin bu tehlikeler henüz gerçekleşmeden uygulamaya koyabilecekleri çeşitli kurumsal savunma mekanizmaları vardır fakat bu çalışma bu yollardan yalnızca en etkili alternatiflerden birisi olarak görülen zehir hapı seçeneğini irdelemektedir. Anglo-Sakson temelli bir müessese olan pay geri alımları genellikle pay sahiplerinin kısa vadeciliğine ve analistlerin tahminlerine ilişkin endişelerin bastırılması için öngörülen bir yoldur. Bu anlayış, sermayenin korunması gayesiyle pay geri alımlarının eksik değerlenmiş hisselerin şirketçe iktisap edilmesi olarak ifade edilebilir. Ancak Avrupa’daki hakim görüş, şirketlerin kendi paylarını münhasıran ticari kaygılara ediniminin sermayenin korunması ilkesine aykırılık teşkil ettiğidir. Bu çalışma bahsi geçen hususlar ışığında, pay geri alımlarının şirket malvarlığının korunması için mi yoksa yönetimsel iyimserlik kisvesi altında temsile ilişkin aksaklıkların üzerinin örtülmesi için mi daha çok zaruret arz ettiği hususunu kavramsallaştırmaktadır., Stock buyback programmes have been at least as important as dividend payments for almost a quarter of a century given their positive effect on financial metrics such as the price-to-earnings and return on equity ratios. Stock buyback is considered one of the most effective remedies against hostile takeovers and manipulations. Although there are several pre-bid corporate defense mechanisms – the paper only covers the option of poison pills - at company's acquisition of its own shares is increasingly seen as an efficient alternative to those. An Anglo-Saxon-centric concept of stock buybacks is commonly used to address concerns regarding shareholder short-termism and analyst forecasts. This stream of thought predominantly deems the buyback of undervaluaed stocks significant for capital maintenance as opposed to the dominant European view that repurchasing shares for commercial reasons may run counter to capital maintenance. This study, accordingly, conceptualises whether a stock buyback is indispensable in protecting a company’s assets or used for mitigating agency problems through signalling managerial optimism.

This article presents a critique of the contemporary capitalist system, which promotes to trade every single item in accordance with the desire of people independent of the transferability of items by scrutinizing Radin’s market inalienability perspective to prevent dispossession. The applicability of the market inalienability argument in the context of the land law is argued in theory. The legal struggle of Aborigines has been considered by the Mabo case by enucleating the relationship between land and people from the historical and philosophical point of view in theory.

This thesis was submitted for the award of Doctor of Philosophy and was awarded by Brunel University London Innovation is one of the key determinants of competitive capacity, as either making or suppressing innovation can be effective tools for competing. In addition, innovations have improving characteristics for the advancement of consumer welfare and the economy. Therefore, companies want their contributions to existing technologies to be considered when they are accused of abusing their dominant positions because, in practice, competition conditions are evolving from price-centric to innovation-centric, particularly in technology markets, where almost all companies allocate considerable budgets to research and development (R&D) activities. Hence, the competition starts before the product is even released onto the market in the current economic climate, which requires these companies to innovate constantly. It is therefore likely that noninnovative companies will eventually leave the market, as the existence of companies is directly proportional related to their innovativeness. However, instead of being innovative, businesses can maintain their market share, and even increase it, by suppressing innovation. This can be done in many different ways, but this study examines specific types of innovation suppression practices, namely the non-use of patents, pay-for-delay agreements, standard-setting, spare parts design protection, evergreening patents and exclusionary product design (planned obsolescence), as these issues have not received adequate attention in terms of EU competition law despite their particular importance to the functioning of competitive markets. This thesis, accordingly, debates whether the suppression of innovation is anti-competitive as a form of abusing the dominant position and therefore contrary to Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), since it leads to less choice for consumers and more market barriers for rivals. In particular, the thesis examines the grey area of the relationship between law and innovation over selected issues by testing Article 102 TFEU, the scope of application of which has been broadened by the AstraZeneca case, which tilted practice towards an entirely fresh approach. Pursuant to this case, whenever a practice causes anti-competitive effects on the market, Article 102 TFEU would be applicable, which provides an open interpretation. This study consequently demonstrates the negative impacts of innovation suppression practices on the market, as well as their anti-competitive features, in order to show the applicability of this specific rule. Republic of Turkey‘s Ministry of National Education