Foreign Company Buys Industrial Property With Environmental Violations in Turkey: Who Bears Past Liability? (2026 Updated Guide)

A foreign company buys a factory or industrial property in Turkey and later discovers historical pollution, waste or environmental permit violations. Learn who may bear past fines, cleanup costs and regulatory liability, and which claims may arise against the seller.

A foreign company purchasing a factory, warehouse, logistics facility, recycling site or other industrial property in Turkey may complete the transaction believing that the most important risks are title, zoning, building permits, machinery and financing. After the acquisition, however, environmental authorities may identify problems that began years before the foreign buyer became the owner.

The site may contain contaminated soil, buried industrial waste, leaking chemical tanks, unauthorized waste-storage areas, polluted groundwater, improper wastewater discharge systems or historical activities conducted without the necessary environmental permits or licences.

This immediately raises a difficult question: Does the new foreign owner inherit all environmental liability simply because it now owns the industrial property?

The answer requires separating several different forms of liability.

A historical administrative fine for a specific environmental violation, liability for environmental damage and restoration, obligations arising from the company’s current operation of the facility, and contractual claims against the seller are not necessarily governed by identical principles.

Under the Environmental Law, administrative monetary sanctions are linked to specifically defined prohibited acts. Danıştay emphasizes that before imposing such a fine, the administration must properly establish the sanctionable act and identify its factual and legal basis.

For foreign investors, the central lesson is therefore clear: past environmental liability cannot safely be analyzed merely by asking who owns the land today. The investor must identify who caused the pollution, who operated the facility when the violation occurred, what environmental damage remains today, what company or asset was acquired, and which contractual warranties were given by the seller.

Environmental Liability Is Not One Single Concept

When environmental problems are discovered after an acquisition, investors often refer to everything as “environmental liability.”

That can be misleading.

The transaction may involve separate issues concerning:

administrative fines,

environmental cleanup,

restoration costs,

ongoing pollution,

environmental permits and licences,

suspension of operations,

waste-management obligations,

civil compensation,

contractual indemnification, and

potential criminal exposure in serious cases.

Each category should be analyzed independently.

The First Question: Was This an Asset Purchase or a Share Purchase?

This distinction can fundamentally affect the transaction analysis.

A foreign investor may acquire the industrial land and buildings directly from another company.

Alternatively, the investor may purchase the shares of the Turkish company that already owns and operates the facility.

These are not commercially identical structures.

Share Purchase Can Leave Historical Liabilities Inside the Company

In a share acquisition, the legal entity operating the industrial facility generally continues to exist after closing.

Only its shareholders change.

Therefore, if that company already has:

environmental proceedings,

administrative sanctions,

permit problems,

cleanup obligations,

pending litigation, or

other existing liabilities,

those issues do not automatically disappear merely because the company’s shares have been transferred.

This is why environmental due diligence is particularly important in corporate acquisitions.

Asset Purchase Requires a Different Analysis

Suppose the foreign company purchases only:

the land,

factory buildings, and

certain machinery.

The seller continues to exist as a separate legal entity.

Historical administrative responsibility for acts committed by the seller cannot automatically be treated as identical to the buyer’s responsibility simply because ownership of the land changed.

However, a physical contamination problem remaining on the property may still create serious practical and regulatory exposure for the new owner or operator.

Who Committed the Historical Environmental Violation?

This is one of the first facts that should be established.

Prepare a timeline identifying:

previous landowners,

previous operators,

industrial activities,

tenants,

waste contractors,

production processes,

environmental permits,

known spills,

regulatory inspections, and

ownership transfers.

A site that has operated for forty years may have pollution attributable to several different entities.

Administrative Fines Require Identification of the Relevant Violation

The Environmental Law contains administrative monetary sanctions for specified environmental violations.

Danıştay has emphasized that an environmental administrative fine must rest on a properly established factual event. The administration should identify the act constituting the violation, the legal provision supporting the sanction and the relevant evidence.

This is highly relevant where a foreign investor is confronted with alleged historical misconduct.

Current Ownership Does Not Automatically Prove Who Committed a Past Violation

Suppose industrial waste was unlawfully disposed of in 2022.

The foreign investor purchases the property in 2026.

The fact that the investor owns the land in 2026 does not, by itself, establish that it committed the 2022 disposal act.

Evidence concerning the historical operator and the person responsible for the violation becomes critical.

The Personal Nature of Administrative Sanctions Matters

Turkish administrative-sanctions jurisprudence recognizes the importance of identifying the person or entity responsible for the sanctionable act.

Danıştay has applied the principle of personal responsibility in environmental administrative-fine disputes, including situations where the person formally connected with an asset was not the person who committed the environmental violation.

For an asset purchaser, this can be an important defense against automatic attribution of historical fines.

But Environmental Damage Creates a Different Question

Avoid a dangerous assumption:

“If we cannot be fined for the previous owner’s historical act, we have no environmental problem.”

That does not necessarily follow.

The Environmental Law’s framework concerning pollution and environmental damage can create obligations distinct from the administrative monetary sanction imposed for a specific historical violation.

Therefore, fine liability and remediation liability must be examined separately.

The “Polluter Pays” Principle Is Central

Environmental regulation generally seeks to place the economic consequences of pollution on the party responsible for causing it.

Where historical contamination is discovered, the investor should therefore investigate who generated, released, deposited or improperly managed the pollutant.

Relevant evidence may include:

production records,

chemical inventories,

waste-transfer documentation,

environmental inspection reports,

laboratory analyses,

historic site plans,

tank records,

groundwater studies, and

employee evidence.

What if the Polluter No Longer Exists?

This can make the situation significantly more difficult.

The company responsible for contamination may have:

been liquidated,

become insolvent,

merged into another company,

changed corporate structure, or

ceased operations years earlier.

The foreign investor should investigate the complete corporate history rather than assuming the last seller was necessarily the original polluter.

Soil Contamination Can Remain Hidden for Years

A factory may appear completely normal above ground while the soil contains:

petroleum hydrocarbons,

solvents,

heavy metals,

industrial chemicals,

waste oils, or

other pollutants.

Historical tanks and underground infrastructure can be particularly important.

Environmental due diligence should therefore go beyond visual inspection.

Groundwater Contamination Can Expand the Risk

Pollution may migrate beyond the parcel boundary.

If contaminants enter groundwater or neighboring land, the environmental problem may no longer be limited to the purchased industrial property.

The investigation may need to address:

contamination pathways,

neighboring parcels,

water resources,

historic drainage,

underground tanks, and

off-site migration.

Buried Waste Is a Major Acquisition Warning

Foreign investors should be particularly cautious where the property historically hosted:

chemical manufacturing,

metal processing,

textile production,

fuel storage,

recycling,

waste handling,

mining-related operations, or

other pollution-intensive activity.

Buried waste discovered after closing can create substantial investigation, transport, disposal and restoration costs.

Unauthorized Waste Storage Can Create Current Liability

Historical responsibility and current conduct should not be confused.

Suppose the foreign investor discovers unauthorized waste storage after acquiring the factory but continues to store or manage the material unlawfully for another year.

The investor may then create its own post-acquisition regulatory exposure.

Once an environmental problem is identified, continuing non-compliance can transform a historical issue into a current one.

Immediate Compliance Is Essential After Acquisition

A buyer who discovers an environmental problem should promptly determine whether current operations comply with:

waste rules,

emission requirements,

discharge requirements,

environmental permits,

storage requirements, and

other applicable regulatory conditions.

Historical disputes should not distract management from current compliance.

Environmental Permit Problems Can Stop Operations

Industrial facilities may require environmental permits or licences depending on their activities.

Operating without required documentation can lead not only to monetary sanctions but also to suspension-related consequences under the applicable environmental regime.

Danıştay has reviewed cases involving facilities operating without required environmental permit and licence documentation and has upheld the significance of the regulatory requirement for continued operation.

For a foreign buyer, environmental permitting should therefore be verified before production continues.

A Permit Held by the Seller May Not Solve the Buyer’s Position

The investor should examine:

which entity holds the permit,

which facility it covers,

which activities are authorized,

its validity period,

whether amendments are required after the transaction, and

whether the acquisition changes any information relevant to regulatory compliance.

Do not assume that seeing an environmental permit in the data room means the post-closing structure is automatically compliant.

Verify the Scope of Every Environmental Licence

A facility may be licensed for one activity but physically conduct another.

For example, the permit may cover:

storage,

recycling,

emissions, or

particular waste categories,

while the facility has expanded into additional processes.

Compare the actual operation with the regulatory authorization.

Historical Permit Violations Should Be Separated From Current Violations

Create two files.

The first should address pre-closing environmental conduct.

The second should address post-closing operations.

This prevents the investor from unintentionally assuming that every problem belongs to the seller or, conversely, accepting responsibility for conduct that predates the acquisition.

Regulatory Inspection Reports Are Essential

Request all historical environmental inspection records.

Review:

inspection dates,

identified violations,

sampling results,

warnings,

administrative fines,

remediation instructions,

permit deficiencies, and

follow-up inspections.

An apparently minor historical inspection may reveal a much larger undisclosed environmental problem.

Obtain the Administrative Fine Decision, Not Just the Payment Receipt

If the seller says:

“We had one small environmental fine and it was paid,”

request the actual decision.

The document may reveal:

the precise violation,

affected location,

pollutant,

inspection findings,

recurrence history, and

whether the underlying environmental problem was ever corrected.

Payment of a fine does not necessarily prove that physical contamination was remediated.

Previous Violations Can Increase Later Sanctions

Article 23 of the Environmental Law provides increased sanctions for qualifying repeated violations within the relevant statutory period.

Danıştay emphasizes that the earlier violation and sanction relied upon for recurrence must be properly identified and legally capable of supporting the increased penalty.

A foreign company acquiring shares in an existing operator should therefore examine the company’s prior environmental-sanction history carefully.

Share Acquisition Can Make Prior Corporate Violations Especially Important

Suppose the Turkish operating company received an environmental fine before the foreign investor purchased its shares.

After closing, the same legal entity commits another qualifying violation.

The historical corporate enforcement record may therefore have continuing significance.

This is another reason why environmental sanctions should be included in corporate due diligence.

Asset Acquisition Can Produce a Different Recurrence Analysis

Where the foreign buyer is a different legal entity and merely purchases the industrial real estate, the prior owner’s enforcement history should not automatically be treated as the buyer’s own history.

The exact legal entity, regulated activity and statutory basis should be checked before accepting any recurrence-based increase.

What if the Environmental Authority Fines the Wrong Company?

The administrative decision should be reviewed immediately.

Danıştay requires the administration to establish the sanctionable environmental act properly and explain the factual and legal basis for the fine.

The investor should determine:

what act is alleged,

when it occurred,

who operated the facility,

which company committed it,

what evidence supports the allegation, and

why the authority considers the foreign-owned company responsible.

Corporate Names Matter

Industrial properties often change hands between related companies.

There may be:

a landowning company,

operating company,

production company,

tenant,

waste contractor, and

parent company.

The administration should not automatically treat all of these entities as interchangeable.

Identify which entity had the statutory environmental obligation when the alleged violation occurred.

What if a Tenant Caused the Pollution?

This is a common industrial-property problem.

The landowner may have leased the factory to an operator that:

stored chemicals,

generated waste,

caused spills, or

operated industrial processes.

The lease should be examined for:

environmental compliance obligations,

waste responsibilities,

inspection rights,

indemnities,

restoration duties, and

termination provisions.

However, private contractual allocation does not necessarily prevent public authorities from applying environmental legislation according to its own statutory rules.

Contractual Indemnity and Regulatory Liability Are Different

Suppose the purchase agreement states:

“The seller is responsible for all pre-closing environmental contamination.”

This is extremely useful between buyer and seller.

But it does not necessarily prevent a public authority from taking action against a person or entity that falls within the statutory environmental framework.

The contractual indemnity may instead allow the buyer to recover qualifying losses from the seller afterward.

Seller Environmental Warranties Are Critical

An industrial-property purchase agreement should address matters such as:

historical contamination,

environmental permits,

waste disposal,

soil and groundwater pollution,

administrative fines,

regulatory inspections,

hazardous materials,

underground tanks,

pending remediation, and

environmental litigation.

Broad statements such as “the property complies with law” may be less useful than detailed environmental warranties.

Specific Indemnities May Be Appropriate

If due diligence identifies a known environmental issue, the parties may allocate it through a specific indemnity.

For example, the seller may agree to bear defined costs relating to:

identified soil contamination,

historic waste removal,

a pending environmental investigation, or

specified regulatory proceedings.

The drafting should address scope, procedure, duration and financial security.

Consider Escrow or Holdback for Known Environmental Risk

A seller indemnity may be commercially weak if the seller distributes the sale proceeds and later has insufficient assets.

Where a substantial contamination risk has been identified, transaction structures may include:

escrow,

purchase-price retention,

holdback, or

other agreed security mechanisms.

This can be particularly important for foreign buyers seeking practical recovery.

Environmental Representations Should Survive Closing

If contractual environmental protections expire immediately after transfer, latent contamination discovered later may create a serious recovery problem.

The survival period should reflect the type of environmental risk and transaction structure.

Do Not Rely Solely on the Seller’s Questionnaire

The seller may state:

“No known contamination.”

That does not replace independent environmental investigation.

The buyer should compare seller disclosures with:

regulatory records,

site history,

historic industrial use,

physical inspection, and

appropriate technical testing.

Phase-Based Environmental Due Diligence Can Be Valuable

For higher-risk industrial properties, the investigation may begin with historical and documentary review and progress to physical sampling where necessary.

The objective is to identify whether more intrusive investigation is justified before closing.

A heavily industrialized site should not necessarily receive the same environmental review as an ordinary office building.

Soil and Groundwater Sampling May Be Necessary

Where the site history indicates potential contamination, technical specialists may recommend sampling.

Sampling can help determine:

whether contamination exists,

which substances are present,

where they are located,

their concentration,

whether groundwater is affected, and

potential remediation costs.

The legal team can then structure the transaction around actual evidence rather than assumptions.

Do Not Disturb Suspected Contamination Without a Plan

Excavating contaminated soil or moving hazardous material can create additional compliance problems.

Before disturbing suspected contamination, coordinate:

environmental specialists,

waste-management professionals, and

legal counsel.

The objective should be lawful investigation and remediation rather than simply moving the problem elsewhere.

Historical Waste Documentation Should Be Preserved

Obtain:

waste transfer records,

transport documents,

disposal records,

contracts with waste companies,

laboratory reports,

hazardous-material inventories, and

historic environmental submissions.

Missing records can itself create due-diligence concern in a high-risk facility.

What if the Seller Used an Unlicensed Waste Contractor?

The investor should investigate:

what material was removed,

where it was taken,

which company transported it,

whether disposal documentation exists, and

whether any contamination remained on site.

A simple invoice marked “waste removal” is not sufficient evidence that disposal complied with environmental rules.

What if Pollution Is Discovered After Closing?

The investor should avoid immediate accusations before the evidence is secured.

First:

document the contamination,

prevent further environmental harm,

commission appropriate technical analysis,

identify historical sources,

preserve samples and records,

notify relevant parties where legally required, and

review transaction documents.

Then determine which regulatory and contractual remedies apply.

Prevent Further Pollution Immediately

If contamination is actively spreading, emergency measures may be required.

For example, a leaking chemical tank should not continue discharging while the parties debate whether the seller or buyer ultimately pays.

Failure to address an ongoing environmental threat may create additional post-acquisition exposure.

Can the Foreign Buyer Claim Against the Seller?

Potentially.

The strength of the claim may depend on:

purchase agreement warranties,

specific indemnities,

seller disclosures,

fraudulent concealment,

due-diligence responses,

knowledge provisions,

contractual limitations, and

the nature of the environmental problem.

The transaction documents should be reviewed before sending a formal claim.

Concealment Can Materially Change the Dispute

Suppose the seller had previously received:

a contamination report,

environmental authority notice,

cleanup request, or

consultant warning,

but withheld it during due diligence.

That is materially different from a contamination problem that neither party knew existed.

Preserve evidence of the seller’s pre-closing knowledge.

Data-Room History Can Become Evidence

Keep a copy of the transaction data room where legally and contractually appropriate.

It may show:

what was disclosed,

when it was disclosed,

which reports were missing, and

how the seller answered buyer questions.

This can become central to a post-closing warranty dispute.

Management Presentations Can Also Matter

Statements such as:

“the site has no contamination,”

“all environmental permits are current,” or

“there have never been environmental proceedings”

may become important if they were used to induce the transaction.

Preserve written presentations and communications.

What if the Purchase Agreement Excludes Environmental Liability?

The clause must be analyzed carefully.

Its effect can depend on:

the precise wording,

the nature of the claim,

mandatory environmental rules,

fraud or concealment allegations, and

other applicable private-law principles.

A contractual allocation between buyer and seller does not automatically rewrite statutory obligations owed to public authorities.

What if the Buyer Knew About the Contamination?

Known risks should normally be dealt with expressly before closing.

The investor may negotiate:

price reduction,

specific indemnity,

seller remediation before closing,

escrow,

completion condition, or

allocation of future cleanup costs.

Closing first and discussing responsibility later can significantly weaken the investor’s commercial position.

Consider Remediation as a Condition Precedent

For severe contamination, the buyer may require specified remediation milestones before completing the acquisition.

Examples can include:

removal of identified waste,

closure of unsafe tanks,

regulatory confirmation,

completion of agreed testing, or

submission of required environmental documentation.

The exact structure depends on the transaction.

Environmental Problems Can Affect Property Value

A contaminated industrial property may be worth substantially less than an equivalent clean property.

The impact may include:

remediation costs,

restricted use,

construction difficulties,

financing problems,

insurance issues,

regulatory uncertainty, and

reduced resale value.

An environmental valuation may therefore be necessary.

Financing Can Be Affected

Banks financing industrial acquisitions may require environmental representations or technical due diligence.

Discovery of contamination after closing may affect:

security value,

financial covenants,

drawdown conditions,

insurance requirements, and

future refinancing.

Review the financing agreement before making representations to the lender.

Insurance Should Be Reviewed

Determine whether any relevant insurance may respond to:

pollution incidents,

third-party environmental claims,

cleanup expenses, or

other environmental losses.

Coverage depends entirely on the policy wording and the circumstances.

Historical contamination can raise particularly difficult coverage questions.

Environmental Problems Can Delay Redevelopment

A foreign investor may purchase an old factory intending to demolish it and build a new logistics or industrial project.

Contamination discovered during excavation can significantly delay redevelopment.

The investor may face:

soil investigation,

waste classification,

special disposal,

groundwater measures, and

additional regulatory processes.

Environmental due diligence should therefore be completed before calculating the redevelopment timetable.

Environmental Liability Can Intersect With Zoning and Construction Law

A site may simultaneously contain:

unauthorized buildings,

contaminated soil,

expired environmental permits, and

a redevelopment project.

These problems should not be handled independently without coordination.

For example, demolition of an unauthorized industrial structure may disturb contaminated soil or hazardous materials.

The project needs an integrated strategy.

Environmental Liability Can Also Affect M&A Valuation

In a company acquisition, environmental liabilities can reduce enterprise value.

The buyer should quantify:

expected remediation,

pending fines,

operational upgrades,

permit costs,

legal expenses, and

potential production interruptions.

The issue can then be reflected in price, indemnities or transaction structure.

Can Environmental Administrative Fines Be Challenged?

Potentially.

Environmental administrative sanctions are subject to judicial review.

Danıştay emphasizes that the administration must identify the relevant environmental violation in a sufficiently concrete and legally reviewable manner. A sanction should show the factual act and the legal basis on which the penalty is imposed.

An investor should therefore review both the evidence and the calculation.

Technical Evidence Can Be Decisive

Environmental cases may depend on:

sampling methodology,

laboratory results,

inspection records,

photographs,

measurement techniques,

waste classifications, and

facility operating records.

Legal review should therefore be coordinated with appropriate environmental experts.

Do Not Ignore the Identity of the Sanctioned Entity

Before paying an environmental fine, confirm:

who received the decision,

which legal entity allegedly committed the act,

when the act occurred,

whether that company operated the facility at the time, and

whether the evidence supports attribution.

A foreign corporate group may have several Turkish subsidiaries, and liability should not automatically be assumed to belong to whichever entity currently holds the asset.

Facility Closure or Suspension Can Be More Serious Than the Fine

For an operating industrial business, the most damaging regulatory measure may not be the administrative monetary sanction.

A suspension of activities can interrupt:

production,

customer deliveries,

employment,

supply contracts, and

cash flow.

Danıştay case law confirms the importance of environmental permit and licence requirements in disputes concerning continuation of regulated operations.

Current permit compliance should therefore receive immediate priority.

First 48 Hours After Discovering a Serious Environmental Problem

The foreign investor should first prevent ongoing environmental damage.

Next, secure:

inspection records,

photographs,

samples where appropriately collected,

historic permits,

waste records,

purchase documents,

seller disclosures, and

environmental reports.

The investor should then identify whether the issue is historical, ongoing or both.

Do not allow the seller, former operator or contractor to remove potentially important records before the evidence has been preserved.

First 30 Days

The investor should develop four parallel files:

Regulatory file: What does the environmental authority require?

Technical file: What contamination or violation actually exists?

Transaction file: What did the seller represent and agree to?

Financial file: What will investigation, remediation, interruption and compliance cost?

This structure prevents the case from becoming a confusing dispute over who “caused the problem.”

2026 Practical Legal Strategy

A foreign company discovering environmental violations after purchasing industrial property should avoid treating all historical environmental problems as a single inherited liability.

The first task is to identify the type of exposure. An administrative fine for a past violation, environmental remediation obligations, current operational non-compliance and contractual liability between buyer and seller involve different legal questions.

For administrative fines, the precise sanctionable act and responsible entity are critical. Danıştay requires environmental authorities to establish the violation properly and state the factual and legal grounds supporting the sanction. A foreign asset purchaser should therefore not automatically accept personal or corporate responsibility for conduct committed by a previous operator before acquisition.

The second task is to distinguish the administrative sanction from the continuing physical environmental problem. Even where a historical fine cannot properly be imposed on the new buyer, contamination remaining on the property may still require immediate investigation and regulatory action. Current operations must also be brought into full compliance so that the investor does not create new post-acquisition violations.

The third task is to determine the transaction structure. In a share purchase, the same operating company may continue to hold historical liabilities after ownership of its shares changes. In an asset acquisition, the historical seller and the foreign buyer are separate entities, making attribution of specific past conduct particularly important.

The fourth task is contractual recovery. The purchase agreement, environmental warranties, indemnities, disclosure schedules, data-room materials and seller communications should be reviewed to determine whether the environmental problem was disclosed and who agreed to bear the economic consequences.

Finally, the investor should quantify the problem before choosing a remedy. Cleanup costs, production interruption, permit upgrades, property-value reduction and future redevelopment constraints should be assessed with technical and valuation evidence.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya can examine the acquisition structure, environmental inspection records, administrative sanctions, historical operations, seller disclosures and contractual risk allocation to determine whether the foreign investor is responsible for past violations, which current obligations require immediate action and whether losses can be recovered from the seller or another responsible party.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a foreign company automatically inherit every environmental fine when it buys industrial property in Turkey?

No. A specific administrative fine requires examination of the violation, the responsible person or entity and the applicable statutory basis. Current ownership alone does not necessarily prove responsibility for a historical act.

What if the previous owner polluted the land before I purchased it?

The historical polluter, continuing environmental damage, current regulatory obligations and contractual allocation between buyer and seller must be analyzed separately. Do not assume that absence of personal fine liability means the contamination can simply remain untreated.

Is a share purchase riskier than an asset purchase for historical environmental liabilities?

It can be. In a share purchase, the same company continues to exist after its shareholders change, meaning historical liabilities and proceedings may remain within that legal entity. Asset acquisitions require a different attribution analysis.

Can environmental authorities stop factory operations?

Potentially. Operating without environmental permits or licences required for the relevant activity can result in serious regulatory consequences, including suspension-related measures under the applicable framework.

Can the buyer recover cleanup costs from the seller?

Potentially, depending on the purchase agreement, warranties, indemnities, disclosures, seller knowledge and other applicable private-law principles. Known environmental risks should ideally be allocated expressly before closing.

What if a tenant caused the environmental contamination?

The tenant’s conduct, lease obligations and applicable statutory environmental rules should be examined. Contractual responsibility between landlord and tenant does not necessarily determine how public environmental obligations will be enforced.

Can an environmental administrative fine be challenged?

Potentially. The authority must properly establish the sanctionable act and provide an adequate factual and legal basis for the sanction.

Do previous environmental fines matter after an acquisition?

They can. Article 23 of the Environmental Law provides enhanced sanctions for qualifying repeated violations, and Danıştay requires the prior violations used for recurrence to be properly identified. This is particularly important where the same operating company continues after a share acquisition.

What should be checked before buying an industrial property?

The buyer should investigate environmental permits, historical land use, previous operators, inspection records, administrative fines, waste records, soil and groundwater risks, underground tanks, hazardous materials, pending remediation and seller environmental warranties.

What should a foreign company do immediately after discovering historical environmental violations?

Prevent ongoing pollution, preserve evidence, identify when the violation occurred and who operated the site, obtain all environmental authority records, verify current permit compliance, commission appropriate technical investigation, review the acquisition agreement and seller disclosures, quantify remediation costs and calculate all deadlines for challenging any administrative sanction.

Legal Support for Foreign Companies Facing Historical Environmental Liability

Environmental problems discovered after an industrial acquisition can significantly change the value and operation of an investment. A foreign buyer may face contaminated soil, historic waste, environmental inspections, administrative fines, permit problems, cleanup costs, operational suspension and disputes with the seller over undisclosed liabilities.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign companies and investors with environmental due diligence, industrial-property acquisitions, environmental administrative sanctions, regulatory disputes, historical contamination issues, seller warranty claims and post-acquisition risk allocation. Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya can examine the environmental records, acquisition structure, regulatory decisions, historical operations and transaction documents to determine which liabilities belong to the previous operator, which obligations require immediate action and which losses may be recoverable from the seller or another responsible party.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22

WhatsApp: +90 532 769 22 22

Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr