

Protecting Company Assets During a Partnership Dispute in Turkey | 2026 Guide
How can foreign investors protect company assets during a shareholder or partnership dispute in Turkey? Learn about bank controls, interim protection, manager removal, unauthorized transfers, financial records, asset preservation and 50/50 company deadlocks.
A partnership dispute in a Turkish company can quickly become an asset-protection problem.
A foreign investor may initially disagree with a Turkish business partner about management, profits or strategy. The situation becomes substantially more serious when there is a risk that company money, real estate, machinery, inventory, receivables or other assets may be transferred before the dispute is resolved.
The investor’s immediate objective should usually be:
Preserve the company while the ownership and management dispute is being resolved.
This requires separating three questions:
For limited liability companies, the Turkish Commercial Code places important matters—including appointment and removal of managers, approval of financial statements, profit decisions and certain share-transfer matters—within the general assembly’s non-transferable powers. Managers are also required to act diligently and protect the company’s interests.
Foreign investors should identify the company’s significant assets before confronting the other shareholder.
Prepare a list covering:
You cannot effectively protect assets that have not been identified.
Banking control is usually the first priority.
Determine:
Do not wait until money disappears before determining how the banking structure works.
Obtain available historical statements and transaction records.
Preserve evidence of:
Historical records may later become essential in proving a pattern of asset diversion.
Where corporate governance permits, a company facing a serious shareholder dispute may need stronger payment controls.
Possible internal safeguards include:
Any change must comply with valid corporate authority and banking requirements.
A foreign shareholder should not simply instruct a bank to disregard a legally authorized company representative without a proper legal basis.
Obtain current corporate records showing who can legally represent the company.
For limited companies, the Turkish Commercial Code provides rules governing managers’ representation authority and permits the general assembly to remove managers or restrict management and representation authority.
Determine whether the Turkish partner can:
This is different from simply asking who owns the majority of the shares.
The articles may contain important safeguards concerning:
Do not assume that percentage ownership alone determines corporate authority.
Foreign investors should also review any shareholders’ agreement for provisions dealing with:
For example, the agreement may require both shareholders to approve any transaction above a specified threshold.
Not every asset presents the same risk.
A factory building cannot disappear overnight as easily as cash.
Higher-risk assets often include:
Prioritize according to how quickly the asset can be transferred.
Obtain current information concerning significant company properties.
Identify:
If there is concrete evidence of an imminent unauthorized disposal, urgent judicial protection may need to be evaluated.
In manufacturing companies, machinery can represent substantial corporate value.
Prepare an inventory containing:
Photographic and documentary records may become useful if equipment is later removed.
Inventory can disappear gradually during a shareholder dispute.
Compare:
Accounting inventory → warehouse records → physical stock → sales invoices
Large discrepancies should be investigated.
A business partner may attempt to redirect customers to another bank account or related company.
Notify appropriate finance personnel of valid payment procedures where necessary.
Review whether customers have received instructions to pay:
Customer receivables are company assets.
Create a map of businesses connected with:
Then review company payments to those entities.
A related-party transaction is not automatically improper.
The important questions are:
One warning sign can be the creation of a new company performing substantially the same business.
Investigate whether:
The dispute may involve more than cash withdrawals.
Identify ownership of:
Confirm whether these assets belong to the company or individual shareholders.
Do not wait until a dispute arises over ownership.
Corporate control increasingly depends on digital credentials.
Create an access inventory for:
Do not unlawfully access another person’s private account.
Corporate credentials should be secured through authorized company procedures.
Company documentation may become as important as physical assets.
Secure lawful access to:
The Ministry of Trade’s current 2026 corporate-law materials continue to identify the Turkish Commercial Code and the Trade Registry Regulation among the core legislation governing companies and corporate records.
A foreign shareholder should not respond to distrust by secretly removing original corporate records.
Preserve lawful copies where appropriate.
The objective is evidence preservation, not creating a second dispute concerning company property.
A business partner with management authority may attempt to create substantial company liabilities.
Check for:
An investor should understand whether company assets are being depleted directly or indirectly through new debt.
Review potential:
Asset protection includes preventing unnecessary encumbrances, not merely preventing sales.
A company may lose value by guaranteeing debts belonging to:
Request copies of guarantees and determine their corporate purpose and authorization.
Look for unusual increases in:
A shareholder dispute can sometimes lead to corporate value being extracted through expenses rather than direct transfers.
Where the business partner is also a limited-company manager and poses a genuine risk to company assets, removal may need to be considered.
Under Article 630 of the Turkish Commercial Code, the general assembly may remove a manager and restrict management and representation authority. The statutory framework also provides for judicial intervention concerning a manager’s authority where justified grounds exist.
This remedy should be evaluated according to the company’s ownership and voting structure.
Majority ownership may make corporate intervention easier, but the investor must still comply with:
Do not attempt to protect company assets using defective corporate resolutions.
This is considerably more difficult.
For example:
Foreign investor: 50%
Turkish partner: 50%
Neither side may be able to adopt certain decisions alone.
The Constitutional Court’s 2025 decision concerning two-shareholder limited companies specifically addressed structural problems created when statutory voting requirements prevent effective use of certain shareholder remedies. The Court also noted the availability of dissolution proceedings for justified reasons and the court’s power under Article 636 to order an alternative appropriate solution in qualifying circumstances.
A 50/50 dispute therefore often requires judicial strategy rather than endless failed shareholder meetings.
Where there is concrete evidence of imminent asset dissipation, interim protection may be critical.
Examples include:
The requested measure should be proportionate and connected to the underlying claim.
Courts should be presented with concrete facts rather than general distrust.
Compare:
Weak allegation:
“My partner may take company money.”
with:
Specific allegation:
“A TRY 8 million transfer to a company controlled by the manager is scheduled for tomorrow, following three similar disputed transfers.”
Specific evidence creates a substantially stronger foundation for urgent protection.
Useful evidence may include:
Preserve evidence lawfully.
A complete freeze of company accounts can seriously damage the business and is not automatically the appropriate solution to every shareholder dispute.
Where judicial protection is sought, proportionality matters.
Sometimes the commercial objective should be to stop a specific disputed transaction while allowing legitimate company operations to continue.
Asset protection should not destroy the business it is intended to protect.
Identify essential payments:
A successful strategy protects company value while maintaining legitimate operations.
A foreign investor should not transfer company money to a personal account merely because they distrust the other shareholder.
That could itself create:
Company money should remain under lawful company control.
Another dangerous response is:
“I will move everything to my own company before my partner does.”
This can transform the foreign investor from claimant into defendant.
Do not engage in competing asset diversion.
Never create retrospective documentation designed to make an earlier transaction appear authorized.
Preserve the actual chronology.
If suspicious payments have already occurred, build a transaction file showing:
Date → amount → recipient → authority → invoice → contract → corporate benefit
This helps determine whether the company may pursue recovery.
If TRY 10 million disappears from the company’s account, the immediate financial loss may belong to the company.
A shareholder’s investment may decrease in value, but the legal claims should distinguish company damage from direct shareholder damage.
This is important when deciding who should bring a claim and where recovered funds should be paid.
Managers of limited companies are subject to duties of care and loyalty. Article 626 requires managers and persons involved in management to perform their duties diligently and safeguard the company’s interests in accordance with good-faith principles.
Where asset diversion causes company loss, management-liability remedies may therefore need to be evaluated.
Partnership disputes can also lead to attempts to alter ownership.
Review:
Ownership manipulation can rapidly change who controls the company’s assets.
Preserve:
Do not ignore meetings simply because relations have broken down.
A disputed shareholder may use absence to attempt corporate changes.
Where appropriate, make objections in writing.
A clear documentary record can later show:
This is considerably stronger than relying on oral conversations.
Where substantial money is involved, an independent review can identify:
The purpose should be to reconstruct company finances objectively.
List:
Shareholder → family → companies → directors → suppliers → recipients of company money
This can reveal patterns that are difficult to see from annual financial statements alone.
Settlement discussions may eventually be appropriate.
But before entering negotiations, secure:
Do not negotiate while the other side exclusively controls all relevant information.
A Turkish partner may offer to purchase the foreign investor’s shares during the dispute.
Before agreeing, investigate:
Otherwise, the investor may sell at an artificially reduced valuation.
A properly drafted agreement may contain:
These provisions should be reviewed before commencing parallel proceedings that may affect contractual rights.
For limited liability companies, Article 636 provides a judicial route where justified reasons exist.
The Constitutional Court has confirmed that, rather than simply dissolving the company, the court may in qualifying circumstances order payment of the real value of the claimant’s share and their departure or adopt another appropriate and acceptable solution.
This can be particularly relevant where a partnership dispute has made continued operation extremely difficult.
A functioning company may have:
Preserving enterprise value may be preferable to destroying the business merely to end the shareholder relationship.
During a serious dispute, maintain a simple record of:
| Asset | Value | Current Controller | Immediate Risk | Protection Needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bank account | TRY 20M | Manager | High | Dual approval |
| Factory | TRY 80M | Company | Medium | Monitor records |
| Machinery | TRY 25M | Company | Medium | Inventory |
| Receivables | TRY 12M | Finance | High | Payment controls |
| Trademark | Significant | Company | Medium | Verify registration |
This helps legal strategy focus on actual risks.
Foreign investors facing a serious partnership dispute should:
Potentially, depending on management authority, corporate governance, the nature of the threatened transaction and whether the requirements for corporate or judicial intervention are satisfied.
Potentially. For limited companies, Article 630 expressly provides mechanisms concerning removal of managers and restriction of management and representation authority.
Potentially, where the applicable legal requirements are satisfied and there is concrete evidence of an imminent risk requiring interim protection.
The investor should immediately identify banking authority, preserve statements and determine whether lawful corporate or judicial measures can prevent unauthorized transfers.
A 50/50 company may experience serious governance deadlock. Judicial remedies, interim protection and potential exit mechanisms may therefore become particularly important.
This is generally a dangerous approach without a proper legal basis. Company assets should remain under lawful corporate control.
Potentially. Managers have statutory duties to act diligently and safeguard company interests, and liability may arise where the applicable requirements are established.
The transactions should be traced individually to determine the recipient, authority, legal basis, corporate benefit and potential recovery remedies.
Not necessarily. Preserving a functioning company’s value may be preferable. Dissolution and alternative judicial solutions should generally be considered in light of the entire dispute.
Determine which company assets can be transferred quickly, who currently controls them and whether there is concrete evidence that a damaging transaction is imminent.
A shareholder dispute becomes substantially more dangerous when one side controls the company’s bank accounts, assets, accounting system or representation authority.
Foreign investors should therefore focus first on preserving the company rather than immediately attempting to end the partnership.
A strong asset-protection strategy may involve banking controls, preservation of corporate records, monitoring related-party transactions, restriction or removal of management authority, financial investigation, interim judicial protection and carefully structured shareholder exit proceedings.
For limited liability companies, Turkish law expressly imposes duties of care and loyalty on managers and provides mechanisms for removal or restriction of management and representation authority.
Where the dispute becomes so serious that continued partnership is no longer workable, Turkish company law also provides judicial mechanisms that can lead to dissolution or, depending on the circumstances, an alternative solution preserving greater economic value.
Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign investors, international companies and foreign shareholders with partnership disputes, protection of company assets, unauthorized transfers, manager misconduct, 50/50 shareholder deadlocks and corporate-control disputes in Turkey.
Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in preserving corporate assets, tracing disputed transactions, protecting financial records, challenging unauthorized management actions and pursuing appropriate interim and final remedies.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower, Office No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey
This article is intended for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Available asset-protection measures depend on the company’s legal form, ownership structure, management authority, corporate documents, evidence of risk and specific circumstances of the dispute.