Default Interest and Excessive Loss Claims for Unexecuted Fund Redemption Instructions

In an investment fund that is being liquidated, the failure of a sell instruction to be executed may not require the investor merely to wait for the liquidation payment; where the conditions are met, default interest and compensation for the loss exceeding that interest may also be claimed. To that end, the giving of the instruction, its transmission to TEFAS, the applicable price, the payment value date and the maturity of the debt should each be determined separately. Within the framework of the September–October 2026 decisions of the Capital Markets Board (SPK), this article examines canceled orders, the credit and rent burdens arising from the delay, the distinction between the responsible institutions and the protection of rights when payment is received. The current interest rules and the Caner Şafak judgment of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) are assessed without assuming that every investor is automatically granted a right to interest or to an inflation differential.

What claims can a delay in a fund redemption give rise to?

For an investor who wants to sell a fund, the failure of the money to reach the account is a problem felt directly in daily life. Being unable to use an amount set aside for a credit card debt, rent or a business payment may add new financial burdens to the uncertainty in the fund account. However, when a legal claim is being built, the money originally invested, the redemption price of the participation unit, the balance to be distributed at the end of the liquidation and the loss arising from the delay should be distinguished from one another. The fund’s loss of value and the late payment of a money debt that has fallen due cannot be assessed with the same calculation. [1, Art. 117–122] [2, Art. 14, 15, 28]

The first question is whether the investor’s right to claim a specific amount on a specific date has arisen. The second question is which institution bears the obligation to pay that amount or to process the instruction correctly. Default interest rests on the legal delay of the payment obligation; excessive loss (aşkın zarar), on the other hand, rests on the compensable consequences of that delay that exceed the interest. An error by another institution in transmitting the order may also give rise to that institution’s own contractual liability. [1, Art. 112, 117, 120, 122]

This assessment is based on the rules that could be verified as of October 18, 2026. No single payment method or single default date is assumed for all funds linked to Tera, Pusula, Hedef, Atlas, A1 Capital, Pardus and Bulls. The fund code, the valid transaction documents and SPK decisions that change later are the starting point of the specific claim. [3] [11] [12]

How are the sell instruction, the price date, the value date and maturity distinguished?

Why is the instruction date on the bank screen not sufficient?

The appearance of a sell instruction in the bank’s app does not by itself show that the order was transmitted to TEFAS at the same time and turned into a finalized money claim. The time of transmission, the acceptance or rejection information, the reason for cancellation and the fund’s trading rules should be examined together. Particularly for orders given after the trading cut-off time, the applicable price and the payment date may change. [2, Art. 14–15] [4]

The fund’s prospectus in force on the relevant date and its purchase and sale principles published on KAP should be examined. Money market funds and funds with forward pricing or a notice period are subject to different conditions; hedge funds may have longer redemption periods. A forward price or a payment value date does not show that the transmission of the order to the platform may also be held back until that date. The final date and time of the transmission obligation are determined separately. [2, Art. 14–15] [4]

An order that could never be created, an order that was accepted but not transmitted, a rejection or cancellation with disputed reasons, and non-payment of the price of a completed sale are different problems. The absence of an order number in the system does not by itself refute a sale attempt; error and call records may be investigated. If there was no sale attempt either, another basis for the claim is required, such as a breach in fund management or in the duty to inform. [1, Art. 112, 117] [2] [4]

Is the unit value on the screen the principal for the interest calculation?

The latest value on the account screen, the amount initially invested or the return the investor expected is not directly the principal for the interest calculation. First, which money debt has arisen and its amount should be determined. If the redemption price is to be the basis, the applicable price, the number of units and the legally valid deductions are examined; if a liquidation claim is at issue, the distribution calculation is examined. Applying the correct interest rate to the wrong amount also produces a wrong result. [2, Art. 14, 15, 28] [3]

How does the SPK’s September 28 statement affect unexecuted orders?

TEFAS instructions of September 16 and earlier

The SPK’s statement of September 28, 2026 took as its basis the processing, at their ordinary value dates, of instructions transmitted to TEFAS on or before September 16. For instructions in this group that were not executed because the fund fell into default or the unit price was not announced, the statement pointed to the liquidation procedures. Relying solely on the day the instruction was given to the bank may therefore be misleading. [4]

In a public complaint dated September 18, an investor claimed that a sell order relating to earlier days had been canceled without the investor’s request. TEB’s published reply states that the application has been received; it is not a decision that admits fault or explains all stages of the instruction. Such a record makes it meaningful, in a legal review, to ask about the TEFAS transmission time and the reason for cancellation. The existence of the complaint does not show that the allegation is true or that the bank’s liability has been proven. [17]

September 17 orders and item A/6 of Bulletin No. 2026/61

According to the same SPK statement, all instructions dated September 17, including those placed before 13:30, were canceled in order to comply with the decision to close trading. In this group, it cannot be said that the ordinary sale price became final solely on the basis of the cut-off time; the investor’s right in the liquidation balance is assessed separately. [4]

Item A/6 of Bulletin No. 2026/61 provides for recording the counter-value of unexecuted TEFAS redemption instructions falling within its scope as a fund liability and for paying them first from the cash obtained. Read together with the September 28 statement, the position of orders transmitted on or before September 16 and not executed because of the fund’s default or failure to announce a price is distinct from the right of holders of orders canceled on September 17 to a pro rata share of the liquidation balance. The fact that both groups are within the liquidation does not show that they have the same payment right. [3, A/6] [4]

The fact that orders placed after 13:30 on September 16 and those placed before 13:30 on September 17 are subject to the same price value date does not remove this distinction either. The day on which the price is determined and the day of transmission to TEFAS serve different functions. Priority is not a guarantee of full and immediate collection or of the bank making up any shortfall; nor can precedence over all other fund liabilities be inferred from A/6. A liability entry does not by itself determine the default date; restrictions on channels outside TEFAS are also taken into account. [3, A/5–6 and B] [4]

On what date does default interest begin?

A money debt that has fallen due and the formal notice rule

Under Article 117 TBK, a debtor, as a rule, falls into default when the formal notice (ihtar) concerning a debt that has fallen due reaches the debtor. Maturity means that the claim can legally be demanded; a formal notice is an explicit demand for performance of that debt. A sale price that has not yet arisen or has not yet fallen due cannot be made due retroactively merely by sending a formal notice. [1, Art. 117]

If the parties have fixed the day on which the debt is to be performed, or if one of the other statutory cases of default without notice applies, a separate formal notice may not be required. Whether the value date in the fund documents constitutes such a performance date, its connection with the contract and the validity of the transaction are examined. The start of default for compensation based on a tort is also not automatically the same as for a contractual redemption claim. [1, Art. 117]

A sale whose payment day can be determined from the contract and the transaction confirmation is not the same as a transaction request that has not yet turned into a sale price. In the first case, the missing of the performance date is investigated; in the second, why the instruction was not completed. The same interest schedule starting from the instruction date cannot be applied to both.

Does the liquidation period or a seizure automatically determine default?

With the SPK’s September 21 announcement, the maximum three-month period in the relevant liquidation procedure was extended to six months; the announcement also stated that the liquidation could be completed earlier. This change does not by itself show that every investor must wait six months for all rights or that all payment obligations that had already arisen are postponed by the same period. The specific payment obligation is assessed together with the scope of the special decision. [19] [1, Art. 117]

Closing trading, assigning liquidation duties and judicial seizure are different acts. If an institution attributes its inability to pay to an official measure, it should be investigated which asset and transaction the decision covers, when it began and whether there was an earlier breach. For default interest on a money debt, the debtor’s fault is not required; by contrast, the maturity of the debt, the legal effect of the impediment to performance and, with regard to excessive loss, the defense of absence of fault are separate issues. The explanation “there is a measure” does not produce a single result covering all periods. [1, Art. 117–122] [3]

What interest rate may apply to a fund redemption claim?

The 2026 amendment: How is statutory interest calculated?

Law No. 7589, published on July 31, 2026, amended Article 1 of Law No. 3095. For interest whose rate is not fixed in the contract, the new calculation is based on eighty percent of the short-term rediscount rate of the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (TCMB) on December 31 of the previous year. If the June 30 rate differs from the previous year-end rate by at least five points, eighty percent of that new rate applies in the second half of the year. Therefore, carrying the 24 percent figure for the earlier period directly over to September–October 2026 claims is not correct. [5] [6]

In the TCMB table reviewed on October 18, 2026, from December 20, 2025 the rediscount rate is 38.75 percent and the advance rate is 39.75 percent; the table shows no later change. With these official data, the new Article 1 calculation gives a result of 31 percent per year: 38.75 × 0.80. This rate is for Turkish lira debts to which the statutory rate will apply after the contract and special provisions have been examined; it does not mean that every fund claim is automatically subject to the same regime. [5] [6] [7]

Commercial default interest and the contractual rate

Article 2 of Law No. 3095 makes it possible to claim the higher TCMB advance rate in commercial matters where the conditions are met. In the period reviewed, this rate is 39.75 percent per year. The commercial nature of the relationship, the basis of the claim and whether a valid interest agreement exists should be assessed. The fact that the investor is a natural person does not by itself resolve all interest issues, nor does the fact that the other party is a bank mean that an unlimited rate applies to every item. [6, Art. 2] [7] [9, Art. 8, 19]

The type of interest, the rate, the principal and the start date should be shown separately in the claim. In a calculation covering past periods, rate changes are divided into periods; the dates of partial payments are taken into account. The contractual limits in Article 120 TBK and the provisions specific to commercial matters and consumer transactions are examined together. The rule that default interest cannot accrue on default interest should not be overlooked either. [1, Art. 120–121] [6] [9, Art. 8]

What is excessive loss and under what conditions may it be claimed?

Article 122 TBK provides for additional compensation where the loss caused by the delay of a money debt exceeds the default interest. The creditor should establish the compensable loss and its connection with the delay. The debtor, in turn, can escape this additional liability by proving that no fault whatsoever can be attributed to it. While no separate proof of loss and fault is required for default interest, the examination of excessive loss includes these additional elements. [1, Art. 120, 122]

The calculation is made for the same period and the same delay: from the total loss caused by the delay that can legally be taken into account, the portion covered by default interest is set aside. It is not possible to claim the entire credit cost and also collect the same loss again under the name of interest. By contrast, if there are several separate items of loss, the cause of each and their relationship to one another should be explained. [1, Art. 50–52, 122]

The fund’s loss of value because of the market is not by itself excessive loss. The price or collection difference caused by an order error may be examined under Article 112 TBK; the consequence of the delay of a money debt that has fallen due, to the extent it exceeds interest, may be examined under Article 122. Not every loss should be gathered under the same heading. [1] [2, Art. 14–15]

How are the price difference, the collection loss and the remaining liquidation right calculated?

Hypothetical price difference example: If the valid price that should have applied to an order processed on time was 10 Turkish lira (TL), but 100,000 units were sold at 8.50 TL because of the institution’s breach, the difference is 150,000 TL: 100,000 × (10 − 8.50). Taxes, deductions and interest are outside this example. A price seen on the screen but not established as valid cannot be used as the basis. [1, Art. 112] [2, Art. 14]

Hypothetical collection difference example: If it is proven that 1,000,000 TL would have been collected had the transaction been processed properly, a total of 720,000 TL was received in the final liquidation and no other right remains, the difference is 280,000 TL. However, if it appears that the fund would have been unable to pay even with timely transmission, it cannot be accepted that one million lira would certainly have been collected. In the case of a loss of priority as well, how much payment could have been received, and when, had there been no breach is compared with the actual situation. [1, Art. 112] [3, A/5–6]

While the liquidation is ongoing, the remaining right can neither be treated as zero nor accepted as cash on hand equal to the amount written on it. Its value is investigated by reference to the assets, the liabilities, the order of payment and the prospects of collection. An interim payment received and the full value of the units still shown should not be added together: since the interim payment will be deducted from the final calculation, counting the same amount twice distorts the loss calculation. When price, collection and delay differences are combined, the same loss cannot be claimed a second time either. [1, Art. 50, 112, 122] [11]

How are rent, credit card and commercial payment burdens documented?

The difference between a payment concern and a financial loss that has actually occurred

In a public complaint dated September 17, an investor stated that they could not sell the Tera fund and that upcoming rent and credit card payments were at risk. VakıfBank’s reply of the same day indicated that the matter had been forwarded to the relevant unit. This record is an investor statement showing a need for access to cash; it does not show that late-payment interest has actually accrued or that the bank’s fault has been established. [18]

For a legal claim, the next stage should be investigated: How much of the card debt could not be paid, what additional interest or cost arose on which date, and would this cost have arisen if the fund price had been paid on time? The principal of an already existing credit debt is not a new loss created by the fund delay. In the calculation, the cost added by the delay should be separated. [1, Art. 50, 52, 122]

These documents do not by themselves provide automatic compensation; the amount of the loss, adequate causation and the portion exceeding default interest are assessed together. Where the exact amount cannot be fully proven, Article 50/2 TBK allows the judge to make an assessment; this too requires specific facts concerning the existence and extent of the loss. [1, Art. 50, 122]

Why is the possibility of preventing the loss from growing examined?

The investor’s contribution to an increase in costs that could reasonably have been avoided may be assessed under Article 52 TBK. The investor is not required in all circumstances to find new borrowing or to sell other assets at a loss. Payment deferral and alternative financing should be genuinely accessible. In a fund closed to sales, it cannot be assumed that the investor could have sold and prevented the loss. [1, Art. 52, 114]

A hypothesis constructed afterwards, such as “If I had had the money, I would have bought the fund that earned the most,” does not carry the same weight as a credit cost that has actually been incurred. If lost profit is asserted, a pre-existing intention to transact, an applicable contract or other specific facts should be explained; the return of an investment instrument that rose afterwards should not alone be taken as the basis. [1, Art. 50, 122]

Is the inflation differential automatically treated as excessive loss?

What does the Caner Şafak pilot judgment say?

The Constitutional Court’s Caner Şafak [GK], Application No. 2024/41763, July 8, 2025 judgment concerns the loss of value, against inflation, of a claim between private persons during a lengthy collection process. It is not a judgment rendered on a fund liquidation. The Court found a violation of the right to an effective remedy in connection with the right of ownership; the majority adopted the pilot judgment procedure because of the structural nature of the problem. [8]

The judgment assessed the shortcomings in practice regarding the remedying of inflation-related loss and the differing approaches to proof. Nevertheless, the Court rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation; it did not establish a general calculation formula ordering that a specific index differential be paid to all creditors. The reasoning in the dissenting opinions, which accepted the finding of a violation but disagreed with the method of redress, should also not be confused with the majority’s judgment. [8]

In light of this judgment, it is not accurate to say that inflation data are legally irrelevant in every case. Likewise, merely subtracting the interest from the consumer price index (CPI) rate and presenting the resulting amount as a definite claim goes beyond the scope of the judgment. The claim should explain the period of the loss of value, the interest applied, the amounts collected and the constitutional assessment; any person-specific financial costs should be documented separately. The conclusion in this section is a legal assessment of the judgment with respect to fund redemption disputes; it is not a transposition of a special ruling rendered in favor of fund investors. [1, Art. 122] [8]

How do developments after the judgment affect the interest claim?

The pilot judgment provided for a six-month postponement, running from publication in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete), for similar individual applications. This procedural decision is not a rule that automatically suspends the statute of limitations in the investor’s civil action or prohibits everyone from bringing an action. The judgment’s initial postponement period cannot be presented as a general waiting period still running for all applications as of October 18, 2026. [8] [1, Art. 146–154]

The next specific legislative development is the amendment of the statutory interest calculation by Law No. 7589. Even though the new rate is higher, it does not follow that in every case the loss has been fully remedied or that Article 122 TBK no longer has any field of application. First, the correct interest for the relevant period is calculated; then the additional loss asserted is assessed. [5] [6] [1, Art. 122]

When may the fund founder, the selling bank and the liquidating bank be liable?

The fund founder’s debt and the institution’s personal liability

An investment fund has no legal personality; the separate fund assets are distinct from the assets of the founder and of the custodian. The fund founder represents the fund and bears the management, supervision and transaction obligations set out in the legislation. The provisions on mandate also apply to the relationship between the founder and the holders of participation units. For this reason, the redemption amount to be paid from the fund account and a loss that an institution must make good from its own assets are not the same legal claim. [2, Art. 3, 5, 8–9]

In preparing a lawsuit, merely saying “there is a fund debt” is not enough. It should be explained against whom the debt is directed, by whom the fund is represented and for which breach the institution is held personally liable. Entrusting portfolio management to another institution does not entirely remove the founder’s statutory obligations either. [2, Art. 9] [1, Art. 112, 116]

The selling bank’s error in transmitting the order

It should be determined when the distributing institution was obliged to transmit the order; the difference between the day of the order at the bank and the TEFAS day is not by itself a breach. If an order that should have been transmitted on September 16 was held over to September 17 because of the institution’s breach, the loss of the sale or of the A/6 priority is investigated. Even if a normal sale would not have taken place with timely transmission, the priority might have been preserved; therefore, the explanation “the fund was going to close anyway” alone does not end the examination. The collection that could have been made had the priority been preserved is compared with the payments the investor has received and may receive. [1, Art. 112] [3] [4]

The breach, the loss and the link between them should be established by the investor; under Article 112 TBK, the burden of proving absence of fault lies with the debtor institution. The explanation “a technical error occurred” does not by itself prove absence of fault. The source and duration of the malfunction, the transaction records and the alternative channels that could have been used should be specified. [1, Art. 112]

A general exclusion-of-liability clause in the contract is not sufficient either. Article 115/1 TBK treats an advance agreement excluding liability for gross fault as absolutely null and void. If the conditions in Article 115/3 for a specialized service subject to authorization by law or by a competent authority are met, an advance exclusion of liability even for slight fault is invalid. The scope of the clause should be examined together with the service undertaken. [1, Art. 115]

A claim that the fund was presented as “risk-free” or as convertible into cash at any time is examined separately in light of the content of the statement and its effect on the investment decision. SPK approval is not an assurance of returns; the loss caused by misleading information may not be limited to late-payment interest alone. [2, Art. 13/5] [1, Art. 112]

Within what limits are custody and liquidation duties assessed?

The portfolio custodian may be liable for losses arising from breaches of its own custody and supervision obligations; it is not an unlimited guarantor of every market loss of the fund. The actions of the bank assigned in the liquidation process, on the other hand, are examined in light of the assignment decision, the founder duties it has assumed and its own conduct. While regulating these duties, Bulletin No. 2026/61 also reserved the custodian’s liability. [10] [3]

There is an important distinction here: Assuming liquidation duties and legally replacing the fund founder may not be the same act. Article 29/5 of Communiqué No. III-52.1 provides for the joint liability of both founders for prior legal obligations in the event of a genuine change of founder. Therefore, it cannot be said in advance either that the liquidating bank will never be liable for past transactions, or that it personally assumed all past debts at the moment of its assignment. [2, Art. 29/5] [3]

How can decisions on unexecuted orders be applied to a fund dispute?

The decisions below help in examining technical errors, valid prices and subject-matter jurisdiction; none of them is a general compensation decision rendered for the September 2026 fund liquidation. The limits of the two Forex disputes and of the jurisdiction dispute concerning an investment fund account should be respected.

In the Regional Court of Appeal case, the technical-error defense was not proven; the fact that other customers’ transactions were executed was also taken into account. As for the subsequent margin loss, the investor’s keeping the position open despite the opportunity to close it was significant for causation. If the fund investor was legally prevented from selling, the same opportunity cannot be assumed. The Court of Cassation’s decision on erroneous Forex data does not authorize an institution to treat a fund price as invalid without giving reasons either. [20] [21]

What information should a written application and formal notice contain?

The application should specify the fund’s full name and code, the number of units, the order number, its date and time, the channel through which the instruction was given and the records requested. The TEFAS transmission time, changes in the transaction status, the reason for cancellation, and the price and value date that should have applied should also be asked about. If what is sought is payment, one should not settle for a letter that only requests information; it should be stated clearly which claim’s performance is being demanded. [1, Art. 117] [4]

It should be possible to prove that the formal notice reached the addressee. The choice between a notary public and an appropriate electronic notification method is assessed according to the status of the parties; for notices between merchants, Article 18/3 TTK is also taken into account. Although a customer service call helps in obtaining information, it may cause problems in proving the formal notice if the content of the conversation and the person reached are unclear. [9, Art. 18/3] [1, Art. 117]

The institution’s reply, the error code, the app transaction log, the call record and the account statement should be preserved. Requesting the production of the documents held by the institution, by specifying the particular order and time range, and, where there is a risk that they will be lost or that their use will become significantly more difficult, preservation of evidence may be considered. The court-appointed expert examines the technical operation and the financial difference; the court decides on legal liability. [14, Art. 190, 194, 219, 266, 400]

Does receiving an interim payment or the principal end the right to interest?

The current interim payment procedure and the change for the Hedef funds

The procedure set out in the SPK’s October 1 announcement provides for an interim payment of up to 1 million TL per investor and per fund for rights holders whose reconciliation has been completed. This payment, calculated on a net investment basis, is in the nature of an advance to be offset (mahsup) against the final liquidation balance; the announcement stated that no units would be redeemed during the interim payment. Accordingly, “1 million TL” is not a general cap on all losses or on all investor claims. [11]

By Decision No. 70/1821 dated October 15, the Hedef funds were removed from the former scope and brought under the 64/1770 procedure applied to A1 Capital, Bulls and Pardus. Therefore, as of October 18, the earlier description of interim payments covering four founders is no longer current; the relevant procedure for Tera, Pusula and Atlas and the new position of Hedef should be followed separately. Whether a payment entry is an interim payment, a final liquidation payment or the performance of a specific redemption debt should be determined before the interest examination. [12] [11]

How is accrued interest preserved under Article 131 TBK?

Under Article 131 TBK, when the principal debt is extinguished, the interest debt attached to it is, as a rule, also extinguished. Accrued interest may be claimed if the right to claim it has been reserved by contract or by a notice given no later than the moment of performance, or if it is understood from the circumstances that it has been reserved. Saying “I did not sign a release” does not necessarily mean that the right to accrued interest has been preserved. [1, Art. 131]

Before the payment, or at the latest at the time of payment, it should be stated, by a notice addressed to the debtor whose receipt can be proven, for which debt the accrued interest is reserved. This notice does not create an interest claim that has not yet arisen; it serves to preserve an existing right. It is not correct to treat a general complaint record as a sufficient reservation-of-rights statement without looking at its content. [1, Art. 131]

Are excessive loss, release and offsetting examined separately?

A claim for excessive loss is not of the same nature as accrued interest. Nevertheless, a broad release or settlement document may also cover claims for additional compensation. When payment is accepted, the text of the document, prior notices and the legal nature of the payment should be assessed together. A single concluding sentence cannot be formulated for the extinction of the principal debt, the right to interest and an independent compensation claim. [1, Art. 122, 131–132] [8]

For partial payments, it should be explained which debt is reduced and on which balance interest continues to run. The TBK provisions on the imputation of payments and the special liquidation calculation are examined together. It should not be assumed that an interim payment is automatically counted only toward the principal or only toward interest. The account statement should show the number of units, the payment date, the gross amount, any deductions and previous offsets. [1, Art. 100–104] [3] [11]

Can the bill be confused with existing rights?

The committee’s adoption of Bill No. 2/3939 on funds in liquidation, submitted on October 9, was announced in a news release of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) on October 14; in the October 18 check, the bill’s record still showed its status as in committee. The special recovery or calculation provisions in the bill cannot be applied like a law in force. By contrast, the existing interim payment procedure, based on the SPK’s own decision, is a legal source separate from the bill becoming law. If the new law is published, its provisions on entry into force and transition should be examined separately. [13] [11]

Which court hears the interest and compensation claim?

How are subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction and mediation determined?

Whether the dispute belongs to the commercial court or to the consumer court cannot be determined merely by looking at the investment amount or at the fact that the other party is a bank. The purpose of the transaction, the status of the parties, the type of contract and the breach asserted are examined. If a person acting outside commercial or professional purposes has a consumer transaction, Law No. 6502 is assessed; if the matter is a commercial case, the TTK rules on subject-matter jurisdiction are assessed. [9, Art. 4–5] [15, Art. 3, 73, 83]

In the Regional Court of Appeal Forex decision above, the commercial purpose in the contract and the transaction volume were taken into account, whereas in the Court of Cassation’s decision on the name error in a fund account, the consumer court was found to have subject-matter jurisdiction. These outcomes do not establish a single jurisdiction rule for every investor. [20] [22]

If the relationship qualifies as a consumer transaction, in 2026 disputes below 186,000 TL go to the consumer arbitration committee (tüketici hakem heyeti); exactly 186,000 TL and above falls outside the committee. In this second group, taking into account Article 73/A TKHK and its exceptions, the consumer court is, as a rule, applied to after mediation. For commercial monetary claims and compensation actions, Article 5/A TTK applies. The threshold should be checked according to the year of application. [23] [15] [9]

For territorial jurisdiction, the court of general jurisdiction, the place of performance of the contract and, where applicable, the consumer’s domicile are assessed. A jurisdiction clause in the contract does not bind everyone; its validity conditions are examined. [14, Art. 6, 10, 17] [15]

What can be done if the amount of the claim cannot yet be calculated precisely?

With the July 31, 2026 amendment, Article 107 HMK was repealed, and a new fourth paragraph on increasing the claim in a partial action was added to Article 109. This provision allows a one-time increase until the investigation phase (tahkikat) ends and, for the increased portion, the statute of limitations to be deemed interrupted as of the date of the action. There is a special transitional provision for actions brought before the date of repeal. Using unchanged, in a new fund dispute, a ready-made petition based on the former Article 107 overlooks this change. [5, Art. 19–20, Provisional Art. 1/10]

The new possibility of increase does not revive a statute of limitations that had expired before the action was brought; nor does it remove the burden of proving loss and causation. The known amount, the start date, the loss items and the addressee of each claim should be specified from the outset. The fact that a loss has arisen is different from its amount not yet being fully calculable. [5] [14, Art. 190, 194] [2, Art. 9]

Can the end of the liquidation be awaited for statute of limitations purposes?

There is no single “fund statute of limitations” period for every claim. Although Article 146 TBK contains the general ten-year period, the five-year rule in Article 147 should be examined for claims arising from a mandate relationship and for interest on principal and other periodic claims. The connection between the founder–investor relationship and the provisions on mandate is therefore important. For claims based on tort, the two-year period running from knowledge and the ten-year period running from the act under Article 72, and, where necessary, the longer criminal statute of limitations, are assessed. The same period and the same starting point should not automatically be applied to the principal redemption claim, the accrued interest and the independent excessive loss claim. [1, Art. 72, 122, 146–147] [2, Art. 8–9]

The start of the period is determined according to the nature of the right asserted and its maturity. Acknowledgment of the debt, partial payment, an action or enforcement proceedings may be effective in interrupting the statute of limitations; in each case, the relevant debt and addressee should be checked. Merely sending a formal notice, complaining to the SPK or waiting for the liquidation announcement does not automatically interrupt all private law time limits. The effect of the mediation process as a condition precedent to litigation on time limits is calculated separately under Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes. [1, Art. 149, 154] [16]

Related articles: The Creditor's Elective Rights on the Debtor's Default: TBK 125; Statute of Limitations and Preclusive Periods: How Is the Time Limit for Bringing an Action Determined?; What Is Evidence Preservation? How to Protect Your Evidence Before Filing a Lawsuit; SPK Fund Liquidation: Investor Rights, Payment Process and Legal Routes of Recourse; Liability of Banks and Brokerage Firms for Unexecuted Fund Sell Orders; Damages Actions for Investment Fund Losses: Liability of the Portfolio Management Company, the Custodian and the Bank.

Conclusion

In the case of an unexecuted fund redemption instruction, a sound legal assessment first sets out the timeline of the transaction and the money debt that has arisen. Once the order record, the TEFAS transmission, the price, the value date, maturity and default have been determined, the correct interest regime can be applied. If credit or other payment costs are asserted, the additional cost created by the delay and the portion exceeding default interest should also be shown separately. [1] [4] [6]

The liabilities of the liquidator, the selling bank, the fund founder and the custodian are assessed on the basis of their own duties and acts. Receiving payment does not produce the same result for all claims either: the preservation of accrued interest, excessive loss, release and offsetting are examined separately. Assessing the current SPK decisions together with the 2026 changes in interest and procedure helps prevent both false expectations and an incomplete application that could lead to a loss of rights. [2] [3] [5] [10] [12]

Frequently Asked Questions

Does interest start to run on the day I gave the fund sell instruction?

The instruction day alone is not sufficient. The valid transaction, the applicable price, the payment day and maturity are determined; then the conditions of default with a formal notice or without notice are examined. [1, Art. 117] [2, Art. 14–15]

Do I have a definite right to payment for my order placed before 13:30 on September 17?

The SPK’s September 28 statement states that all instructions dated September 17 were canceled. A conclusion of definite payment outside the liquidation cannot be reached on the basis of the time information alone. If there is an allegation that an earlier instruction was processed incorrectly, its records are investigated separately. [4]

What can I claim if the order I gave the bank was transmitted to TEFAS late?

You may request disclosure of the records and, where the conditions are met, compensation for the loss arising from the breach. Whether the transaction would have been executed with correct transmission, the loss and the obligation of the relevant institution should be examined. [1, Art. 112] [4]

Is statutory interest still 24 percent in October 2026?

With the July 31 amendment and the TCMB data reviewed on October 18, the new statutory calculation is 31 percent per year. The possibility that commercial interest, a contractual rate or another special provision applies is assessed separately. [5] [6] [7]

Can I claim the entire debt of the loan I took out because I could not sell my fund?

The principal of the loan is not automatically a loss. The appropriate additional financing cost arising from the delay, causation and the portion exceeding default interest are examined. Existing debts and the new cost should be separated. [1, Art. 50, 122]

Does the Caner Şafak judgment provide for automatic payment of an inflation differential?

The judgment did not establish automatic fund compensation or a general indexation formula. It assessed the loss of value against inflation and the need for effective redress; a specific claim should be built on the interest for the relevant period and the existing loss information. [8]

If I receive the liquidation payment, does my right to interest end?

The nature of the payment and Article 131 TBK should be examined. For the right to accrued interest to be preserved when the principal debt is performed, it is important that there be a reservation in the contract, a notice given no later than the moment of performance, or a reservation that can be understood from the circumstances. [1, Art. 131]

Is the one million TL interim payment the upper limit of all my compensation?

No. The interim payment under the relevant SPK procedure is a payment to be taken into account in the final calculation. It is not a general compensation limit for all claims; the fund’s current procedure and, for Hedef, the October 15 change should be checked. [11] [12]

Is the liquidating bank liable for all past transactions?

The assignment alone does not produce such a result. The bank’s own obligations, its status as custodian and whether a change of founder has legally taken place are examined; Article 29/5 of the Communiqué is important with regard to this last possibility. [2] [3] [10]

Can an action be brought or a mediation application be made before the liquidation concludes?

If there is a legal interest, a claim that has fallen due and the relevant procedural conditions, an application may be considered. Waiting for the liquidation to end is not mandatory for every claim; the statute of limitations, subject-matter jurisdiction and mediation should be checked separately. [1, Art. 146–154] [9] [15] [16]

Sources and legal bases

The sources were checked on October 18, 2026. The originally adopted texts of the laws have been assessed together with the current amendments indicated and the official legislation records. Public complaints have been used only to show the existence of the statement and of the published reply.

1. Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu). Adopted: January 11, 2011. In particular Articles 50–52, 72, 100–104, 112, 114–122, 131–132, 146–149, 154. TBMM adopted text; Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı) legislation record.
2. SPK, Communiqué on Principles Regarding Investment Funds (Yatırım Fonlarına İlişkin Esaslar Tebliği), III-52.1. First published: July 9, 2013. Official consolidated text; fund structure, founder duties, price and redemption, liquidation, change of founder. Full text.
3. SPK, Bulletin No. 2026/61, Decision No. 57/1708 of September 17, 2026. In particular A/1, A/6 and B; liquidation duties, unexecuted redemption instructions and transaction restrictions. Bulletin.
4. SPK, Press Announcement on the Liquidation Period (Tasfiye Süresine İlişkin Basın Duyurusu), September 28, 2026. The distinction between instructions transmitted to TEFAS on or before September 16 and the September 17 instructions. Official statement.
5. Law No. 7589. Adopted: July 16, 2026; published: July 31, 2026, Official Gazette 33326. Statutory interest calculation by Article 10; HMK amendments by Articles 19–20; Provisional Article 1/10 and Article 26. Text of the law; TBMM law and publication record.
6. Law No. 3095 on Statutory Interest and Default Interest (Kanuni Faiz ve Temerrüt Faizine İlişkin Kanun). Adopted: December 4, 1984; Article 1 as amended by Law No. 7589, Articles 2, 3 and 4/a. Ministry of Justice current legislation record.
7. Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye, Rediscount and Advance Interest Rates (Reeskont ve Avans Faiz Oranları). Last change in the table reviewed: December 20, 2025; checked: October 18, 2026. Official rate table.
8. Constitutional Court, Caner Şafak [GK], Application No. 2024/41763, July 8, 2025. Official Gazette: September 29, 2025, issue 33032. Loss of value of a claim between private persons, right to an effective remedy, pilot judgment and redress; the dissenting opinions have been distinguished separately. Official decision record; Official Gazette PDF of the judgment; readable full text of the judgment.
9. Law No. 6102, Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu). Adopted: January 13, 2011. Articles 4, 5, 5/A, 8, 18/3 and 19; the current provisions on procedural prerequisites have also been checked. Ministry of Justice current legislation record; TBMM adopted text.
10. SPK, Portfolio Custodians Introductory Guide (Portföy Saklama Kuruluşları Tanıtım Rehberi). Checked: October 18, 2026. Explanations of duties and liability within the framework of Article 56 of the Capital Markets Law. Official guide.
11. SPK, Announcement on Interim Payments for Funds in Liquidation (Tasfiyedeki Fonlara İlişkin Ara Ödeme Duyurusu), October 1, 2026. Payment in the nature of an advance, net investment, calculation per fund and per rights holder; the subsequent decision for Hedef has also been taken into account. Official announcement.
12. SPK, Bulletin No. 2026/70, Decision No. 70/1821 of October 15, 2026. Last page; removal of the Hedef funds from the scope of 64/1775 and their inclusion in the scope of 64/1770. Bulletin.
13. TBMM, Bill No. 2/3939 on Certain Investment Funds Ordered to Be Liquidated (Tasfiyesine Karar Verilen Bazı Yatırım Fonları Hakkında Kanun Teklifi). Submitted: October 9, 2026; status checked on October 18: in committee. Committee adoption news: October 14, 2026. Legislative record of the bill; TBMM committee news.
14. Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu). Adopted: January 12, 2011. In particular Articles 6, 10, 17, 190, 194, 219, 266 and 400; for Articles 107 and 109 see also [5]. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
15. Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun). Adopted: November 7, 2013. Articles 3, 73, 73/A and 83; the distinctions between consumer transaction, subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction and mediation. Ministry of Trade (Ticaret Bakanlığı) legislation page; Ministry text containing Article 73/A. The old monetary thresholds in this source have not been used.
16. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu). Adopted: June 7, 2012. The effect of the mediation process on time limits; Articles 16 and 18/A. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
17. Şikayetvar, allegation of the cancellation of sell orders linked to TEB and Tera, September 18, 2026. Investor statement and TEB’s reply that the application was received; not a finding of unlawfulness or fault. Complaint and published reply.
18. Şikayetvar, allegation that rent and card payments were at risk because the Tera fund could not be sold through VakıfBank, September 17, 2026. Investor statement and the bank’s reply referring the matter for review; not a judicial finding that a cost arose or of fault. Complaint and published reply.
19. SPK, Time-Limit Arrangement for Funds Subject to Liquidation (Tasfiye Konusu Fonlara İlişkin Süre Düzenlemesi), September 21, 2026. Extension of the relevant maximum period to six months by Decision No. 59/1710 dated September 20. Official statement.
20. Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 13th Civil Chamber (İstanbul BAM 13. Hukuk Dairesi), November 21, 2024, E.2022/713, K.2024/1825. Unexecuted Forex take-profit orders, the technical-error defense and separate assessment of the subsequent margin loss; dismissal of the parties’ appeals on the merits. Full text of the decision.
21. Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi), March 30, 2022, E.2020/5562, K.2022/2600 and May 8, 2024, E.2023/1165, K.2024/3688. Reversal in a dispute over erroneous Forex price data and the upholding of the decision issued in compliance with the reversal; the 2022 majority reasoning and the dissenting opinion have been assessed separately. Full text of both decisions.
22. Court of Cassation, 20th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 20. Hukuk Dairesi), September 20, 2016, E.2016/8375, K.2016/8081. Designation of the consumer court as the forum under Articles 21–22 HMK in a dispute over the inability to withdraw money because of a name error in an investment fund account. Full text of the decision.
23. Ministry of Trade, Information Note on Consumer Arbitration Committees (Tüketici Hakem Heyetlerine İlişkin Bilgilendirme Metni), January 22, 2026. For 2026 applications, the distinction between disputes below 186,000 TL and those at or above that amount. Official statement.