A Turkish Limited Company Demands Additional Payment from a Foreign Shareholder: Article 603

Short answer: A Turkish limited company can demand an additional payment beyond subscribed share capital when its articles validly impose that obligation and the conditions in Turkish Commercial Code Article 603 are met. The articles must specify a share-based amount, capped at twice the nominal value of the relevant capital share. Managers call the payment when the conditions exist. Introducing or increasing the obligation later requires the approval of all affected shareholders under Article 607.

Have a general question about this article? Ask anonymously

Identify the obligation being demanded

An additional payment obligation, known as ek ödeme yükümlülüğü, is a specific limited-company mechanism. It is not synonymous with every request for further money from an investor. The company must distinguish unpaid subscribed capital, a proposed capital increase, a shareholder loan and an existing additional payment obligation. The legal source, corporate decision and accounting treatment differ. A demand headed simply as a funding call does not establish which mechanism the managers are using.

Turkish Commercial Code Article 573(2) identifies shareholders’ duties to pay their subscribed capital and perform additional payment and ancillary obligations provided in the articles. Article 603 regulates the additional payment in detail. Foreign ownership does not convert these duties into a different company-law category. The shareholder should obtain the Turkish articles and identify the provision said to bind the particular holding before responding to the amount demanded.

An actual increase in registered capital follows its own approval and subscription process. The site’s Turkish limited-company capital-increase guide addresses that procedure. Article 603 cannot be used to avoid the rules governing a transaction that is, in substance and documentation, a capital increase. Equally, a shareholder’s reluctance to subscribe new capital does not resolve whether an earlier, valid additional payment obligation already exists.

Find the binding articles clause

Article 603(1) permits the articles to impose an additional payment obligation beyond the capital share price. Article 577(1)(c) likewise identifies additional payment provisions, including their form and scope, as binding when included in the articles. The starting point is therefore the operative company agreement and its amendment history. A management policy, informal funding expectation or oral assurance that shareholders will support the business does not establish that the statutory articles-based mechanism was created.

The clause must be examined in its original legal context. Identify the relevant shares, specified amount, conditions and any valid later changes. Check that the text supplied by management is the applicable version rather than an unsigned proposal or an outdated English translation. An overseas investor’s internal investment memorandum can help explain its commercial understanding, but it is not a substitute for the company’s operative articles.

A private shareholders’ agreement can create separate contractual questions. It should be reviewed alongside the articles, without treating the two documents as interchangeable. If the company relies on Article 603, the demand must be supported by the required corporate clause. Whether an additional funding promise is enforceable on another basis is a distinct enquiry, requiring examination of its parties, wording, governing law and relevant mandatory rules.

Test the statutory funding conditions

The existence of a clause is necessary but does not make every request immediately justified. Article 603(1) specifies the circumstances in which performance may be demanded. The first is that the total of the company’s registered capital and statutory reserves cannot cover its losses. The second is that the company cannot properly continue its business without the additional resources. The third is another situation defined in the articles that creates a need for equity.

These grounds require identification and evidence. A demand should state which ground is invoked and explain the records supporting it. For the loss-based ground, the figures must correspond to the statutory comparison. For the continuation ground, the evidence must address the company’s ability to carry on its business properly without the resources. A general preference to hold more cash is not a complete explanation of that statutory condition.

For the third ground, both the articles-defined situation and the resulting equity need matter. Management should not detach a clause from the financial purpose specified by Article 603. Financial statements, current management accounts and the underlying obligations should be dated and reconciled. The shareholder’s review concerns the relevant condition at the time the payment is demanded, rather than an unsupported assurance that additional funding is always in the company’s interest.

Calculate the share-based limit

Article 603(3) requires a specified amount based on the capital share. The amount cannot exceed twice that share’s nominal value. The nominal value is the statutory reference point; the price paid privately to acquire the holding, a negotiated company valuation or a foreign investor’s total expenditure is not automatically that value. The calculation must begin with the relevant share and the obligation actually stated in the articles.

Article 603(4) provides that each shareholder is responsible only for the additional payment attributable to its own capital share. Managers should therefore provide an allocation that can be checked against the share records. The inability or refusal of another shareholder to pay does not itself enlarge the recipient’s Article 603 obligation. A separate guarantee or funding agreement must be identified and assessed separately if management relies on it.

The payment history also matters. Earlier calls, sums actually paid, lawful repayments and any amendment to the obligation must be reconciled before a new balance is demanded. Repeatedly labelling demands as separate funding rounds does not dispense with the articles-based amount and statutory cap. The company should show the calculation transparently, rather than present only a total that combines capital, loans and additional payments in one ledger account.

Examine the managers’ demand

Article 603(5) assigns the call to the managers when the conditions are satisfied. The shareholder should establish that the demand comes from those authorised to act for the company and identifies the corporate basis. Instructions from a fellow shareholder, parent-company employee or financial consultant are not automatically the managers’ statutory call. Verify the relevant management and representation records and preserve the decision and communication actually relied upon.

A useful demand identifies the articles clause, statutory ground, amount attributable to the recipient and payment arrangements. The underlying accounting should distinguish the additional payment from a loan or new share subscription. The shareholder should request clarification of any inconsistency before characterising its remittance. A payment reference does not by itself determine the legal nature of the transfer if the corporate documents establish something different.

Article 603 does not prescribe the joint-stock company’s forfeiture warning procedure as the collection mechanism for this limited-company obligation. The company should not copy a notice intended for unpaid AŞ share capital and assume it fits. Consequences of non-performance, any contractual penalty and the available recovery route require their own legal basis. The demand must not treat refusal as automatic loss of the shareholder’s holding.

Later amendments require affected shareholders’ consent

Article 607 governs a later amendment that introduces additional payment or ancillary obligations, or increases existing ones. Such a general assembly decision requires the approval of all affected shareholders. The provision protects those whose obligations are being created or enlarged. A general voting majority for other company matters does not replace this particular consent requirement. The identity of the affected holders must be established from the proposed amendment and existing obligations.

Read the resolution and amended clause together. An alteration described as administrative may still change the amount, scope or burden of an obligation. The analysis must examine its legal effect rather than the label in the meeting agenda. Evidence of attendance, representation and approval should identify the relevant shareholder and the exact text approved. Consent to a commercial strategy is not automatically consent to a different articles amendment imposing funding duties.

For a corporate shareholder overseas, establish the authority of the person approving the amendment. A signature on a meeting list should not be treated as proof of every separate approval without examining the documents. If an amendment is disputed, preserve the notice, agenda, proposed and adopted texts and voting record. Any proceedings concerning the resolution require their own standing, time-limit and remedy assessment under the applicable corporate rules.

Ancillary duties cannot conceal equity funding

Article 606 allows ancillary obligations serving the company’s business purpose. Their subject, scope, conditions and other important matters must be stated in the articles; matters requiring detail can be left to a general assembly regulation. These obligations are a separate statutory category. Their identification should explain what performance is required and how it relates to the company’s business, rather than merely attach a different heading to an additional payment.

Article 606(3) addresses cash and in-kind duties that serve an equity need and lack express or appropriate consideration in the articles. Those duties are subject to the additional payment rules. This prevents the classification exercise from ending with management’s chosen terminology. The review must consider the substance of the required performance, the consideration and the financing function. Calling an obligation an ancillary service does not remove Article 603 where Article 606(3) applies.

Transfers and the former shareholder’s position

A share transfer requires particular attention to existing additional payment duties. Article 595(1) requires those duties to be stated in the transfer agreement, alongside other specified share restrictions and obligations. The buyer should reconcile that disclosure with the current articles, earlier calls and actual payments. The seller and buyer’s private allocation of cost does not remove the need to examine the statutory position toward the company.

Article 595(6) also addresses transfer approval where additional payment or ancillary obligations exist and the proposed acquirer’s ability to pay is doubtful. Failure to provide requested security can justify refusal of approval within that provision. The acquisition review should therefore include the existing obligation and any security request before the parties regard the transfer process as complete.

Article 604 preserves a defined potential obligation after departure. If the company becomes bankrupt within two years from registration of the shareholder’s departure, the former shareholder is also required to perform the additional payment obligation. Paragraph 2 limits continuing responsibility by reference to the successor’s non-performance and the extent to which the obligation could have been asserted against the former shareholder when it arose.

The relevant chronology therefore includes registration of departure, the existing duty, the successor’s performance and the company’s bankruptcy. A sale signature date is not a substitute for the registration date expressly used in Article 604. Article 603(2) separately makes the additional payment obligation due when bankruptcy opens. The transaction file must distinguish this statutory maturity rule from a manager’s earlier ordinary-course payment demand.

Repayment and cancellation are controlled

An additional payment is not automatically repayable on a shareholder’s preferred loan schedule. Article 605 permits partial or complete repayment only if the amount can be covered by freely available reserves and funds. The company must assess that financial condition before returning the contribution. A favourable cash balance alone does not establish that the statutory source for repayment exists. The accounting basis and the authorised repayment decision should be preserved together.

Reducing or cancelling the obligation itself is governed separately by Article 603(6). It is permitted only where the total of registered capital and statutory reserves fully covers the losses, with the capital-reduction provisions applied by analogy. Repaying a performed obligation and removing a continuing articles-based duty are therefore different actions. Neither should be documented as an informal refund that bypasses the applicable capital-protection requirements.

Obtain the financial information needed

Article 614 gives each shareholder a right to request information from managers about the company’s affairs and accounts and to inspect specified matters. That right supplies an important route for examining the basis of an additional payment call. Requests should identify the relevant financial statements, calculation, funding need, share allocation and payment history. A precise request makes it easier to assess whether management has answered the actual disputed issue.

Article 614 also regulates restrictions where information risks being used to harm the company, followed by general assembly and court stages for unjustified obstruction. The site’s limited-company shareholder information-rights guide addresses that procedure. Seeking information does not itself cancel the funding obligation or decide a challenge to the underlying resolution. Those matters need to be coordinated while preserving their separate legal requirements.

Respond from abroad with a complete record

The response should address the actual defect or confirmation needed: absence of a valid clause, unmet trigger, incorrect amount, missing consent, authority or an uncredited payment. State the supporting documents and preserve the original demand. Foreign-language correspondence can assist communication, but the review must remain connected to the Turkish corporate texts and records. Clear issue identification allows the company to answer the legal question instead of exchanging general accusations about support for the business.

Before remitting funds, the shareholder should align its payment instruction, corporate approval and accounting description with the obligation being performed. Before refusing, it should assess the valid obligation and available remedies. The final file should explain both the company’s asserted right and the shareholder’s response, with a traceable calculation and chronology.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can a manager demand unlimited funding from a foreign shareholder?

No. An Article 603 demand requires a valid articles-based obligation, a statutory trigger and compliance with the specified amount and cap. Foreign ownership does not remove those limits.

2. What is the maximum additional payment under Article 603?

The amount specified in the articles cannot exceed twice the nominal value of the relevant capital share. It is not calculated automatically from the price paid to purchase the shares.

3. Does a loss automatically create an additional payment obligation?

No. A binding articles clause is required, and the applicable Article 603 condition must be established. A loss figure alone does not supply every element of the obligation.

4. Who makes the statutory call?

Article 603(5) provides that managers request the additional payments when the conditions are satisfied. The demand and the managers’ authority should be verified.

5. Can the majority introduce a new additional payment duty?

Article 607 requires approval of all affected shareholders for an amendment creating additional or ancillary duties or increasing existing ones. A general majority alone does not replace that requirement.

6. Must one shareholder cover another shareholder’s unpaid part?

Article 603(4) confines each shareholder to the additional payment attributable to its own capital share. A different alleged obligation requires a separate legal basis.

7. Can the company describe equity funding as an ancillary duty?

The label is not decisive. Article 606(3) subjects qualifying cash or in-kind duties serving an equity need, without the specified or appropriate consideration, to the additional payment rules.

8. Does a share sale always end the seller’s exposure?

No. Article 604 addresses bankruptcy within two years after registration of departure, subject to the successor’s non-performance and the statutory limit on continuing responsibility.

9. Can the company return the additional payment whenever it has cash?

Article 605 requires coverage by freely available reserves and funds. Available cash alone does not establish that the repayment condition is met.

10. Can the shareholder request the accounts supporting the call?

Yes. Article 614 provides information and inspection rights, with specific rules on restrictions and review. The request should identify the financial basis and calculation of the additional payment.