NEWSLETTER-2017

68 NEWSLETTER 2017 ticles of association stipulating that the exercise of the right shall be in writing are valid 12 . However, the provisions that derogate the right in terms of time are invalid. The shareholder, in limited liability companies, may exer- cise this right at any time, not only during general assembly meetings. The shareholder may so demand prior to or after the general assembly meeting, and also during the general assembly meeting, but this does not mean that the request will be discussed at that meeting 13 . There is no need to respond to the request immediately. Managers may take a reasonable period of time to respond, with respect to the functioning of the company’s business 14 . The response format to the request is at the discretion of the man- agers. The time required for response is also undetermined, but the response should be reasonably given with respect to the functioning of the company’s business, as GmbHG 51a states that the response shall be given “immediately”. Refusal of the Request for Information and Inspection by Managers If there is a risk that the shareholder who obtained information may use it in such a way that it will damage the company, the manag- ers may prevent access to information and inspection to the extent necessary. The legislator does not seek concrete and specific damages here. It is sufficient only to merely identify the potential hazard. But the hazard must be supported by concrete evidence 15 . The causes of refusal may be the requesting shareholder’s part- nership in a competitor company, the risk of unsanctioned release of confidential information to news media or to competitors, thereby creating unfair competition. The damage may be material or moral. If the request has the risk to damage the reputation of the company and to cause customer loss, it may be refused. The hazard may be claimed 12 Baştuğ / Göksoy, s. 46. 13 Çamoğlu, p. 156. 14 Baştuğ / Göksoy, p. 53. 15 Çamoğlu, p. 159.