Liability of Banks and Brokerage Firms for Unexecuted Fund Sell Orders

The non-execution of a fund sell order does not mean that the bank or brokerage firm is automatically liable for the entire investment loss; liability is determined by the link between the breach of the obligation undertaken and the investor’s loss. Receipt of the order, its transmission to TEFAS, the determination of its price and payment of the proceeds are separate stages; in particular, the September 16–17, 2026 distinction may affect the payment regime to be applied in the liquidation of certain funds. In claims arising from late transmission, unfounded cancellation or a technical malfunction, the transaction records, the applicable fund terms, the result that could have been obtained had the transaction been carried out on time, and the payments received from the liquidation should be examined together. The avenue of recourse, the statute of limitations and the type of action are also determined separately according to the investor’s relationship and current legislation. [1] [2] [4]

At which stage does an unexecuted fund sell order show that the problem occurred?

In practice, the sale of investment fund participation shares (katılma payı) is mostly carried out by returning the shares to the fund. Between the investor pressing the sell button in the banking app and the sale proceeds passing to the available balance, there are several transactions. A “Your order has been received” notification does not by itself show that the order reached the platform or that the sale proceeds became final.

In the liability review, each of these stages should be explained by its own record:

The practical consequence of this distinction is as follows: the institution holding an instruction it has received, an instruction transmitted on time not being completed because of the fund’s payment difficulty, and the proceeds of an executed sale not being transferred to the investor’s account rest on different obligations. In preparing a lawsuit, explaining only the last screen notification is not sufficient; it should be determined where the transaction stopped. [3]

The pricing value date (fiyat valörü) indicates the day whose price will be applied to the order; the payment or settlement value date indicates the day on which completion of the relevant transaction is scheduled. Their being forward-dated does not mean that the order may be held within the institution until that date. The moment at which the order should be transmitted is determined separately.

Why may orders dated September 16 and 17, 2026 produce different results in liquidation?

The date of transmission to TEFAS may affect the payment regime

Provision A/6 of Bulletin No. 2026/61 of the Capital Markets Board (SPK) provides that the amount arising in respect of the unexecuted redemption instructions within its scope is to be recorded as a debt of the fund account, and that these debts are to be paid first out of the cash obtained in liquidation. A/5, in turn, contains the principles for conversion into cash and for distribution in proportion to unitholding. These special provisions are not a general payment guarantee that could apply to all investment funds. [1]

The SPK announcement dated September 28, 2026 sets out the date distinction in practice:

The announcement also states that instructions given after 13:30 on September 16 and before 13:30 on September 17 are subject to the same pricing value date. The same pricing value date does not mean the same transmission date and the same right to payment. Therefore, it cannot be said which group the investor is in by looking only at the day the instruction was given to the bank or at the value date shown on the screen. [2]

Priority payment does not create a guarantee of full and immediate collection

Recording a fund debt under A/6 and the actual collectability of that debt are separate matters. Payment depends on the conversion of the fund’s assets into cash and on the liquidation provisions to be applied. It cannot be inferred from the regulation that the appointed bank will make up every shortfall from its own assets, or that the claim has unconditional precedence over all other fund debts.

Nor can the amount of the claim be equated directly with the portfolio value last seen on the screen. The pricing value date of the relevant order, the prospectus in force on the date of the event and the reconciliation records are examined. Where the price has not been announced, it would not be appropriate to accept the last published value as the definitive sale price without any assessment.

The institution’s prior delay is examined separately

An instruction that should have been transmitted on September 16 being left until September 17 in breach of the institution’s obligation may have changed the investor’s payment regime. However, the difference in dates does not by itself prove a breach. When the order should have been transmitted, and which right would have arisen had it been transmitted on time, should be demonstrated together.

Even in a situation where an order transmitted on time would likewise not have been paid because of the fund’s default but would have fallen within the scope of A/6, the damage to be discussed is not automatically the entire sale price. The collection that could have been obtained had the priority payment right been preserved is compared with the payments received and receivable in the current situation. The trading restriction does not by itself eliminate the consequences of a delay that occurred earlier.

For breach of which obligations may the bank and the brokerage firm be liable?

Correct recording and timely transmission of a valid order

The initial review is carried out on the basis of the customer agreement and the service actually provided. Is the institution only intermediating in order transmission; what division of labor has it established with another investment firm; what role has it assumed in fund distribution? The same company’s position in different services may change the scope of liability. The relevant SPK regulations and the fund terms in force on the transaction date are read together with this contractual relationship. [5]

Recording the order with the wrong fund code, changing its amount, failing to transmit it on time, giving a misleading notification for a transaction that was not executed, or canceling it without a valid reason may be subject to a liability review. By contrast, the order not being carried out because of the application of a duly imposed trading restriction cannot lead to compensation unless there is, in addition, a breach attributable to the institution.

13:30 and the cut-off time for transmission should not be confused

Takasbank’s TEFAS Implementation Principles dated July 20, 2026 set the acceptance of forward-value-dated instructions on normal business days at 09:00–17:45 and the value-date roll-over time at 13:30. Different transaction hours and exceptions defined in the system for the fund are examined separately. Therefore, it cannot be said that every order given after 13:30 must be transmitted on the following day. [3]

The review is carried out across the institution’s undertaking, the fund’s transaction hours, the platform’s acceptance window and the actual time of transmission. A bank’s app screen may accept instructions throughout the day; what this means in terms of transmission to the platform and pricing should have been explained to the investor. The institution’s internal procedures do not replace the obligations in the contract and the regulations.

The same principles state that fund sell instructions are transmitted without a TEFAS limit or collateral requirement being sought. Therefore, an explanation of insufficient collateral specific to buy orders does not by itself explain why a sell order was held. Whether the defense matches the specific transaction type and the actual reason for rejection should be scrutinized. [3]

Fault and exclusion-of-liability clauses

Under TBK Article 112, the investor demonstrates the breach of the obligation, the damage and the adequate causal link; the debtor institution, in turn, bears the burden of proving the absence of fault. TBK Article 115 treats as absolutely null and void agreements made in advance excluding liability for gross fault, and also agreements excluding liability for slight fault in specialized services carried out under a permit. TBK Article 116 is also assessed separately with respect to auxiliaries. [4]

In this framework, a general clause in the contract such as “no liability is accepted for technical malfunctions” does not by itself resolve the dispute. The validity of the clause, the nature of the service and whether the specific malfunction is attributable to the institution are examined. Carrying out the transaction through an external service provider or another institution does not eliminate the liability review either; the allocation of tasks and the stage at which the malfunction occurred should be explained.

The fund’s market risk and the institution’s transaction error are assessed separately. The investor’s acceptance of changes in the fund’s value does not mean that it also assumes the consequences of the institution failing to process a valid instruction properly. Nevertheless, a mere loss in the value of the investment, without a breach by the institution, is not sufficient for compensation.

Against which entity should the claim be directed?

The responsibilities of the bank, the brokerage firm, the fund founder, the manager, the custodian and the entity conducting the liquidation do not substitute for one another. If the same entity holds more than one status, each of its roles is examined separately.

Article 56 of the Capital Markets Law regulates the liability of the portfolio custodian for damage caused to participation unitholders by its failure to fulfill its obligations. The separation of the fund’s assets from the assets of the various entities should also be taken into account. [6]

Takasbank’s role regarding the platform infrastructure and the members’ performance obligations toward investors are not of the same scope. Article 11 of the TEFAS Implementation Principles explains that Takasbank does not give a general guarantee as regards the members’ obligations and the completion of settlement. This provision cannot be extended in a way that would prevent a specific allegation of breach relating to the infrastructure from being examined separately. [3]

In an action brought against more than one entity, the act attributed to each defendant and its link to the damage should be specified concretely. The presence of more than one institution in the same transaction does not automatically mean that all of them are jointly and severally liable for every damage.

Which investors may have a receivable or compensation claim?

The absence of an order in the system does not by itself prove that the investor never attempted to carry out a transaction. However, a mere statement such as “I was thinking of selling” does not replace an obstructed sell instruction either. In cases where an order could not be given, contemporaneous records showing the time of the transaction attempt and why it could not be completed are particularly important.

If the order was canceled, a cancellation instruction given by the investor, a cancellation made by the institution and a cancellation applied by the platform pursuant to a regulatory decision should be distinguished. The fact that the notification uses the same word does not show that the transactions have the same legal nature.

How is the technical-problem defense assessed?

An institution invoking a technical problem should explain the start and end of the malfunction, the systems and transaction types affected, the error code received by the order, retransmission attempts, any alternative channel that was available and the notification made to the investor. A general outage announcement does not in every case prove why a specific order was not executed.

The claim that similar orders of other customers were processed in the same time window requires a comparability check. If the fund, channel, time, order type and transaction terms differ, mere simultaneity is not sufficient. Where comparable records exist, they may be influential in assessing the institution’s defense of general technical impossibility.

The defense that the investor could have transacted through another channel should also be made concrete. Was the alternative channel actually open, was it processing the relevant fund, had it been notified to the investor, and could it have been used in time? For a fund whose sale was halted on all channels, merely having an account at another bank does not count as an opportunity to prevent the damage. The restrictions in section B of Bulletin No. 2026/61 concerning transactions outside TEFAS are also taken into account separately in this respect. [1]

What principles do court decisions on unexecuted orders show?

The technical-error defense and different heads of damage

The decision of the 13th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (İstanbul BAM 13. Hukuk Dairesi) dated November 21, 2024, E. 2022/713, K. 2024/1825, concerns unexecuted take-profit orders in Forex transactions. In the published text of the decision, the acceptance of liability for loss of profit was found correct, taking into account that the alleged price error had not been proven and the transactions of other customers. It was held that the causal link between the subsequent loss of margin and the institution’s breach had been broken because the investor continued trading despite having the opportunity to close the positions; the parties’ appeals were dismissed on the merits. [7]

The decision’s contribution to this subject is that the technical defense is examined with concrete records, and each head of damage within its own causal relationship. The features of a Forex transaction cannot be carried over unchanged to fund redemption. A fund investor who could not sell because of a trading ban cannot be assigned the same result as an investor who had an available opportunity to close.

The screen price and the amount that can be legally protected

The decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi) dated March 30, 2022, E. 2020/5562, K. 2022/2600, and the decision dated May 8, 2024, E. 2023/1165, K. 2024/3688, which affirmed the judgment rendered after reversal, are two stages of the same Forex dispute. Gains arising from transactions carried out with erroneous price data were not protected; preservation of the pre-transaction balance was taken as the basis. [8]

These decisions show that the accuracy of the value seen on the screen will be examined where necessary. They do not provide a basis for rejecting, without justification, a fund price that has been duly determined. The dissenting opinion in the 2022 decision should also not be confused with the majority’s reasoning.

The importance of the specific relationship for subject-matter jurisdiction

The decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 20. Hukuk Dairesi) dated September 20, 2016, E. 2016/8375, K. 2016/8081, concerns money that could not be withdrawn because of a name error in a fund account, and held the consumer court to have subject-matter jurisdiction. The decision does not concern the merits of late transmission or liquidation damage. [9]

In the Regional Court of Appeal’s Forex decision above, by contrast, the commercial-purpose clause in the contract and the trading volume were assessed together. Rather than producing a single jurisdictional outcome for all investment disputes, these examples require an examination of the specific contract and the purpose of the transaction.

How is the amount of compensation calculated?

The starting point of the calculation is the difference between the economic position the investor would have been in had there been no breach and the position that actually materialized. The calculation cannot be based on the assumption that the order would necessarily have been sold at the highest price, or that no payment at all will be made from the liquidation. The applicable transaction price, the possibility of collection, the payments made and the remaining rights are assessed together.

If the delay led to a lower sale price

The applicable price that would have been applied had the order been processed on time is compared with the price actually applied. As an illustrative example, if it is accepted that, because of the institution’s delay, 100,000 shares were sold for 8.50 Turkish lira (TL) instead of 10 TL, the price difference is 100,000 × (10 − 8.50) = 150,000 TL. In this example, tax, deduction and interest effects are left out; it should also be proven separately that 10 TL is the price that should have been applied to the relevant order.

Choosing the highest price seen afterwards, or accepting the indicative price at the moment of the order as the definitive sale price, may overlook the actual transaction terms. The calculation is based on the pricing method that the relevant fund should apply to the order.

If the sale did not take place at all

The price that could have been obtained had the transaction been carried out on time, and the likelihood of collection, are determined. In a second illustrative example, if it has been proven that the investor could have collected 1,000,000 TL, the investor received a total of 720,000 TL in the final liquidation and no other economic right remains, the difference is 280,000 TL.

For this result to be usable, the assumptions must materialize in the case. If an instruction transmitted on time would likewise not be paid because of the fund’s default, the assumption that 1,000,000 TL would be collected immediately is not correct. In such a case, the difference in the priority right or in the timing of collection is examined separately.

If the priority payment right was lost

Loss of priority does not mean that the entire order amount is damage. How much and when payment could have been made had the priority been preserved, and what has been received and can be received under the current payment regime, are investigated. The fund’s actual assets, its debts, the possibility of conversion into cash and the relevant order of payment are the data for this comparison.

While the liquidation is ongoing, the entire unpaid amount cannot be accepted as definitive damage. Conversely, a right whose collection is uncertain cannot be assessed as if cash equal to its nominal amount existed. The economic value of the remaining liquidation right should be justified; uncertainty does not justify ignoring the right entirely or treating it as certain to be collected in full.

Interim payments and the amendment dated October 15, 2026

The SPK announcement dated October 1, 2026 stated that, for the Tera, Pusula, Atlas and Hedef Portföy funds within scope at that date, the interim payment would be deducted from the final liquidation amount, while the shares would be returned at the time of the final payment. Under this arrangement, the shares continuing to appear in the account does not require the interim payment and the full value of the share to be taken into account together and twice. [10]

The subsequent amendment should be taken into account for the Hedef Portföy funds: by decision No. 70/1821 dated October 15, 2026, announced in Bulletin No. 2026/70 dated October 16, 2026, the relevant Hedef funds were removed from the additional interim payment arrangement No. 64/1775 and made subject to the liquidation principles No. 64/1770 set for the A1 Capital, Bulls and Pardus funds. This amendment does not mean that the Hedef funds were removed from liquidation. [11]

Therefore, for each investor, the fund code and the current decisions should be taken as the basis; the list of institutions in a past announcement should not be used as if it were the current payment regime. The payment received and the value of the remaining right should be determined without counting the same amount twice.

If several heads of damage are claimed together

The price difference, the uncollectible amount, the loss of priority and the damage from delay may be calculated separately; however, the same economic loss cannot be claimed again under different names. Subsequent liquidation payments are entered into the calculation in the action. If it is argued that the investor had an opportunity to mitigate the damage, its actual usability is shown. Hypothetical alternative gains or opportunities whose realization is uncertain cannot be turned into a definitive head of damage.

When can default interest and damage exceeding interest be claimed?

The obligation to process the sell order and default on the obligation to pay money are separate. Under TBK Article 117, maturity and, as a rule, a formal notice (ihtar) are assessed, and cases of default without notice, such as an agreed specific due date, are assessed separately. For TBK Article 122, the link between the damage exceeding the default interest and the delay must be demonstrated. [4]

Even if the full fund price was paid later, claims caused by the delay whose legal conditions are met may be examined separately. The cost of financing that had to be used, or specific payment burdens connected with the delay, should be documented. The thought “If I had made another investment, I would have earned” does not replace proof of a determinable additional damage. If the claim is based on inflation, foreign exchange or investment return, the applicable current case law and specific economic data are assessed together.

The interest rate should not be written as a fixed percentage without specifying the period. Article 10 of Law No. 7589 changed the method of determining statutory interest in Article 1 of Law No. 3095. The relevant period, the contract, the commercial nature of the debt and the applicable statutory provision should be checked. TEFAS’s mechanism for default and for payments to aggrieved parties among members is also not automatically identical to the interest calculation of the debt owed to the investor. [12] [3]

Which records and expert examination are decisive in the action?

The order history should be presented in full

The basis of the claim should not be only the last screen the investor saw. The records from the giving of the order up to payment or cancellation should be compared; in particular, the difference between the institution’s clock and the platform’s clock, and the time zone, should be explained. Order and transaction records within the scope of Communiqué No. III-45.1 are taken into account in determining the documents to be requested from the entity. [13]

Under Article 8/4 of III-45.1, an investor who claims that no transaction was carried out despite having given an order proves that the order was given. In a transaction carried out by the institution on the basis of an oral order, however, the burden of proving the existence of the order lies with the institution under Article 8/3. Proof of the existence of the order is a separate matter from the institution’s proof of the absence of fault under TBK Article 112. [13]

The original files of screenshots containing the date and time should be kept. Instead of a cropped or subsequently modified copy of the screen, a record that can be linked to a transaction number is preferred where possible. In the application to the institution, the relevant order and time window are clearly stated, and the preservation of the records and a written explanation of why the transaction was not executed are requested.

The records being held by the institution does not eliminate access to evidence

HMK Article 199 regulates the documentary nature of electronic data; Articles 219–221 regulate the production of documents. The consequences of failure to produce are linked to the court’s assessment and the conditions in the law; failure to submit a document does not automatically mean winning the action. Where there is a risk of loss, or of later use becoming seriously difficult, preservation of evidence under HMK Article 400 may be considered, subject to the condition of legal interest. [14]

A request for production is not framed as the disclosure of all unrelated customer data. If a comparison is necessary, the time window, fund and transaction type necessary for the examination are determined; appropriate protection and limitations are observed with regard to third parties’ data.

Specific questions the expert should answer

1. At which stage, for what reason and because of whose action did the order stop?
2. Under the applicable rules, when should it have been transmitted, and at what price should it have been processed?
3. With timely transmission, would it have been possible for the sale to be executed, or for a different right to be obtained in payment or in liquidation?
4. Taking into account the payments received and the remaining economic rights, how much is each head of damage?
5. Has the same loss been counted twice in the calculation; by which records are the assumptions used verified?

Banking or capital markets knowledge and, where necessary, IT expertise may be required together. The technical transaction history and the financial calculation may be the subject of an expert examination; the legal characterization of the contract, the basis of liability and the rendering of the judgment belong to the court. HMK Article 266 is observed with regard to this distinction. [14]

How are the avenue of recourse and the competent court determined?

An application to the institution and an SPK complaint serve different purposes

A written application to the institution should contain the scope of the instruction and of the claim, the records requested, the reason for non-execution and an explanation of the damage. Whether a document to be signed during account reconciliation or payment contains a release, waiver or settlement should be examined separately. Receiving an interim payment and waiving other claims should not be regarded as the same act.

An application to the SPK serves the examination of breaches of capital markets regulations. It does not automatically replace the court’s assessment of private-law compensation. The SPK’s explanation on applications also mentions the route of the TSPB Customer Disputes Arbitration Committee (TSPB Müşteri Uyuşmazlıkları Hakem Heyeti) for off-exchange disputes; the scope, admissibility conditions and time limits of this route are examined separately for the specific dispute. The fact that another application has been made does not give rise to the assumption that the required procedural prerequisites have been fulfilled. [15]

Distinguishing a consumer transaction from a commercial dispute

The investor being a natural person, or the counterparty being a bank, does not by itself determine the competent court. The commercial or professional purpose, the nature of the contract and the specific features of the transaction are examined. It should not be accepted that the client classification in capital markets legislation by itself settles the transaction-purpose analysis under consumer law. [16]

Disputes that qualify as consumer transactions and whose value is below 186,000 TL for 2026 fall within the scope of the consumer arbitration committee (tüketici hakem heyeti). For disputes of this amount or above, except for statutory exceptions, recourse to the consumer court is made after mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. In disputes within the scope of the arbitration committee, and in objections to the committee’s decision, the mediation exception is observed separately. Since the monetary threshold changes according to the year of application, it is checked again in a new year. [17] [16]

For receivable and compensation claims qualifying as commercial cases, mediation as a condition precedent to litigation under TTK Article 5/A comes into play; the dispute is heard by the commercial court of first instance. As well as subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, the correct identification of the defendants and the nature of the relief sought should also be clarified in preparing the action. [18]

Fund liquidation should not be confused with the protection of the Investor Compensation Center (Yatırımcı Tazmin Merkezi)

The protection scope of the Investor Compensation Center relates to the cash payment or capital market instrument delivery obligations defined in the legislation. Damage arising from market price movements and from investment advice is not within this scope. A fund entering liquidation does not mean that all fund losses will be paid by the YTM. The decision to be applied regarding the relevant entity and the scope of the claim are looked into separately. [19]

Should the end of the liquidation be awaited before filing an action?

It is not mandatory in every dispute to wait for the end of the liquidation. For a receivable claim, maturity is assessed; for compensation, the occurrence of the damage and its link with the breach. The damage not yet having occurred is different from the amount of damage that has occurred not yet being fully calculable. Just as not every action can be deemed premature because the liquidation is ongoing, mere non-payment does not show that the entire amount has become definitive damage.

The 2026 amendment regarding HMK Articles 107 and 109

By Article 19 of Law No. 7589, published on July 31, 2026, HMK Article 107 was repealed; by its Article 20, a fourth paragraph was added to Article 109. The new provision provides that, in a partial action, the claim may be increased once in the same action and until the end of the investigation phase (tahkikat) without being subject to the prohibition on expanding the claim, and that the statute of limitations for the increased part is deemed to have been interrupted on the filing date of the action. Transitional Article 1/10 continues the application of former Article 107 to actions for an unquantified claim (belirsiz alacak davası) filed before its repeal. [12]

Therefore, it is not correct to automatically use the former narrative of an action for an unquantified claim for an action to be newly filed. In the partial-action option, the divisibility of the claim, the initial amount, court fees and the increase procedure are assessed. The provision does not revive a statute of limitations that expired before the action was filed; nor does it remove the need to explain which head of damage arose from which event.

Which mistakes should be avoided regarding the statute of limitations?

The general ten-year period in TBK Article 146 does not apply automatically to all investment disputes. In relationships qualifying as mandate or commission, the five-year period in Article 147/5, and in tort claims the separate periods and starting conditions in Article 72, may come into play. In a contractual claim, maturity and any special provisions are assessed. [4]

This review should be carried out separately for each debtor and each claim. The fund’s liquidation receivable and a bank’s compensation debt arising from faulty order transmission cannot be accepted as subject to the same starting point or the same period. A process conducted against another entity should not be pursued on the assumption that it preserves the period against all addressees.

Waiting for the liquidation, complaining to the institution or merely requesting information does not automatically suspend the statute of limitations. The grounds for interruption in TBK Article 154 are compared with the specific act. The fund’s interim payment should also not be treated as an acknowledgment by a separate bank of its compensation debt. In mediation as a condition precedent to litigation, the statute of limitations is suspended and the time limit for bringing an action (hak düşürücü süre) does not run from the application to the mediation bureau until the final report is drawn up. [4] [20]

The special rules on the transfer to the YTM of deposits and receivables not claimed for a long time in a fund or investment account are also a separate matter. The period in these rules should not be used as if it were the period for an action for compensation based on the institution’s transaction breach. [21]

In what order should preparation for the action be carried out?

1. Identify the transaction: The fund code, number of shares, order number, date, time and channel used are determined.
2. Preserve the records: Original screen files, notifications, the contract, correspondence and account movements are gathered; preservation of the institution’s records is requested.
3. Establish the applicable terms: The prospectus on the date of the event, transaction hours, value date and the relevant SPK decisions are matched.
4. Specify the responsible party and the breach: Each entity’s role, its actual act and its effect on the investor are explained separately.
5. Build the calculation of the claim: The economic result in the case of proper performance, the payments received and the remaining rights are compared.
6. Determine the procedure and the time limit: Subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, mediation, the type of action and the statute of limitations are checked; preservation of evidence is considered where necessary.

In this preparation, three questions should be answered together: Which entity breached which obligation? Had there been no breach, what price or right to payment would have been obtained? What is the investor’s provable loss arising for this reason?

Related articles: What Is Evidence Preservation? How to Protect Your Evidence Before Filing a Lawsuit; Statute of Limitations and Preclusive Periods: How Is the Time Limit for Bringing an Action Determined?; Default Interest and Excessive Loss Claims for Unexecuted Fund Redemption Instructions; Forgotten Assets in an Investment Account: The 10-Year Period, Transfer to the YTM and the Return Application; Criminal Investigation and Recovery of Losses in Investment Funds Ordered into Liquidation by the SPK; SPK Fund Liquidation: Investor Rights, Payment Process and Legal Routes of Recourse.

Conclusion

A claim based on an unexecuted fund sell order is strengthened by presenting together the role undertaken by the institution, the transaction history and the damage calculation. The order’s acceptance date, the time of transmission to the platform, the pricing value date and the payment date cannot be used interchangeably. Particularly in the September 16–17, 2026 practice, this distinction may directly affect the assessment of the right to payment in the liquidation.

The loss caused by the bank’s or brokerage firm’s own breach should not be confused with the fund’s market loss and liquidation debt. Interim payments received, remaining rights and subsequent changes to decisions should be entered into the calculation; the type of action and the statute of limitations should be determined on the basis of current regulations. The strength of the claim depends, before the fact that the investment lost value, on showing which specific breach of obligation this loss arose from.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it enough for compensation that I gave a sell order at the bank?

It is not sufficient on its own. The validity of the order, the action the institution should have taken, the breach, the damage and the causal link should be demonstrated together. The order being received by the bank and its transmission to TEFAS are not the same record.

If the order was given after 13:30, is it necessarily transmitted the next day?

No. In forward-value-dated transactions, the platform’s acceptance hours and the time that changes the pricing value date are separate. The applicable transaction terms of the fund and the channel should be examined separately. [3]

Does a “Canceled” notification show that the bank was at fault?

It does not on its own. Whether the cancellation originated from the investor, the institution or the platform, and its legal ground, should be determined. A cancellation made because of a regulatory decision differs from an unfounded cancellation by the institution.

If the priority payment right was lost, can the entire order be claimed?

The entire order amount is not automatically deemed damage. The payment that could have been received had the priority been preserved is compared with the amounts received and receivable in the current situation; the timing of collection is also assessed.

If I could not create an order because of a system error, how can I show my right?

The transaction attempt should be supported by error records containing the date and time, call center applications and contemporaneous correspondence. A specific attempt should be distinguished from a mere thought of selling.

Can an action be filed while the liquidation is ongoing?

It is possible for receivable or compensation claims whose conditions have been met. Maturity, the occurrence of the damage and the determinability of its amount are examined separately. The effect of waiting for the liquidation on time limits should be assessed separately.

Does receiving an interim payment end all claims?

It does not end them in every case. The payment is taken into account in the damage calculation; in addition, whether the signed documents contain a release, waiver or settlement is examined. The same loss cannot be collected more than once.

Does a natural-person investor always apply to the consumer court?

No. The purpose of the transaction and the nature of the relationship are decisive. If there is a consumer transaction, the arbitration committee or the court, depending on the monetary threshold, and if there is a commercial case, the relevant commercial litigation route, is assessed.

Can a new action still be filed as an action for an unquantified claim under HMK Article 107?

After the amendment that entered into force on July 31, 2026, the repealed Article 107 should not be relied on for a new action. The new partial-action provision and the transitional provision protecting former actions are applied according to the specific filing date. [12]

Does complaining to the SPK or waiting for the liquidation preserve the time limit for filing an action?

These steps should not on their own be regarded as acts that suspend or interrupt the statute of limitations. The basis of the claim, the debtor, the start of the period and the applications that have a statutory effect on time limits should be determined separately.

Is a fund loss paid by the Investor Compensation Center?

A fund entering liquidation does not bring all investment losses within the scope of the YTM. Statutory conditions are required regarding the entity, the decision and the claim; damage arising from price movements in the market is outside the scope. [19]

Sources and legal bases

1. SPK, Bulletin No. 2026/61 dated September 17, 2026. A/1–6 and section B on transactions outside TEFAS. Official bulletin.
2. SPK, Press Announcement on the Liquidation Period (Tasfiye Süresine İlişkin Basın Duyurusu) dated September 28, 2026. Official announcement.
3. Takasbank, TEFAS Implementation Principles (TEFAS Uygulama Esasları), July 20, 2026. In particular Articles 11–14, 16, 19–20 and 25. Official text.
4. Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu). In particular Articles 72, 112, 115–117, 122, 146–149 and 154. TBMM text of the law.
5. SPK, Communiqué on the Principles Regarding Investment Services and Activities and Ancillary Services (Yatırım Hizmetleri ve Faaliyetleri ile Yan Hizmetlere İlişkin Esaslar Hakkında Tebliğ), III-37.1. Intermediation in order transmission and the related principles of activity. SPK Turkish text of the Communiqué.
6. Law No. 6362, Capital Markets Law (Sermaye Piyasası Kanunu). In particular Articles 52–56; fund structure and portfolio custody liability. TBMM text of the law; SPK guide to portfolio custody institutions.
7. 13th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, November 21, 2024, E. 2022/713, K. 2024/1825. Forex dispute; assessment of the technical defense, damage and subject-matter jurisdiction. Text of the decision published on Hukukihaber.
8. 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, March 30, 2022, E. 2020/5562, K. 2022/2600; May 8, 2024, E. 2023/1165, K. 2024/3688. Reversal and affirmance stages of the same Forex dispute. Texts of the decisions published on Hukukihaber.
9. 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, September 20, 2016, E. 2016/8375, K. 2016/8081. Jurisdictional dispute concerning a name error in a fund account. Text of the decision published on Hukukihaber.
10. SPK, Interim Payment Announcement Regarding Funds in Liquidation (Tasfiyedeki Fonlara İlişkin Ara Ödeme Duyurusu) dated October 1, 2026. Official announcement.
11. SPK, Bulletin No. 2026/70 dated October 16, 2026. Section E; decision No. 70/1821 dated October 15, 2026 on the Hedef Portföy funds. Official bulletin.
12. Law No. 7589. Official Gazette No. 33326 dated July 31, 2026; Articles 10, 19–20, 26 and Transitional Article 1/10. TBMM record of the law; full text of the law.
13. SPK, Communiqué on the Document and Record-Keeping Regime for Investment Services and Activities and Ancillary Services (Yatırım Hizmet ve Faaliyetleri ile Yan Hizmetlere İlişkin Belge ve Kayıt Düzeni Hakkında Tebliğ), III-45.1. In particular Article 8/3–4. SPK English text of the Communiqué; SPL working note dated December 31, 2025, prepared by SPK experts, p. 105.
14. Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu). In particular Articles 199, 219–221, 266 and 400. Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı) legislation record; TBMM text of the law.
15. SPK, Where and How to File a Complaint? (Şikâyet Başvurusu Nereye, Nasıl Yapılır?) Official explanation of the application process.
16. Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun). In particular Articles 3, 68, 73 and 73/A. Ministry of Trade (Ticaret Bakanlığı) publication of the law and regulations.
17. Ministry of Trade, monetary thresholds for consumer arbitration committees for 2026. Official announcement.
18. Ministry of Justice, Introductory Book on Specialized Mediation (Uzman Arabuluculuğa Giriş Kitabı). Explanations of TTK Article 5/A and commercial mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. Official publication.
19. Investor Compensation Center, Scope of Protection. Official explanation of the scope.
20. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu). In particular Article 18/A; the effect of mediation as a condition precedent to litigation on time limits. Ministry of Justice publication of the law; current legislation record.
21. Investor Compensation Center, Capital Markets Law Article 83. Special provision on unclaimed deposits and receivables. Official explanation.