Introduction

This study presents an analysis of court decisions regarding how to collect receivables from a company that has declared concordat. The collection process, shaped within the framework of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL), varies depending on the stage of the concordat process (temporary respite, definitive respite, ratification, termination, or bankruptcy) and the nature of the receivable (ordinary, secured, disputed). The analyzed decisions reveal the paths creditors must follow to protect their rights, the risks they may encounter, and the application mechanisms.

Standard Collection Method: With the court’s ratification of the concordat project, creditors receive their payments according to the reductions and schedule specified in the project. During this process, enforcement proceedings cease, and interest accrual is limited.

Disputed Receivables: For receivables disputed by the debtor, the creditor must file a lawsuit for collection in accordance with Article 308/b of the EBL within one month from the announcement of the ratification decision. This lawsuit ensures the inclusion and collection of the receivable in the project.

Failure to Make Payments: If the debtor company fails to make payments in accordance with the approved project, the creditor may request the partial termination of the concordat with respect to themselves, in accordance with Article 308/e of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL). The decision of termination releases the creditor from the binding nature of the project and restores their right to initiate enforcement proceedings.

Failure of the Concordat: If the concordat request is rejected by the court or the process results in bankruptcy, protective measures are lifted. Creditors may initiate enforcement proceedings according to general provisions or pursue collection by registering their claims with the bankruptcy estate.

Procedural Restrictions: During the concordat moratorium, creditors are prevented from initiating enforcement proceedings and interest accrual on unsecured claims ceases. This rule temporarily limits creditors’ collection opportunities.

1. Normal Course of Concordat Process and Collection Procedure

The primary method for collecting receivables from a company that has declared concordat is to comply with the concordat project approved by the court. In accordance with Article 308/c of the EBL, the approval decision becomes binding, and creditors are subject to the payment plan specified in the project. In the decision numbered 2024/366 of the Bakırköy 1st Commercial Court of First Instance, this situation was concretized as, “…the debts subject to concordat shall be PAID starting from 31.05.2024 after the announcement of the project’s approval decision: Each claim amount shall be paid in 5 equal installments every 3 months, with 20% interest applied from the date of the temporary moratorium…“

In this process, the rights of creditors are significantly restricted. As emphasized in the decision numbered 2024/1350 of the 21st Civil Chamber of the Ankara Regional Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 294/3 of the EBL, “Unless the approved concordat project contains a contrary provision, interest shall cease to accrue on all unsecured claims from the date of the final respite.” This rule applies from the date of the provisional respite because the provisional respite produces the effects of the final respite. Creditors cannot initiate new enforcement proceedings during this period, and existing proceedings are stayed. Collection is only possible through the implementation of the approved project.

2. Collection of Contested Claims

If the claim reported by the creditor is not accepted by the debtor company, the claim becomes “contested”. In this case, the path a creditor must follow for collection is regulated in Article 308/b of the EBL. As stated in the decision numbered 2020/518 of the Antalya 1st Commercial Court of First Instance, “Creditors whose claims have been objected to may file a lawsuit within 1 month from the date of the announcement of the approval decision.“ Although this one-month period is not a forfeiture period, it is critically important for being able to receive a share from the concordat project. A creditor who does not file a lawsuit within this period loses this right.

If the existence of a receivable is determined as a result of a lawsuit, this receivable is also included in the payment terms of the concordat project. In the decision numbered 2023/10 of the Konya 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance, it was ruled that the deficient receivable identified by the court was to be “…taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff in the manner specified in the payment plan stated in the approval decision.” This shows that even disputed receivables can only be collected within the framework of the project’s restructuring conditions.

3. Collection Methods in Case of Non-Compliance with the Concordat Project

The debtor company’s failure to make payments despite the approved project grants the creditor an important right: the partial annulment of the concordat. This mechanism was clearly explained in the decision numbered 2023/964 of the Kayseri 1st Commercial Court of First Instance: “Every creditor against whom performance has not been made in accordance with the concordat project, while retaining the new rights acquired under the concordat, may apply to the court that approved the concordat to have the concordat annulled with respect to themselves.”

The annulment decision frees the creditor from the project’s restrictions and restores their right to initiate enforcement proceedings for the full amount of their receivable. As stated in the decision, “With the partial annulment of the concordat, the creditor is no longer bound by the project, effectively returning to the previous state and recovering their entire receivable.” However, to resort to this method, as pointed out in the decision numbered 2022/378 of the Konya 3rd Commercial Court of First Instance, the finalization of the concordat approval decision is required as a prerequisite.

4. Rejection of the Concordat Request or the Process Ending in Bankruptcy

The concordat process does not always end successfully. If the debtor’s project is deemed unrealistic or their financial situation does not show improvement, the court may reject the concordat request. In the decision numbered 2025/1262 of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Adana Regional Court of Justice, the request was rejected on the grounds that the resources of the project submitted by the debtor were not realistic, and therefore it was “not possible for the concordat project to succeed”.

With the rejection of the request, as in the decision numbered 2022/591 of the Bakırköy 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance, it is decided “to lift the provisional measures granted to the plaintiff due to concordat”. In this case, the concordat protection for creditors ends, and standard enforcement procedures become available again. If the debtor is among the companies subject to bankruptcy, the court may directly issue a bankruptcy decision in accordance with Article 292 of the EBL. In this scenario, creditors try to receive a share from the distribution to be made according to the ranking list by registering their claims with the bankruptcy estate (Konya 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance, 2024/818).

Conclusion

Collecting receivables from a company that has declared concordat is a multi-stage and dynamic process. For creditors to effectively exercise their rights, it is imperative that they closely follow the process, adhere to legal deadlines, and resort to the correct legal avenues. The key to collection is; timely notification of the receivable, filing a lawsuit in accordance with Article 308/b of the EBL if it becomes contentious, and resorting to partial termination under Article 308/e of the EBL if the debtor violates their payment obligation. If the concordat process fails, creditors are returned to general enforcement and bankruptcy law remedies. Each scenario involves different strategies and risks for the creditor. An article suggestion.

Why is Expert Concordat Lawyer Support Necessary?

Collecting receivables from a company that has declared concordat is a highly technical process from a legal perspective, as it involves multi-layered procedures such as temporary stay, definitive stay, approval, contentious claims lawsuit, partial termination, and bankruptcy. Court decisions clearly show that even a small error in the process can cause the creditor to wait for years, receive incomplete payment of their receivable, or even lose it entirely. Therefore, it is critically important that concordat cases are managed by an expert concordat lawyer , especially regarding financial analysis and EBL applications.

An expert concordat lawyer effectively protects the creditor’s rights and provides strategic support on the following matters:

Timely and procedurally compliant notification of the receivable,

Timely filing of a lawsuit for contentious receivables in accordance with EBL Article 308/b,

Application for partial termination under Article 308/e of the EBL when the debtor fails to comply with the project,

Supervision of payment schedules and interest limitations after confirmation,Proper registration of the claim with the bankruptcy estate in case of concordat rejection or bankruptcy,

Drawing up a legal roadmap to prevent loss of rights throughout the entire process.

In Istanbul, where commercial activities are intense, especially in locations such as Tuzla (Organized Industrial Zone), Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ataşehir Financial Center, Ümraniye, Kadıköy, Şişli, Levent, Maslak, Bakırköy, as well as industrial zones like Gebze, Dilovası, Çayırova, Darıca, Şekerpınar, concordat processes are particularly more complex and involve high amounts. For this reason, regional experience and concordat-focused expertise directly affect the probability of success.

2M Law Office, with its İstanbul–Tuzla-based structure, provides professional legal consultancy with its specialized staff in the collection of concordat receivables in Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ataşehir, Kadıköy, Ümraniye, Beşiktaş, Şişli, Maslak, Levent, and in the Kocaeli region, specifically Gebze, Darıca, Dilovası, Çayırova, and Tepeören.