STP linked to Özsüt’s franchise operations granted temporary debt restructuring protection

STP Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., which is linked to Özsüt’s franchise operations, and İbrahim Urlulu have been granted a three-month temporary moratorium under Turkey’s court-supervised debt restructuring procedure, known as concordat. The ruling by İzmir’s 3rd Commercial Court of First Instance on 5 November 2026 began the process of assessing their debt restructuring application. For the franchise community, it is important to distinguish between the company covered by the ruling and businesses trading under the Özsüt brand.

Who is covered by the temporary moratorium?

According to a report published by Son Mühür on 7 November, STP Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. and businessman İbrahim Urlulu applied for concordat protection. In an interim ruling under case number 2026/1199, İzmir’s 3rd Commercial Court of First Instance granted both applicants a three-month temporary moratorium.

The protection took effect at 13:00 on 5 November 2026. The application seeks to restructure the debts of the company and Urlulu. The report describes STP Gıda as a company linked to Özsüt’s franchise operations; the development should therefore not be treated as a blanket ruling covering all Özsüt businesses.

The temporary moratorium does not mean the company has been declared bankrupt. At a later stage, the court will consider whether to grant a definitive moratorium, following reports from the court-appointed supervisors. The current ruling therefore does not indicate that restructuring has been completed or that the application has been finally determined. At this stage, the key developments are the temporary period granted by the court and the review to be conducted during it.

Three supervisors to review finances and operations

The court appointed three interim concordat supervisors to STP Gıda to assess its application. They are independent auditor and accountant Cem Çeliker, legal specialist Gülay Aydın and food engineer Fatimetül Azime Ahi.

The supervisors will examine the company’s financial position and operations. Their reports will inform the subsequent assessment of whether the company should receive a definitive moratorium. During the temporary protection period, the company’s position will therefore be reviewed by court-appointed professionals.

The court file cited by Son Mühür does not disclose the total debt. It is therefore not possible to use the application to make a numerical assessment of the scale of the debt, repayment capacity or the likely outcome of restructuring. Nor should the three-month period be read as a deadline by which the company’s financial difficulties will be resolved. It is the duration of the temporary moratorium granted by the court, not a recovery timetable or a repayment commitment.

Restrictions on enforcement proceedings and asset transfers

According to the ruling reported by Son Mühür, no new debt enforcement proceedings may be brought against the company or İbrahim Urlulu during the temporary moratorium, except where permitted by law. Existing proceedings will also be stayed. These measures apply to the company and individual directly covered by the court order.

The court also imposed an interim injunction restricting transfers of property, motor vehicles and production equipment belonging to the company and Urlulu. Enforcement proceedings relating to secured claims may reportedly continue within the limits set by law, but the assets securing those claims cannot be sold during this period.

These measures show that the ruling goes beyond simply announcing an application. However, the provisions on enforcement and asset transfers do not justify conclusions about how outlets are operating. The legal protections described in the ruling and the day-to-day running of businesses should be considered separately. Franchisees, in particular, should assess their position in light of the parties to their own contracts and any existing creditor relationships.

Outlet operations and the franchisee meeting

Özsüt traces its origins to 1938, when Sefer Urlulu established the business in İzmir’s Kemeraltı district. Known for its milk-based desserts, the brand expanded into other cities through branches and franchising under İbrahim Urlulu. In 2019, Urlulu bought back shares in Özsüt, regaining a say in the brand’s management.

This history explains why franchise operators will be watching developments at STP Gıda closely. However, the case file cited by Son Mühür contains no information about outlet operations. The announcement therefore provides no basis for concluding that outlets have closed, supplies have stopped or franchise agreements have changed. Nor is there any disclosed basis for saying that the ruling affects every outlet in the same way.

According to information obtained by Son Mühür, İbrahim Urlulu invited franchisees from across Turkey to the factory on Monday 9 November to discuss developments in the concordat process. The report describes the invitation; it does not report any decisions taken at the meeting or any announced changes to operating arrangements. Franchisees will need to follow the information shared at the meeting and the next stages of the court proceedings.

Practical takeaway: Existing and prospective franchisees should distinguish the brand name from the company that is party to their contract, and seek written information on payments, supplies and outstanding receivables. A three-month temporary moratorium should not, on its own, be taken as evidence of bankruptcy or outlet closures.