A creditor obtains a judgment or begins enforcement proceedings against a company.

Then something strange happens.

The debtor company gradually stops operating.

Its machinery is sold.

Its vehicles disappear.

Its inventory is transferred.

Its trademark begins to be used by another company.

Its employees move to another entity.

The customers continue purchasing the same products, from the same people, at the same address—but invoices are now issued by a newly incorporated company.

When the creditor attempts enforcement against the original debtor, there is almost nothing left.

The shareholders’ response is simple:

“That is a different company. It has nothing to do with the old company’s debts.”

Corporate separateness is an important principle of Turkish law. A newly established company does not automatically become responsible merely because its shareholders, managers, address or business activity are similar to those of the debtor company.

But corporate personality cannot necessarily be used as a mechanism to strip a debtor company of its assets and leave creditors with an empty shell.

Depending on the transaction, a creditor may consider several powerful remedies under Turkish law, including:

• an action for avoidance of fraudulent dispositions under Articles 277 et seq. of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (“EBL” or “İİK”);
• an action based on simulation under Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (“TCO” or “TBK”);
• direct liability of the transferee under Article 202 TCO where an enterprise or asset pool has effectively been transferred;
• exceptionally, piercing the corporate veil / cross-piercing between companies;
• liability claims against directors or managers where statutory conditions exist; and
• interim attachment to prevent the transferred assets from disappearing again.

The correct remedy depends primarily on one question:

Did the debtor merely transfer certain assets, or did it effectively transfer the entire business to a new legal shell?

1. The Classic Scenario: “OldCo” Becomes Empty and “NewCo” Continues the Business

Consider the following example.

OldCo Ltd. owes a supplier TRY 20 million.

The supplier begins enforcement.

Shortly before or after the dispute becomes serious, OldCo’s shareholders establish NewCo Ltd.

During the following months:

• OldCo transfers machinery to NewCo;
• vehicles are registered in NewCo’s name;
• inventory is sold to NewCo;
• the trademark is transferred or licensed;
• employees move to NewCo;
• OldCo’s customers begin receiving invoices from NewCo;
• both companies operate from the same factory;
• the same shareholders control both entities; and
• OldCo stops generating meaningful revenue.

Eventually:

OldCo owns the debt.

NewCo owns the business.

This factual pattern should immediately trigger a comprehensive creditor-side investigation.

The creditor should not limit its analysis to the formal trade registry records.

It should reconstruct where the economic enterprise went.

2. First Remedy: Action for Avoidance Under Articles 277 et seq. EBL

The most traditional remedy is the tasarrufun iptali davası — action for avoidance of dispositions.

Article 277 EBL permits qualifying creditors to challenge transactions falling within Articles 278, 279 and 280.

The purpose is not technically to declare that the transfer never existed.

Rather, a transaction that may be valid between the debtor and the transferee becomes ineffective against the successful creditor to the extent necessary to satisfy the debt.

This distinction is extremely important.

If OldCo transfers a factory to NewCo and the creditor successfully avoids the transfer, the factory does not necessarily return to OldCo’s title.

Instead, Article 283 allows the creditor to pursue enforcement against the transferred property despite its registration in NewCo’s name.

The Court of Cassation repeatedly describes the action as a personal, enforcement-oriented remedy rather than an action concerning ownership itself.

3. What Are the Basic Preconditions for an Article 277 Action?

Turkish Court of Cassation practice ordinarily requires several preliminary conditions.

The creditor should generally establish that:

• the creditor’s underlying claim is genuine;
• enforcement against the debtor has become final;
• the debt arose before the challenged disposition;
• the debtor’s assets are insufficient; and
• the creditor holds a temporary or final certificate of insolvency within the meaning of the EBL.

A recent Yargıtay 12th Civil Chamber decision dated 17 February 2026 again emphasized the need to investigate whether the debt preceded the transaction, whether enforcement became final and whether a qualifying insolvency certificate existed.

This makes chronology extremely important.

The creditor should prepare a timeline showing:

Date debt arose

↓

Date of default

↓

Date of asset transfer

↓

Date of enforcement

↓

Result of attachment attempts

↓

Evidence of insolvency

If the transfer occurred after the debt arose, the creditor’s position is usually significantly stronger.

4. Article 280 Is Particularly Powerful When the Business Is Transferred

Article 280 EBL is one of the most relevant provisions where the debtor transfers assets to a newly established company.

The provision allows transactions to be avoided where:

• the debtor’s assets are insufficient to satisfy its debts;
• the debtor acts with an intention to prejudice creditors; and
• the other party knows or should have known of the debtor’s financial condition and prejudicial intention.

But Article 280 contains an especially important rule regarding commercial enterprises.

Where a person acquires:

• the entirety of a commercial enterprise;
• all or a substantial part of the commercial goods at a workplace; or
• a substantial part of the business and subsequently occupies the workplace,

the law establishes strong presumptions concerning knowledge of the debtor’s intention to prejudice creditors, subject to the statutory mechanisms for rebuttal.

This provision is extremely relevant to an OldCo/NewCo restructuring.

Suppose NewCo receives:

• the factory machinery;
• stock;
• customer relationships;
• employees;
• the workplace;
• and the commercial activity.

That factual pattern is much more serious than an isolated sale of one vehicle.

The creditor can argue that the transaction effectively transferred the productive core of the debtor’s business.

5. Selling the Assets at an Artificially Low Price Creates Another Red Flag

Article 278 also becomes important where assets are transferred for no consideration or for consideration grossly below their real value.

Suppose:

Market value of machinery:

TRY 25 million

Transfer price shown between OldCo and NewCo:

TRY 3 million

Even worse, suppose the accounting records show TRY 3 million as the purchase price but no genuine bank payment can be identified.

The creditor should investigate:

• independent market value;
• invoices;
• bank transfers;
• payment dates;
• intercompany account movements;
• shareholder current accounts;
• whether the purported price was actually paid;
• and whether the purchase price later returned to NewCo or its shareholders.

Yargıtay continues to require courts to examine whether there is serious disproportionality between the asset’s real value and the stated consideration in avoidance proceedings.

6. The Most Important Evidence Is Often the Relationship Between OldCo and NewCo

When the transferee is an unrelated commercial buyer who paid full market value, proving creditor-prejudice may be difficult.

When the transferee was incorporated by the same shareholders immediately before the transfer, the situation is very different.

Important indicators include:

• identical shareholders;
• family relationships between shareholders;
• identical directors;
• the same authorised signatories;
• the same registered office;
• the same factory or warehouse;
• the same telephone numbers;
• identical websites;
• similar trade names;
• the same employees;
• the same accounting staff;
• the same customers;
• the same suppliers;
• transfer of trademarks or domain names;
• transfer of machinery without economically reasonable consideration;
• NewCo commencing operations immediately after OldCo stopped;
• and OldCo retaining mainly debts while NewCo receives the operating assets.

No single factor necessarily proves fraud.

But the combination may create a compelling picture.

7. What Does the Creditor Obtain if the Avoidance Action Succeeds?

This point is frequently misunderstood.

The creditor normally does not become the owner of the transferred property.

Nor must the court necessarily cancel NewCo’s title and re-register the asset in OldCo’s name.

Article 283/1 provides the creditor with the ability to subject the transferred asset to enforcement and sale to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim.

In Yargıtay 12th Civil Chamber, E. 2025/4779, K. 2026/292, dated 21 January 2026, the Court again held that a successful creditor should be granted attachment and sale authority over the relevant transferred asset limited to the principal debt and accessories.

The practical result is powerful:

NewCo may remain the registered owner, but the creditor can nevertheless have the asset attached and sold for OldCo’s debt.

8. What If NewCo Has Already Sold the Asset Again?

Asset stripping often occurs in several stages.

For example:

OldCo → NewCo → Company C

The creditor should immediately investigate the subsequent transfer.

If legal conditions exist against the subsequent acquirer, the creditor may seek remedies extending to the later transaction.

Where the original transferred asset is no longer recoverable, Article 283/2 can also shift the dispute toward the value replacing the asset, depending on the circumstances.

The litigation should therefore trace each disposition separately.

A proper asset map might look like:

OldCo

↓ TRY 40 million property

NewCo

↓ sale

RelatedCo 2

↓ mortgage

Bank / third party

At each stage, counsel should ask:

• when did the transfer occur?
• what price was paid?
• who controls the transferee?
• was the transferee aware of the debtor’s financial position?
• and does the transferee still hold the asset?

9. Ask for Interim Attachment Immediately

A creditor should not spend two years litigating while NewCo transfers the disputed assets again.

Article 281/2 EBL contains a specific interim-protection mechanism.

The court hearing the avoidance action may, upon the creditor’s request, order provisional attachment over the assets forming the subject of the challenged disposition.

Yargıtay recognises this as a special interim attachment mechanism intended to preserve the effectiveness of the avoidance action.

A creditor’s petition should therefore normally consider requesting immediate protection over:

• transferred real estate;
• machinery;
• vehicles;
• company shares;
• receivables;
• and other specifically identifiable transferred assets.

This may be the difference between winning a judgment and actually recovering money.

10. The Five-Year Deadline Must Not Be Missed

Article 284 EBL provides that the right to bring the statutory avoidance action expires five years after the challenged disposition.

This is a forfeiture period rather than an ordinary limitation period.

In a February 2026 decision, Yargıtay again held that a statutory avoidance action brought after this five-year period had to be rejected without examination of the merits.

Therefore, creditors discovering historical asset transfers should immediately identify the exact transfer dates.

Waiting for every other proceeding to finish may result in loss of the avoidance remedy.

11. Second Remedy: Simulation Under Article 19 TCO

Sometimes the transaction is not merely a valid sale that should be ineffective against the creditor.

Sometimes the “sale” may never have been intended as a genuine commercial transaction at all.

For example:

OldCo executes an invoice stating that machinery was sold to NewCo for TRY 15 million.

But:

• no purchase price is ever paid;
• both companies are controlled by the same person;
• the machinery never physically moves;
• OldCo continues using it;
• the accounting entry is artificial;
• and the document was created only to make the machinery appear to belong to NewCo during enforcement.

This may justify analysing the transaction under Article 19 TCO on simulation (muvazaa).

Article 19 directs courts to examine the parties’ real and common intention rather than the labels used in their documents.

12. The TBK Article 19 Route Has Important Procedural Differences

The statutory avoidance action under Articles 277 et seq. EBL and a simulation claim under Article 19 TCO must not be treated as identical.

Yargıtay has repeatedly emphasized this difference.

In Yargıtay 4th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/10075, K. 2024/10043, dated 22 October 2024, the Court explained that:

• an EBL avoidance action attacks transactions that are essentially valid but should not produce effects against the creditor;
• an Article 19 action argues that the purported transaction is fundamentally simulated;
• a creditor relying on simulation does not need an insolvency certificate in the same way required under Article 277; and
• the five-year forfeiture period under Article 284 does not govern the Article 19 simulation claim merely because the creditor seeks an enforcement-related result.

The underlying claim must of course still exist and remain legally enforceable.

But this distinction can be strategically decisive where the creditor cannot satisfy all requirements of a statutory avoidance action.

13. Simulation Must Actually Be Proven

Article 19 should not be used merely because the creditor dislikes the transaction.

The creditor must establish circumstances demonstrating that the apparent transaction does not represent the parties’ true intention.

Evidence may include:

• absence of genuine payment;
• immediate return of the purchase price;
• identical management;
• retention of possession by OldCo;
• sham invoices;
• contradictory accounting records;
• correspondence discussing the asset-protection plan;
• unusual timing;
• lack of commercial rationale;
• and continuity of use after the purported transfer.

A December 2024 Yargıtay decision confirms the opposite side of this principle: where the transferee proved genuine payment and there was insufficient evidence showing participation in the debtor’s scheme, a simulation-based claim could not simply be accepted on suspicion.

14. Third Remedy: Did NewCo Actually Take Over the Entire Enterprise?

An even more powerful possibility arises where the transaction goes beyond individual asset sales.

Article 202 TCO regulates the acquisition of a pool of assets or an enterprise together with its assets and liabilities.

Where its statutory conditions are met, the acquirer becomes responsible to creditors for the debts belonging to the transferred assets or business after the statutory notification or announcement mechanism takes effect.

The former debtor also remains jointly liable for two years under the statutory framework.

Importantly, the statutory two-year period does not begin to run until the required notification or announcement has been made.

Therefore, if OldCo effectively transfers an operating enterprise to NewCo, counsel should ask:

Is this merely an asset sale, or does the transaction legally qualify as an enterprise transfer under Article 202?

15. NewCo May Be Responsible Even for Debts It Says It Did Not Know About

Where Article 202 genuinely applies, the transferee cannot necessarily escape liability by saying:

“We bought the business, but the agreement says we did not assume OldCo’s old debts.”

Turkish court practice recognises that, where a qualifying enterprise transfer takes place, statutory responsibility toward creditors cannot necessarily be defeated through an internal agreement between transferor and transferee.

A court decision concerning a business transfer expressly stated that the acquirer may be responsible even for debts it did not know about, and that an internal agreement excluding certain debts operates only in the internal relationship rather than automatically against creditors.

This creates a dramatically different remedy.

Instead of only asking for the transfer to be ineffective for enforcement purposes, the creditor may potentially have a direct monetary claim against the transferee if Article 202 applies.

16. Look at Economic Reality, Not Merely the Contract Title

Parties seeking to avoid Article 202 may avoid signing a document titled:

“Commercial Enterprise Transfer Agreement.”

Instead, they may execute:

• machinery sales;
• trademark licences;
• inventory transfers;
• employee transfers;
• vehicle sales;
• lease assignments;
• customer contract transfers;
• and warehouse leases.

Individually, the documents appear to transfer separate assets.

Economically, however, virtually the entire business has moved.

The creditor should therefore analyse the transaction as a whole.

Questions include:

• did OldCo continue any meaningful business after the transfers?
• did NewCo receive the elements necessary to continue the same business?
• did the customer base move?
• did employees move?
• did operational licences move?
• did trademarks and domain names move?
• did NewCo immediately begin generating the revenue previously generated by OldCo?

The answer may help determine whether there was a true enterprise transfer or a series of independent asset transactions.

17. Fourth Remedy: Piercing the Corporate Veil

There is another, exceptional route.

Suppose the formal transfers are difficult to isolate, but the entire structure demonstrates that OldCo and NewCo are being used abusively as separate legal personalities.

Turkish jurisprudence recognises the concepts of:

• organic link (organik bağ);
• piercing the corporate veil; and
• cross-piercing between related companies,

primarily through the good-faith and prohibition-of-abuse principles underlying Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code.

But this remedy must be used carefully.

The fact that two companies have:

• the same shareholders;
• the same address;
• similar directors; or
• the same business sector

does not by itself make them jointly liable.

The Court of Cassation has expressly rejected such an automatic approach.

18. Yargıtay: Organic Link Alone Is Not Enough

The Turkish Court of Cassation’s General Assembly of Civil Chambers has explained that even where an organic connection exists between companies, piercing the corporate veil requires additional evidence demonstrating bad-faith conduct aimed at prejudicing creditors.

The principle was reaffirmed by Yargıtay 11th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/888, K. 2024/9093, dated 17 December 2024.

The Court explained that overlap in shareholders, family relationships and addresses can demonstrate an organic link, but this is insufficient by itself. Concrete evidence of bad-faith transactions designed to evade creditors must also be established.

Therefore:

Same shareholders = evidence.

It does not automatically mean:

Same liabilities.

19. When Can the New Company Potentially Be Treated as the Continuation of the Old Company?

The veil-piercing argument becomes much stronger where the creditor can prove something deeper than common ownership.

For example:

• NewCo was established immediately after OldCo received a default notice;
• the names are confusingly similar;
• NewCo uses the same premises;
• the same individuals manage both;
• OldCo’s trademark was moved to NewCo;
• the factory and machinery were transferred or leased to NewCo;
• employees moved without meaningful interruption;
• the same customer portfolio continued;
• OldCo retained almost exclusively liabilities;
• NewCo received the economically productive assets;
• and NewCo publicly represented itself as a continuation of the previous business.

Turkish case law has examined precisely such structures.

In litigation concerning a newly incorporated company that received the debtor company’s trademarks, real estate, factory and machinery and continued operating in the same sector under substantially the same management, the courts treated the extensive economic and managerial integration as highly relevant to the abuse-of-corporate-personality analysis.

This is the type of fact pattern in which a direct claim against NewCo may become realistic.

20. The Creditor Should Search for “Continuity Evidence”

In practice, one of the best ways to prove abusive restructuring is to compare the company before and after the transfer.

Create two columns.

OldCo Before the Transfer

Factory: Address X
Manager: Mr. A
Website: Example.com
Trademark: ABC
Customers: C1, C2, C3
Employees: 45
Telephone: 0212…
Product: Industrial component Y

NewCo After the Transfer

Factory: Address X
Manager: Mr. A
Website: Example.com
Trademark: ABC
Customers: C1, C2, C3
Employees: 42 former OldCo staff
Telephone: Same
Product: Industrial component Y

Then ask:

What changed besides the company registration number and the location of the debt?

That question can be extremely persuasive.

21. Company Books Are Critical Evidence

These cases are rarely solved solely through trade registry records.

The creditor should seek examination of:

• commercial books;
• ledgers;
• bank records;
• invoices;
• shareholder current accounts;
• related-party transaction accounts;
• fixed-asset registers;
• inventory records;
• e-invoices;
• customer lists;
• employee payroll records;
• trademark records;
• machinery invoices;
• lease agreements;
• and cash-flow statements.

The 2024 Court of Cassation decision concerning veil piercing also stressed the importance of correctly applying the procedural rules governing production of commercial books.

A company refusing to produce relevant records should not be allowed to benefit from evidential opacity without the procedural consequences of such refusal being properly considered.

22. Managers May Also Face Separate Liability

Asset stripping can also create questions concerning the liability of directors and managers.

Article 553 of the Turkish Commercial Code provides that founders, board members, managers and liquidators may be responsible for damage caused by culpable breach of obligations arising from the law or articles of association.

Suppose managers intentionally transfer:

• a TRY 50 million asset for TRY 5 million;
• valuable customer contracts for no consideration;
• trademarks to a company they personally own;
• or corporate receivables to relatives,

leaving the debtor company unable to pay creditors.

Such conduct may create corporate-liability issues in addition to the creditor’s avoidance remedies.

However, a creditor’s ability to sue a manager directly depends on:

• the type of damage;
• whether the damage is direct or reflective of loss suffered by the company;
• the company’s insolvency/bankruptcy status;
• and the specific statutory cause of action.

Therefore, Article 553 should not be treated as an automatic guarantee making every director personally liable for company debts.

It is a separate liability analysis.

23. Asset Transfer Does Not Automatically Make the Shareholders Personally Liable

Another important distinction is necessary.

Suppose Shareholder A owns both OldCo and NewCo.

That alone does not mean the creditor can automatically enforce OldCo’s TRY 10 million debt against Shareholder A’s personal house.

Limited liability and corporate personality remain the starting rules.

Personal liability requires a separate legal basis.

Possible bases may include:

• personal guarantee;
• tortious conduct;
• director/manager liability;
• abuse of corporate personality;
• fraudulent transactions involving the shareholder personally;
• or other specific statutory liability.

The litigation must avoid replacing evidence with a general statement that:

“They own both companies, therefore they owe the debt personally.”

That proposition is too broad.

24. A Practical Creditor Strategy

When a debtor company appears to have transferred its business to a new company, a creditor should act systematically.

Step 1 — Secure the Underlying Debt

Continue or commence the appropriate enforcement or substantive proceedings against OldCo.

Step 2 — Obtain Historical Trade Registry Records

Compare:

• shareholders;
• directors;
• registered addresses;
• establishment dates;
• capital changes;
• representation authorities;
• trade names;
• and share transfers.

The date NewCo was incorporated can be particularly revealing.

Step 3 — Identify Every Transferred Asset

Search for:

• real estate;
• vehicles;
• trademarks;
• machinery;
• receivables;
• shares;
• inventory;
• licences;
• and contractual rights.

Step 4 — Follow the Money

For each transfer determine:

Transfer price

Market value

Payment method

Payment date

Receiving bank account

Whether the money remained with OldCo

A “sale” that produces no genuine economic benefit for OldCo is highly suspicious.

Step 5 — Analyse Business Continuity

Compare:

• personnel;
• location;
• customers;
• website;
• products;
• suppliers;
• managers;
• branding;
• and operating assets.

Step 6 — Determine the Correct Cause of Action

The facts may support:

Article 277 et seq. EBL

Where the transaction is legally valid but prejudicial to creditors.

Article 19 TCO

Where the transaction itself is simulated.

Article 202 TCO

Where the entire business or asset pool was effectively acquired.

Piercing the Corporate Veil

Where separate corporate personalities are being abused to shield the same economic enterprise from creditors.

These causes of action should not be confused.

Step 7 — Request Interim Protection

If the assets remain with NewCo, seek appropriate provisional attachment as early as legally possible.

Step 8 — Examine Management Liability

Particularly where assets were deliberately transferred below value or without consideration.

25. Example: A TRY 30 Million Creditor and a New Company

Assume:

OldCo owes Supplier TRY 30 million.

OldCo owns:

Factory machinery: TRY 20 million
Vehicles: TRY 5 million
Trademark: TRY 10 million
Inventory: TRY 8 million

Total relevant assets:

TRY 43 million

NewCo is incorporated by OldCo’s two shareholders.

Within three months:

• machinery is “sold” for TRY 2 million;
• vehicles move to NewCo;
• trademark is transferred for TRY 100,000;
• inventory is sold;
• employees move;
• OldCo stops trading.

The creditor conducts enforcement against OldCo.

No substantial attachable assets remain.

The investigation may produce several concurrent legal arguments.

Article 280 EBL

The transactions may demonstrate an intention to prejudice creditors, and the relationship between OldCo and NewCo may strongly support NewCo’s knowledge of that intention.

Article 278 EBL

The extremely low transfer prices may trigger analysis of grossly inadequate consideration.

Article 19 TCO

If the prices were never really paid, the transactions may have been simulated.

Article 202 TCO

If the economic reality demonstrates the transfer of the operating enterprise as a whole, NewCo’s direct statutory liability should be analysed.

Veil Piercing

If NewCo is effectively the same economic enterprise continuing under a new corporate identity solely to isolate historical debt, cross-piercing may also be considered.

The strongest creditor strategy may therefore involve several carefully distinguished legal grounds rather than relying on only one theory.

26. The Creditor Should Not Wait Until NewCo Is Also Empty

Fraudulent corporate restructuring frequently happens in stages.

OldCo is emptied into NewCo.

When NewCo becomes exposed to litigation, the shareholders establish NewCo 2.

Then:

OldCo → NewCo → NewCo 2

The further the assets move, the more difficult recovery becomes.

Speed matters.

As soon as evidence of asset migration appears, creditors should consider:

• registry investigations;
• evidence preservation;
• enforcement;
• provisional attachment;
• and appropriate substantive litigation.

The objective is not merely to prove misconduct years later.

It is to keep assets within reach of enforcement.

27. The Key Yargıtay Principle: Separate Companies Are Respected Until Separateness Becomes an Abuse

Turkish law does not prohibit an entrepreneur from incorporating a second company.

It does not prohibit related companies from:

• trading with each other;
• sharing shareholders;
• operating in the same sector; or
• using the same business centre.

Therefore, courts should not impose liability merely because companies are related.

But the position changes when corporate separateness is deliberately used to produce the following result:

All commercially valuable assets remain within the same economic control, while liabilities are isolated in a company intentionally left unable to pay.

The Court of Cassation’s veil-piercing jurisprudence focuses precisely on this distinction.

Organic connection is not enough.

Organic connection + concrete abusive conduct + creditor prejudice may be.

Conclusion: The Creditor Should Follow the Business, Not Only the Company Name

When a debtor company transfers its assets to a newly established company, the creditor should not conclude that recovery has become impossible merely because the assets are now registered in another legal entity’s name.

Turkish law offers several different routes.

Where valid transactions prejudice creditors, Articles 277–280 EBL may permit avoidance.

Where transactions are merely simulated, Article 19 TCO may provide an alternative basis without all of the procedural conditions governing the statutory avoidance action.

Where the economic enterprise itself has been transferred, Article 202 TCO may create direct responsibility for the acquiring company.

Where OldCo and NewCo are used as artificial corporate shells to keep the business while abandoning the debt, piercing the corporate veil may exceptionally permit the creditor to reach the second company—but only where bad faith and abuse are established with concrete evidence.

And where an avoidance action is available, the creditor should not overlook Article 281/2 EBL provisional attachment, because winning the case after the assets have disappeared again may provide little commercial value.

The practical investigation should therefore answer five questions:

Where did the debtor’s assets go?

Was real consideration paid?

Who controls the transferee?

Did the economic business continue unchanged?

And was the restructuring commercially genuine—or designed to leave the debt in an empty company?

In creditor-side litigation, the company name is often only the beginning of the investigation.

Follow the machinery, the money, the employees, the customers and the revenue.

That is usually where the real debtor’s business can be found.