Two White Burger announcements describe different aspects of the investment plan

Announcements by Bulls Girişim Sermayesi Yatırım Ortaklığı about its planned partnership with White Burger used two different descriptions of the investment’s scope. The first referred to production, trading and service activities, while a statement eight days later specified the aim of opening a single franchise outlet. For those following Turkey’s franchise market, the key distinction is between the company’s stated business activities and its specific investment objective.

First announcement outlined the joint company and capital structure

According to Public Disclosure Platform (KAP) statements cited in a Gıda Bülteni report dated 24 September 2026, Bulls Girişim announced plans on 15 September to establish a joint company with White Burger Gıda Sanayi A.Ş. The proposed company, Bulls Gıda Ticaret A.Ş., was to have share capital of TRY 25 million.

Under the plan, Bulls Girişim would hold a 50% stake and commit TRY 12.5 million in capital. The report identified White Burger as the brand of Serhat Doğramacı, winner of MasterChef Türkiye 2020. The initial announcement therefore set out the partners’ identities, the proposed company’s capital and Bulls Girişim’s intended share.

The investment’s purpose was described as carrying out “production, trading and service” activities in the food sector. This wording defined the types of activity involved; the initial statement, as reported, did not specify a target number of outlets. It was therefore not possible to infer a multi-site expansion programme, a production facility or a particular opening schedule from that wording alone.

The figures also related to the proposed joint company’s capital structure. The report did not state that TRY 25 million represented the total cost of setting up a franchise outlet, or that TRY 12.5 million was the initial franchise fee. Keeping capital commitments separate from outlet investment costs is important to avoid reading more into the announcement than it disclosed.

Second statement specified a single outlet

A further statement submitted by Bulls Girişim to KAP on the evening of 23 September described the project’s specific purpose more narrowly. This time, the proposed Bulls Gıda was described as a company to be established “for the purpose of opening a single franchise outlet”.

The same statement said that, following the board of directors’ assessments, a decision had been taken not to proceed with incorporation. It also announced that the necessary steps would be taken to withdraw the incorporation application. The joint company plan announced on 15 September was thus abandoned eight days later.

The central difference between the two statements was that the first specified types of business activity, while the second identified the intended number of outlets. These descriptions answer different questions: production, trading and services describe the areas in which a company would operate, whereas a single franchise outlet indicates the scale of the planned operation.

However, the available information does not establish that the project was scaled down from a broader investment to a single outlet during those eight days. No such decision was reported in the material reviewed. What the evidence supports is that an investment described in more general terms in the initial announcement was defined as a single-outlet venture in the final statement. Reporting this difference requires care not to imply an undocumented change in strategy.

Investigation context is separate from the stated reason

Gıda Bülteni covered the development in the context of an investigation into funds in which Bulls Yatırım was mentioned. However, the report also made an important limitation clear: Bulls Girişim’s KAP statement did not link the decision to abandon the White Burger investment to that investigation.

The company’s stated reason was that incorporation would be halted “following assessments” by the board of directors. Beyond that wording, the material reviewed provided no detailed explanation for the decision. Presenting the investigation as the definitive cause of the joint company plan’s cancellation would therefore go beyond the available information.

Nor was any statement reported suggesting that the decision represented a change in White Burger’s overall franchise strategy. The news concerns a specific company planned with specific partners, with the aim of investing in a single outlet. Further information would be needed to draw conclusions about the brand’s other outlets, other partnerships or future openings.

What should prospective franchise investors look for?

This example highlights the importance of tracking three elements separately when assessing investment announcements in Turkey’s franchise market: ownership structure, stated business activities and specific opening targets. Bulls Girişim’s initial announcement included capital and ownership details, while the single-outlet objective became clear in the subsequent statement.

For prospective investors, a disclosed capital figure alone is not enough to compare outlet budgets. Equally, a broad description of business activities does not mean that several restaurants will open. The information in this report identifies the proposed company and the operational objective stated in the final announcement; it does not provide a detailed cost breakdown or opening schedule.

Practical takeaway: When assessing a franchise investment, verify the capital amount, the number of outlets and the company’s incorporation status separately. Do not fill gaps in disclosed costs or reasons for decisions with assumptions.