2026 Fund Liquidations: Which Lawsuit Against Which Act?

The legal scope and chronology of the 2026 investment fund liquidation crisis

The September 17, 2026 decisions: Liquidation, the TEFAS closure and the importance of the stage of the transaction

According to SPK’s official statement of September 23, 2026, the Board’s decisions of September 17, 2026 ordered the liquidation of 131 investment funds belonging to seven portfolio management companies, and, according to Central Securities Depository of Türkiye (MKK) data, the number of unique investors in those funds was announced as 455,758. This information shows the scope at the time the decisions were announced; it does not show the receivable a particular investor holds today or the final amount of compensation. Source: SPK, September 23, 2026.

When the acts of September 17 are assessed together, placing the fund into liquidation, closing it to buying and selling on TEFAS, suspending transactions outside TEFAS, the legal fate of existing orders and the capacity in which fund units will be the subject of payment at the end of the liquidation are not the same act. More than one of them may affect the same investor. For this reason, in litigation it is not enough to look only at the date of the press statement; the number, paragraph and addressee of the decision in the relevant SPK bulletin and the effect of the act on the account records must be determined.

September 28, 2026: Separating unexecuted instructions from the September 17 orders

SPK’s announcement of September 28 explained that instructions transmitted to TEFAS on or before September 16, 2026 and instructions given on September 17 are not in the same legal position. It stated that, because the relevant funds were closed to transactions on TEFAS on September 17, instructions given that day were canceled by the platform, while cases in which instructions of September 16 and earlier were not executed because of default or because the fund price was not announced would be assessed within the scope of the liquidation. Source: SPK, September 28, 2026.

The date distinction in the announcement does not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that every September 16 instruction has turned into a definite claim to money or that every September 17 instruction was canceled lawfully. The time of the instruction, the price value date, whether the fund price was announced, default, the blockage record and the settlement stage must be examined together. In addition, whether the press announcement is itself a final act that can be the subject of a lawsuit, or merely the disclosure of another Board decision, must be determined from its specific content.

October 22, 2026: The settlement finality and PBLK statement

Article 79(1) of Capital Markets Law No. 6362 (SPKn) regulates the principle of irrevocability and non-cancelability for settlement instructions and transactions and for payment transactions. However, SPK’s statement of October 22 set out the view that not every sell order given on TEFAS can, by itself, be regarded as a completed settlement transaction. The Board emphasized that a share blockage (PBLK) record alone does not mean completed settlement, and pointed to the stage at which cash passes to the investor’s account and the fund unit record is removed. Source: SPK, October 22, 2026.

This official interpretation must be kept separate from the legal outcome to be drawn from the specific contract and from the TEFAS, Takasbank and MKK records. Neither the existence nor the absence of a PBLK record, by itself, leads to the conclusion that the claim is a definitively acquired right or merely a fund unit. The stage the specific instruction reached and which obligations became final must be proved.

October 27, 2026: Special Law No. 7596 and SPK Decision No. 76/1903

Law No. 7596 on Certain Investment Funds Ordered into Liquidation (Tasfiyesine Karar Verilen Bazı Yatırım Fonları Hakkında Kanun), adopted on October 22, was published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) No. 33413 dated October 27, 2026. According to Article 8 of the Law, the regulation entered into force on the date of its publication, to apply with effect from September 17, 2026. On the same day, the implementing principles for liquidation and payments were set by SPK Decision No. 76/1903. Full text of Law No. 7596; SPK statement of October 27, 2026.

Law No. 7596 is not a general and permanent liquidation law for all investment funds. Under Article 1, it contains special provisions concerning funds whose liquidation was decided by the SPK decisions of September 17 and whose liquidation had not been completed on the date of the Law’s publication. The payment practices determined for the Tera, Pusula and Atlas funds under SPK Decision No. 76/1903 cannot be carried over, without distinction, to all portfolio management companies and all funds.

November 6, 2026: The distinction between a fund in liquidation and a fund closed only to transactions

SPK’s statement of November 6 notes that some funds that are not within the scope of the liquidation remained closed on TEFAS and on distribution channels outside TEFAS. For the funds of A1 Capital, Bulls and Pardus that are not within the liquidation but are closed to transactions, it was explained that the founding companies must apply to Ziraat Bankası and that the bank must forward the application to SPK. Source: SPK, November 6, 2026.

A fund closed only to transactions and a fund placed in liquidation are not the same. In the former, the questions are when and on what conditions transactions will reopen, the lawfulness of the administrative act, and the investor’s claims arising from being kept waiting; in the latter, the liquidation balance, the fund unit and the special payment regime come into play. The subject of the lawsuit and the relief sought must be framed according to this distinction.

The first question before filing: What final and enforceable act exists?

A press statement and SPK’s actual decision may not be the same thing

Under Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) Articles 14 and 15, it matters that the act that will be the subject of an annulment action is of a final and enforceable nature. The existence of an official press statement, guide or information text does not mean that every sentence in it is a separate administrative act. On the other hand, a press statement may have a special content in which another decision is announced to the public for the first time or an independent executory outcome is created. Whether a matter can be litigated is examined not by the title of the document but by its legal effect and the completed nature of the act.

In its decision of November 9, 2007, E.2007/1282, K.2007/4240, the 2nd Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) assessed the issues of a final and enforceable act and of notification separately, and emphasized that what is decisive is that the administrative act is complete and ready for implementation. The decision does not concern investment fund liquidation; it is cited here only as an example of the general administrative-law criterion. Decision citation and access to the full text (De Jure).

How are a regulatory act and an individual implementing act distinguished?

A regulatory act may establish general, abstract and repeatable legal rules. An individual act, on the other hand, may produce directly personal consequences, such as the rejection of a particular investor’s entitlement, a different determination of the payment calculation or the rejection of a request to correct a record. İYUK Article 7(4) allows, upon implementation of a regulatory act that is required to be announced, a lawsuit to be filed against the regulatory act, the implementing act, or both, depending on the act or its conditions.

In its decision of April 15, 2025, E.2024/7963, K.2025/1995, the 6th Chamber of the Council of State assessed the time limit and the possibility of suing against the regulatory act in a case filed because of the individual implementation of a zoning plan. This decision is likewise not specific to the fund crisis; it is an analogical example of the distinction between a regulatory act and an implementing act. It should not be overlooked that the decision contains a dissenting opinion and was rendered in the context of specific zoning legislation. Text of the decision (De Jure).

In preparing the case, it must be determined which part of Decision No. 76/1903 is a general rule and which implementation is an act directed at a specific person; where a regulation arises directly from the law, the separate procedure for a constitutional objection to it must be addressed separately.

An annulment action against SPK’s liquidation decision of September 17

Claimant’s interest, respondent authority and legal basis

Under İYUK Article 2(1)(a), an annulment action is brought by persons whose interest has been violated by an administrative act alleged to be unlawful. Under Article 134(1) of Law No. 6362, administrative actions against Board decisions are heard by administrative courts; these cases are counted among urgent matters. The phrase “urgent matter” does not by itself mean that a separate expedited procedure or a different filing period under İYUK applies. Law No. 6362 Article 134.

The claimant must show together which fund and how many units the claimant held on which date, what effect the act of September 17 had on those units, the form in which the violation of interest has materialized, and the rule objected to. A broad sentence such as “I suffered loss because of the liquidation decision” is not, by itself, a sufficient description of the act.

Grounds for annulment: Competence, form, cause, subject and purpose

In reviewing an administrative act, the elements under İYUK Article 2(1)(a) should be used. In practice, the following may in particular be examined: the legal basis of the act; whether the required data and reasoning exist; the criteria by which different statuses were applied to investors in the same position; and whether an excessive burden arises in terms of proportionality and the right to property. However, SPK’s duty to protect market stability and investors, and its discretionary power to take measures for market integrity, are the other side’s important defense. The unlawfulness of the act is not deemed proved merely because it has an adverse economic consequence.

Which court has territorial jurisdiction?

The branch of the judiciary with subject-matter jurisdiction over SPK acts is the administrative judiciary. Unless there is a special rule of territorial jurisdiction, the competent administrative court is determined by the general territorial jurisdiction provisions of İYUK, the authority that issued the act and the specific claim; because SPK’s headquarters is in Ankara, the Ankara administrative courts come into question. By contrast, the Istanbul administrative courts’ jurisdiction in Article 5(4) of Law No. 7596 is a special provision concerning cases linked to the TMSF collection and enforcement regime in the same article. It cannot be carried over to all SPK annulment actions or all investor compensation actions.

Applications against the acts of September 28, October 22 and October 27

The instruction practice explained in the September 28 announcement

Where the investor’s instruction was transmitted on September 16 and was not performed because of the fund’s default, or was canceled on September 17, the actual SPK decision, the TEFAS practice and any individual rejection or calculation act should first be placed in the file in order to identify the act that will be the subject of the lawsuit. If the September 28 announcement is merely an explanatory notice, a lawsuit filed against the announcement alone may meet an objection that there is no final act.

Legal assessment of the October 22 PBLK statement

There is a difference between the administration’s interpretation that “not every order is a completed settlement” and an executory decision that eliminates a monetary claim that has already arisen for a particular investor. The explanatory nature of the first, and the direct consequences of the second, should be investigated. Which settlement stage was completed, the relationship between SPKn Article 79 and Law No. 7596 Article 3(5), and the temporal effect of earlier regulations should be assessed together with the records of the specific order.

Decision No. 76/1903 on the principles of payment

Where the interim payment order or calculation method regulated by this decision is applied directly and affects the person, the following are considered: annulment of the general regulation, annulment of the individual calculation or rejection act, or suing on both depending on the conditions. Instead of merely citing the decision number in the petition, the disputed part, its concrete reflection on the investor and the link of legal interest should be established. A limitation arising directly from the law cannot be presented as if it could be removed by having the Board decision annulled.

Individual payment, incomplete calculation or rejection of entitlement

An MKK reconciliation, a fund-based calculation, the transaction record of the institution in charge of the liquidation and an individual SPK decision are not the same thing. If the act is administrative in nature, the possibility of annulment and/or full remedy before the competent authority is examined; if there is a private-law relationship, separate court jurisdiction rules come into play. Whatever the application is called, which record and which legal consequence the claim concerns must be clearly identified.

A lawsuit cannot be filed directly against Law No. 7596 in an administrative court

The boundary between a statutory provision, a regulatory act and an implementing act

Law No. 7596 is a statute. An investor cannot file a direct statute-annulment action in an administrative court for the annulment of the relevant provision of this Law. The abstract norm review under Constitution Articles 150–151 is limited to the applicants listed in the Constitution. In a specific dispute, the unconstitutionality of the statutory provision to be applied may be raised by way of objection under Constitution Article 152 and Article 40 of Law No. 6216 before the court hearing the case; the court must find the claim serious or must itself reach the opinion that there is a conflict. The investor is not deemed, by this route, to have made a direct norm-review application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) on their own initiative. AYM: Routes of norm review.

Retroactive effect, the right to property and legal certainty

Because Article 8 of Law No. 7596 contains a rule of application from September 17, 2026, its effect on economic rights alleged to have arisen from earlier instructions is important. In the assessment, the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty in Constitution Article 2, the right to property in Article 35, the right to seek legal remedies in Article 36 and proportionality in Article 13 may be argued together. However, the fact that a statute contains a retroactive provision does not by itself and automatically prove unconstitutionality. The protected claim must be a right that has arisen in the legal order or an expectation with a sufficient legal basis; the public purpose of the limitation, its foreseeability and the burden it places on the investor must be made concrete.

The constitutional debate on the payment bar tied to an SPK determination

Article 3(6) of Law No. 7596 provides that no payment is to be made from the liquidation and recovery account to certain persons and institutions determined by the Board to be connected with acts under SPKn Articles 104, 106 and 107. In this provision, an administrative determination and a final criminal conviction are not equal. The accessibility of the basis of the determination, individual reasoning, the opportunity to defend oneself and effective judicial review may be assessed in the specific case in terms of the right to property and the presumption of innocence. The statutory provision should not be declared unlawful in advance; whether the person concerned has actually been brought within this scope, and by which act they were excluded from payment, must be established.

The November 16, 2026 filing deadline: For whom and under what assumption does it matter?

The hypothetical 60-day calculation for the act of September 17

The general period for filing a suit before an administrative court under İYUK Article 7 is 60 days where no separate period is indicated in a special law. If the period is taken to have started on September 18, the day after the act of September 17, the 60th day is Monday, November 16, 2026. This calculation requires separate verification of the type of act, the conditions of announcement or written notification, the date of learning, any special procedure, the application information expressly shown at the time of the act, and the assumption that no application affecting the period exists.

November 16 is not automatically a common last day for lawsuits that may be filed against the new acts of September 28 or October 27. Possibilities that may arise under İYUK Article 7(4) with regard to an implementing act that emerges later against a regulatory act are assessed separately. However, not every later statement restarts the period of the earlier final act.

İYUK Article 10: Requesting that an act not previously established be performed

If there is not yet an act that can be litigated, such as the rejection of an entitlement claim or an act relating to the payment calculation, directing the specific request to the administration may be considered within the scope of İYUK Article 10. This article is a special framework for requesting an act or action. In general, if no reply is given within 30 days, the outcome is a rejection; if the reply is not definitive, the waiting regime in the Law is examined separately. The application cannot be used to make an act that was previously established in a form that could be litigated, and whose period was missed, indefinitely litigable again.

İYUK Article 11: Requesting the withdrawal or amendment of an existing act

Within the period for filing suit against an existing executory act, a request may be made to the superior authority, or if there is no superior authority, to the authority that issued the act, to have the act withdrawn, revoked or amended. A duly and timely application under İYUK Article 11 may suspend the running of the filing period; after rejection or implied rejection, the remaining period runs. This result does not automatically apply to every correspondence, a CİMER complaint, a private-law application to a bank, or a mere request for information. The subject of the application, its addressee, its date, proof of delivery and the nature of the rejection must be determined.

İYUK Articles 12 and 13: Annulment and compensation claims are not under the same period regime

İYUK Article 12 allows a person whose personal right has been violated by an administrative act to file a full remedy action directly under certain conditions, to bring annulment and full remedy claims together, or to turn to the full remedy route, by the procedure the Law provides, after an annulment action. For losses arising from an administrative action (an act other than a legal act), the preliminary administrative application and period regime in Article 13 is addressed separately. A claim of service fault based on supervisory negligence and a compensation claim arising from the unlawfulness of a particular payment decision should not be confused with each other.

Under İYUK Article 13, the general framework is an application to the relevant administration within one year of learning of the administrative action that caused the loss and in any case within five years of the date of the action, followed by a lawsuit upon rejection or lapse of the statutory reply period. In the specific case, the dates on which the loss and the action were learned, whether there is a continuing action, and the distinction between administrative act and action must be investigated separately. İYUK, official legislation access.

The table is not a litigation calendar: The date and judicial route in each row must be determined separately according to the investor’s actual act and the legislation.

When can a request for a stay of execution be effective?

Two conditions are sought together

Under İYUK Article 27, for a stay of execution of an administrative act, the conditions that the act is clearly unlawful and that its implementation would cause damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy are, as a rule, assessed together. Merely filing a lawsuit does not automatically stop the liquidation or the payment. The act the request targets, and the legal outcome the interim measure would protect, must be clear.

Stopping the liquidation of the entire fund differs from protecting a personal right

While an investor may wish to stop the effect of a rejection of entitlement or a wrong payment order applied to them, a halt to the liquidation of the whole fund may also affect the rights of other investors. Proportionality, the public interest and the position of the other stakeholders must therefore be taken into account; the protection requested should be limited so as to prevent the concrete loss of rights. During the proceedings, the interest that can be protected must be made concrete with regard to an incorrect or premature liquidation account, the loss of evidence or disputed payment transactions.

The sell instruction, PBLK and settlement finality are the core evidentiary issues of the case

Placing the order, acceptance, pricing and completion of settlement

In a dispute over a fund sell order, the following technical stages should be recorded separately: on what date and at what time the order entered the system; when it was accepted by the brokerage firm and TEFAS; the fund price and value date to be applied; whether the price was announced; whether the fund units were blocked; at what stage the settlement obligation became final; and whether the cash was paid. The settlement finality protection in Article 79 of Law No. 6362 does not remove the need to prove the nature of the transaction.

The opposing interpretation must also be considered

The investor may argue that the earlier contract and records protect an accrued monetary claim. In response, SPK may argue that the liquidation status is primary because settlement was not yet complete and fund unitholding continued. Article 3(5) of Law No. 7596 also brought certain blocked unitholders into the special regime in their capacity as fund unitholders. The question the court will answer is therefore not merely “was an order placed?”; it is which right arose, at what moment and under which legal regime?

A fund unit, an interim payment, a final payment and compensation are not the same type of claim

The payment calculation under Article 4 of Law No. 7596

Article 4 of Law No. 7596 provides that, under certain conditions, the net investment amount is calculated by indexing it to the arithmetic mean of the change rates in the CPI and the domestic PPI (D-PPI). The interim payment of up to 1 million TL in Article 4(2) is limited by the unindexed net investment amount and other statutory conditions. This amount does not mean that the investor will be paid 1 million TL definitively and unconditionally, nor is it a general compensation ceiling for personal loss or the final claim. Law No. 7596 Article 4.

Separating the liquidation claim from personal loss

Receiving a payment from the liquidation balance in proportion to the participation unit, and claiming the personal loss suffered because of the separately faulty conduct of a bank, custodian, portfolio management company or public administration, may rest on different legal grounds. Whether compensation is possible requires an examination of fault, breach of obligation, loss, causal link, and the statute of limitations/judicial route. Loss items that fall outside the liquidation must be shown separately; however, no claim may be framed that would lead to collecting the same loss twice.

Prior payments and offset

Under Article 4(5) of Law No. 7596, payments made earlier through liquidation, recovery or other legal routes are offset against the final payment. For this reason, when a suit is filed, the interim payments actually received, compensation claims and the loss not yet covered should be calculated separately; alternative loss theories should not create an expectation of double recovery on the same amount.

Claims against the bank, the portfolio management company, the custodian and the independent auditor

Private-law actions require a separate assessment of jurisdiction and the proper respondent

The bank’s duty to transmit or process the fund sell order, the portfolio management company’s duty to manage the fund, the custodian’s duties of protection and control, and the independent auditor’s reporting duty do not legally replace one another. Which specific obligation was breached by the relevant institution, because of which transaction and on which date must be put to it.

Whether the case is heard in a consumer court, a commercial court or another private-law court is determined according to the capacity of the party, the consumer or commercial nature of the transaction, the special rule of subject-matter jurisdiction and the basis of the claim. No generalization should be made that all bank cases must necessarily be heard in a single court. Whether mediation is a condition precedent to litigation must also be checked separately according to the claim chosen and the type of court.

Why should the Article 5 mechanism of Law No. 7596 be kept separate for fund loss?

Article 5 of Law No. 7596 regulates special provisions on the loss suffered by the fund, and on liability, because of values unlawfully removed from fund assets. Under Article 5(2), there is first the liability of the portfolio management company, then the pursuit of other liable persons under the determined conditions, and, under Article 5(4), the collection and enforcement powers of the TMSF based on Law No. 6183. This fund-level recovery system is not the same claim and enforcement route as the investor’s own private-law action.

The limit of the Istanbul administrative courts provision in Article 5(4) of Law No. 7596

Article 5(4) of the Law introduces a special rule of territorial jurisdiction for the TMSF collection and enforcement acts within the scope of Article 5. It cannot be concluded from the provision that all SPK decisions are to be litigated in Istanbul, that a civil action against a bank is to be filed in an administrative court, or that all investors are automatically granted a personal right to compensation.

A criminal investigation and the recovery of assets do not automatically eliminate private-law routes

Article 6 of Law No. 7596 regulates seizure under CMK Article 128, the return of assets to the fund under certain conditions, the appointment of the TMSF as trustee, transfer to the fund or the recovery account after confiscation, and tracking in separate accounts on a fund-by-fund basis. It also provides, under certain conditions, for the transfer of the relevant resources to the Investor Compensation Center (YTM) and their distribution to unitholders after the liquidation is completed.

This YTM role does not mean that all fund losses within the ordinary investor compensation system are placed under a state guarantee. Likewise, the opening of a criminal investigation does not mean that criminal liability has become final or that personal compensation has been proved. The recovery of assets seized in the criminal investigation, the administrative court action and private-law liability claims are assessed within their own conditions.

What strong defenses may the respondent administration and other institutions raise?

SPK’s public-interest and market-security defense

The Board may rely on the protection of funds, equal treatment, prompt liquidation and market integrity. Against the violation of interest asserted by the investor, it may argue that the decision aims to protect not only a particular person but the hundreds of thousands of other fund unitholders. The allegation of unlawfulness must therefore rest not merely on a market loss but on why the measure is problematic in terms of its competence, cause, subject, proportionality and individual effect.

The defense that settlement was not completed and the investor remained a fund unitholder

SPK and the relevant institutions may argue that settlement was not completed because the transaction did not result in cash, that the PBLK record is only a blockage, and that Article 3(5) of Law No. 7596 determines this status. An investor who counters that, in the specific case, the stage giving rise to a claim was reached should respond with the order of the transactions and the relevant norms. A simple screenshot may not by itself prove the entire chain of records.

Defenses of lapse of time, no final act and wrong respondent

The respondent administration may argue that a press announcement cannot be the subject of a lawsuit; that the period for the first decision has passed; that the later application did not stop the period; and that the new lawsuit was directed at the wrong institution or the wrong branch of the judiciary. At the preliminary examination stage, these are extremely strong objections. The petition should begin with a list of acts, the basis and date of each act, the relief sought and the grounds for jurisdiction.

The defense that there is no loss and no causal link

The payment that can be obtained from the liquidation balance, the change in market value, the bank’s duty to process the transaction and the public administration’s supervisory duty must be kept apart. Not every economic loss of value turns automatically into a service fault of the administration or liability of the bank. The obligation breached, the legally protected interest, the loss calculation and an adequate causal link must be explained with concrete evidence.

An act–lawsuit–evidence matrix for litigation strategy

This matrix is not an automatic choice of lawsuit. The type of action, the respondent, the time limit, the interest, the subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction and the conditions of the action must each be verified separately in the specific file.

How should the lawsuit file and the evidence be prepared?

Turn the chain of transactions into a chronology

All time stamps in the file should be arranged in a single sequence: the purchase of the fund units; the announcement of the fund price; the entry of the sell order; the creation of the TEFAS and brokerage firm records; the value date; the closing of the fund to transactions; cancellation or blockage; the practices of September 28 and October 22; the entry into force of Law No. 7596; the MKK calculation; the interim payment; the individual objection and the reply; and, if any, the date the lawsuit was filed.

Show which legal fact each record proves

• The MKK account and the number of fund units can support the claim of fund unitholding;
• the TEFAS and bank order log, the time the instruction was transmitted and accepted;
• the Takasbank and PBLK record, the settlement and blockage status;
• the fund price/value date records, the transaction conditions to which the investor is entitled;
• cash inflows and outflows and earlier payments, the net investment amount and the offset calculation;
• the SPK decision, the individual notification and the rejection letter, the nature of the act that is the subject of the lawsuit and the start of the period;
• the relevant contracts, internal control records and institutional correspondence, the breach of obligation and the causal link.

For documents that are not at hand, the principle of ex officio investigation under İYUK Article 20 and a request that the court obtain records from the relevant institutions may be important. However, the lack of documents does not by itself make it safe to let the filing period lapse. The minimum link between the act and the interest must be established for the lawsuit, and completing the evidence must be kept separate from the strategy on the procedural time limit.

Claims should be framed so that they do not harm one another

For one fund unit, the claims “the sale was completed and a definite claim to money arose” and, on the other hand, “my unitholding continued unchanged and I want the liquidation balance” should not be presented as compatible definite claims before the legal position has been clarified. The consistency of primary and alternative claims with substantive law, whether these possibilities can be asserted in the alternative, and the court’s jurisdiction must be assessed separately. Otherwise the claimant may, by their own account, weaken their claim of loss, receivable or party capacity.

What procedural stages should be followed after the lawsuit is filed?

After the petition is filed, the preliminary examination conditions under İYUK Articles 14–15 should be checked as to subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, capacity, final act, time limit and the proper respondent. Where necessary, attention should be given to the grounds for a stay of execution, documents that remedy deficiencies at the preliminary examination, and requests to obtain SPK/MKK/Takasbank records. If a stay of execution is rejected, the available objection route, the notification of the decision and the relevant current time-limit rules should be assessed separately.

After the judgment on the merits, the appeal period, the acts to which the annulment ruling applies, the administration’s duty of enforcement under İYUK Article 28, any new calculation or rejection act and the timing of any compensation action are assessed together. It should not be assumed that a decision obtained by one investor automatically and indefinitely protects everyone else’s claim. The scope of the decision and other people’s personal litigation and application periods are different.

Related articles: SPK Fund Liquidation: Investor Rights, Payment Process and Legal Routes of Recourse; Criminal Investigation and Recovery of Losses in Investment Funds Ordered into Liquidation by the SPK; Liability of Banks and Brokerage Firms for Unexecuted Fund Sell Orders

Conclusion: What determines success is not the number of lawsuits but the right legal characterization

In the 2026 investment fund disputes, the legal roadmap cannot be built on a single statute or SPK decision. The liquidation acts of September 17, the instruction practice of September 28, the PBLK and settlement interpretation of October 22, the special Law of October 27 and Decision No. 76/1903, and the statement of November 6 on closed funds outside the liquidation must be kept apart. An act and a direct statutory provision, administrative annulment and full remedy and private-law compensation, and fund loss and the investor’s individual loss are subject to separate legal examinations.

November 16, 2026 is a possible date that matters in calculating the filing period only for a first act that meets the specific conditions. It is mistaken both to present this date to all investors as a day of definitive loss of rights and to assume that everyone’s period has started anew because of later acts. The basic condition of legal protection is the right act, the right respondent, the right judicial route, the right time limit and the right technical evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is November 16, 2026 the last day to file a lawsuit for all investors?

No. This date stands out for a particular act of September 17 on the assumption that the general 60-day period began on September 18. For other acts, individual rejections, implementing acts, special periods and duly made administrative applications, the period is calculated separately.

Can an annulment action be filed separately against each SPK press announcement?

No. It must be determined whether the press announcement explains the actual Board decision and whether it contains an independent final and enforceable administrative act. A different date alone does not create a new subject of litigation.

Can Law No. 7596 be annulled in an administrative court?

The Law itself cannot be annulled directly in an administrative court. A constitutional objection under Constitution Article 152 may be raised against the statutory provision to be applied in the specific case; an application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) depends on the court’s decision.

Are all lawsuits against SPK decisions filed in Istanbul?

No. Article 134 of Law No. 6362 regulates the administrative judiciary for Board decisions. The Istanbul jurisdiction in Article 5(4) of Law No. 7596 concerns special cases linked to the TMSF enforcement and collection regime of Article 5. Subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction must be determined separately in the specific case.

Does filing a lawsuit against an SPK decision automatically stop the liquidation?

No. If the conditions of İYUK Article 27 are met, a stay of execution may be requested separately. The two conditions and the specific damage that is difficult to remedy must be substantiated.

Is 1 million TL a ceiling on definitive compensation or a receivable?

No. The figure in Article 4(2) of Law No. 7596 is the ceiling of an interim payment that can be made under certain conditions; it is not a general limit on all final payments or personal loss claims.

Can an investor with a PBLK record receive the sale proceeds directly?

No such outcome follows from the PBLK record alone. The instruction and settlement stage, Law No. 6362 Article 79, Law No. 7596 Article 3(5) and the relevant implementing decisions must be examined together.

If I apply to SPK, will my filing period necessarily stop?

No. İYUK Articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 apply to different situations. The nature of the application, whether it was made in time, its addressee and the content of the request are decisive. The mere fact that a petition was sent does not automatically stop the period.

Is a lawsuit against a bank or custodian filed in an administrative court?

Not always. If there is a compensation claim based on the institution’s specific contractual/private-law obligation, the private-law court with jurisdiction and the conditions of the action are examined separately. The same procedure as an annulment action against an SPK decision does not apply.

Can a compensation action not be filed before the criminal investigation is completed?

There is no such general bar. The criminal investigation, the recovery mechanism of Law No. 7596 Article 6 and personal administrative/private-law claims may each have independent conditions. Care should be taken that the same loss is not collected twice and that the evidence is lawful.

Does an annulment action won by another investor also protect my time limit?

It does not protect it automatically. The act annulled by the decision and the scope of the annulment must be assessed separately from the applicant’s own act and time limit.

What should be done if I do not have my MKK, TEFAS or Takasbank records?

With the records at hand, the link between the act and the interest should be identified, and a legally appropriate route should be followed to obtain the missing records from the relevant institutions or through the court. Waiting to collect documents does not safely extend the filing period.

Sources and legal bases

1. Law No. 7596 on Certain Investment Funds Ordered into Liquidation, October 27, 2026, Official Gazette No. 33413, in particular Arts. 1, 3–6, 8: resmigazete.gov.tr
2. Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), in particular Arts. 2, 7, 10–15, 20, 27, 28, 32; official legislation access: mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr
3. Capital Markets Law No. 6362, in particular Arts. 79 and 134; BDDK legislation version: bddk.org.tr
4. Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, in particular Arts. 2, 13, 35, 36, 125, 152: anayasa.gov.tr
5. Law No. 6216, in particular Art. 40; official explanation of the Constitutional Court: anayasa.gov.tr
6. SPK, Number of Investors in the Funds Subject to Liquidation, September 23, 2026: spk.gov.tr
7. SPK, Press Announcement on the Liquidation Period, September 28, 2026: spk.gov.tr
8. SPK, Settlement Finality and PBLK Matters, October 22, 2026: spk.gov.tr
9. SPK, Procedures and Principles on Liquidation and Payments (76/1903), October 27, 2026: spk.gov.tr
10. SPK, Funds Closed to Buying and Selling on TEFAS and on Distribution Channels Outside TEFAS, November 6, 2026: spk.gov.tr
11. Council of State (Danıştay) 2nd Chamber, November 9, 2007, E.2007/1282, K.2007/4240 (distinction of a final and enforceable act; not specific to fund liquidation): app.dejure.ai
12. Council of State (Danıştay) 6th Chamber, April 15, 2025, E.2024/7963, K.2025/1995 (regulatory act and implementing act; zoning dispute; rendered by majority vote): app.dejure.ai
13. Atty. Gökhan Bilgin, “The Scope of an Annulment Action Against Fund Liquidation Before November 16,” Hukuki Haber, November 8, 2026 (comparative current assessment; the legal conclusions have been separately checked against official sources): hukukihaber.net
14. Güneş & Güneş Law Firm, “SPK Fund Liquidation: Investor Rights, Payment Process and Legal Routes of Recourse”: gunesgunes.com
15. Güneş & Güneş Law Firm, “Criminal Investigation and Recovery of Losses in Investment Funds Ordered into Liquidation by the SPK”: gunesgunes.com
16. Güneş & Güneş Law Firm, “Liability of Banks and Brokerage Firms for Unexecuted Fund Sell Orders”: gunesgunes.com