Fund Liquidations in Türkiye: Three Questions That Determine an Investor’s Legal Position

Gökan Karabulut, Attorney at Law  ·  27 September 2026

Investment risk is not consent to unlawful conduct. An investor’s decision to take market risk does not amount to consent to unlawful acts by the institutions handling their money. Seeking higher returns does not extinguish the right to question how one’s money was managed. Legal review looks not at the investor’s choices, but at whether the institutions performed the obligations they had undertaken.

By decisions of 17 September 2026, the Capital Markets Board of Türkiye (SPK) ordered the liquidation of 131 funds belonging to 7 portfolio management companies. According to the Board’s public statement of 23 September 2026, the Central Securities Depository (MKK) records show 455,758 individual investors in these funds. Türkiye İş Bankası and Ziraat Bankası have been appointed to conduct the liquidation, which is expected to conclude no later than the first business day following a three-month period from the liquidation announcement.

That number does not mean every investor suffered the same loss or stands in the same legal position. Three questions must be answered separately for each investor.

First question: Does the account still hold fund units, or a receivable arising from a redemption order?

The account balance alone does not answer this. What must be examined together are the date and time the sell order was placed, whether it was transmitted to TEFAS (the Turkish Electronic Fund Trading Platform), its value date, and whether it was executed.

Under the liquidation principles published in SPK Bulletin No. 2026/61, redemption orders placed through TEFAS but not executed are recorded as a debt of the fund, and cash generated in the liquidation is applied first to these debts. In other words, an investor who placed a timely sell order but was never paid does not rank equally with an investor still holding units when the liquidation began.

The same principles set two time thresholds: for notice funds, 13.30 on 17 September 2026; for money market funds, the end-of-day value-date cut-off stated in the relevant fund’s prospectus. Redemption orders transmitted after these thresholds are treated not as redemption orders but as ordinary unit holdings subject to the liquidation regime. Which side of the threshold an order fell on determines which rule applies to that investor.

There is a third possibility: an order that remained with the intermediary and was never transmitted to TEFAS will not appear in the reconciliation records. In that case, the question of liability is examined separately as against the transmitting institution.

Second question: Which act caused the loss?

A loss caused by market conditions and a loss caused by breach of duty are not the same thing. The first is inherent in investing; the second may give rise to legal liability.

Managing a fund, distributing its units and holding its assets in custody are different duties of different institutions. The portfolio management company manages the fund; the distributor intermediates purchases and sales; the fund custodian holds the assets and performs the supervisory duties listed in the legislation. Under Article 56 of the Capital Markets Law No. 6362, the portfolio custodian is liable for losses caused by its failure to perform its obligations. That liability arises to the extent a causal link can be established between the unperformed obligation and the investor’s loss. Which institution breached which obligation must be shown, on documents, file by file.

Third question: Which application produces which result?

A complaint to the SPK triggers an administrative review of regulatory breaches. In that review the Board may impose administrative sanctions on the institutions at fault; it does not award compensation to the investor. Compensation is pursued before the competent courts. The proper respondent, the legal basis and the route to follow are determined separately for each investor, according to the answers to the first two questions.

What to do today: preserve the records

A concrete legal claim must be able to show which act breached which obligation, and how much loss it caused. That is only possible with documents.

Frequently asked questions

I placed my sell order before the threshold but it was not executed. Do I simply wait for the liquidation? — An order transmitted to TEFAS and left unexecuted is recorded as a debt of the fund and is paid first out of the liquidation proceeds. What matters is whether, and when, the order reached TEFAS; those records should be requested in writing.

I filed a complaint with the SPK; will my money come back that way? — No. The Board’s review is administrative. Compensation is a separate claim; its respondent and basis depend on the file.

Will everyone bring the same case? — No. An investor still holding units, an investor with an unexecuted transmitted order and an investor whose order was never transmitted stand in different legal positions; the claim and the respondent change accordingly.

Conclusion

There is no single class of 455,758 people; there are 455,758 separate files. The investor’s task today is not to rush a decision, but to preserve the records in full and to have their own position established through the three questions above. Investment risk is real; but no risk disclosure creates a duty to tolerate unlawful conduct by the institutions involved.

Sources

· Decisions of the SPK Board of 17.09.2026 and the liquidation principles (SPK Bulletin No. 2026/61)
· SPK public statement of 23.09.2026 (individual investor count, MKK records)
· Capital Markets Law No. 6362, in particular Article 56 (portfolio custody and custodian liability)
· Communiqué No. III-52.1 on Principles of Investment Funds

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The regulatory decisions and statements cited are drawn from official, publicly available sources; in any specific dispute, the original texts should be consulted. The liquidation process is ongoing as at the date of writing and the regulatory framework may change.