SPK Fund Liquidation: Investor Rights, Payment Process and Legal Routes of Recourse

A decision by the Capital Markets Board (SPK) to liquidate an investment fund does not extinguish the rights an investor derives from participation units (katılma payı). On the other hand, liquidation does not mean that the invested principal will be paid in full on a specific date either. The path the investor should follow varies according to whether the fund is actually on the liquidation list, the timing of the sell instruction, the payment procedure and the cause of the loss alleged. This article assesses together the September–October 2026 decisions connected with the Tera, Pusula, Hedef, Atlas, A1 Capital, Pardus and Bulls portfolio management companies, investors’ problems in accessing cash and the legal applications. It makes concrete the differences between SPK intervention, judicial seizure, liquidation payment and the right to compensation.

What does SPK fund liquidation mean for the investor?

Does a liquidation decision end entitlement?

An investment fund is a separate pool of assets created with money collected from investors and operated on behalf of the unitholders. A participation unit is the book-entry capital market instrument that carries the investor’s rights in that fund. The investor does not become the registered owner, in their own name, of each bond or immovable in the fund portfolio; they exercise their right in the fund through their unit. This structure is not the same as buying a company’s shares or opening a deposit account at a bank. [1] [2]

Liquidation is the process of ending the fund’s activity, determining its assets and receivables, taking its liabilities into account and paying the distributable balance to the rights holders. In this process, it remains important that the investor’s unit record is preserved, that the investor demands a correct calculation and that the investor asserts losses arising from unlawful transactions. The inability to sell on the account screen does not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the unit or all claims have ceased to exist. [2, Art. 28]

In practice, the first step is to identify the fund’s full title, its three-letter code, the number of units and the custody record, rather than looking only at the name of the portfolio company. Different funds of the same company may be subject to different decisions, payment conditions or trading statuses. The fact that a payment has been made to another investor is not sufficient information that a fund with a different code will also pay on the same day.

How does the separation of fund assets protect the investor?

Article 53 of Capital Markets Law No. 6362 separates the fund assets from the assets of the portfolio management company and the custodian. This protection is intended to prevent the founder’s own debts from being freely collected from the fund’s assets. The transfer of the management of the founder or the custodian to public authorities likewise does not make the fund assets usable for other purposes. [1, Art. 53]

However, legal separation does not mean that the market value of the assets in the fund cannot fall, that a bond issuer cannot default or that irregular transactions cannot have been carried out in the past. Two reviews should therefore be conducted together: What is the net value the fund can distribute today, and was there any conduct giving rise to liability in the decrease of that value? The first question concerns the liquidation account; the second, where necessary, concerns a compensation or criminal review.

What decisions were taken on the Tera, Pusula, Hedef, Atlas, A1 Capital, Pardus and Bulls funds?

Liquidated companies and liquidated funds are not the same

SPK’s decision No. 57/1707 of September 17, 2026 concerns the TEFAS trading status of the funds founded by the seven portfolio management companies named and the liquidation of the specified funds. Article 96(1) SPKn is cited as the statutory basis of the decision. From the existence of this decision, it cannot be inferred that the legal personality of all seven companies has been terminated or that the same judicial measure has been applied to each of them. [3]

The list updated in Bulletin No. 2026/61 includes 131 funds. The list consists of 9 funds for A1 Capital, 16 for Atlas, 15 for Bulls, 31 for Hedef, 42 for Pardus, 12 for Pusula and 6 for Tera. Türkiye İş Bankası has been appointed in the liquidation process for the Tera funds, and Ziraat Bankası for the listed funds of the other six founders. The role of these institutions should not be confused with the role of the bank through which the investor made the sale or with that of the portfolio manager in the past period. [4]

How are the September–October 2026 developments affecting the investor’s position?

The developments in the table are based on SPK bulletins and announcements. The scope of the step in each row should be read together with subsequent decisions. In particular, the extension of the liquidation period and the past delay of a claim of the investor that had fallen due are separate matters. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

How should the announced investor and payment figures be read?

In its statement of September 23, SPK reported that there were a total of 455,758 unique investors in the 131 funds. This figure shows the social scale of the process; it is not a judicial finding that the same number of people are victims of the offense of fraud or that everyone suffered a loss of the same amount. [10]

The official statement of October 13 indicated that payments of 6.4 billion Turkish lira (TL) had been made to 43,643 investors in respect of the A1 Capital, Bulls and Pardus funds. The same statement announced higher amounts for the remaining funds together with a completion target. A payment reported as made should be distinguished from a payment planned to be made. It cannot be inferred from these data that full payment has been made to every investor or that all additional losses have been remedied. [11]

I cannot sell my fund: Which situation should I distinguish first?

A fund on the liquidation list and a fund whose trading is merely closed

A fund being closed to buying and selling does not in itself show that it is being liquidated. The position of a fund that is not on the liquidation list but whose trading has been restricted because of a measure concerning its founder is assessed on the basis of current KAP disclosures, SPK decisions and the conditions for reopening to trading. In an application, rather than settling for the trading appearing closed, the legal and technical reason for the closure should be asked. [3] [8]

In a fund within the scope of liquidation, however, it cannot be assumed that the ordinary sale mechanism will continue. The investor should follow entitlement and the payment calculation according to the liquidation procedure of their own fund. Nevertheless, an allegation of an order transmission error said to have arisen before liquidation, of a payment obligation that had fallen due or of misleading information may be examined separately.

Sell instructions given on and before September 16

The criterion relied on in SPK’s September 28 announcement is not merely that the instruction was created at the bank, but that it was transmitted to TEFAS on or before September 16, 2026. Instructions in this group were envisaged to be executed at their ordinary value dates; for earlier instructions that could not be executed because the fund defaulted or no unit price was announced, reference was made to provision A/6 of the liquidation procedures. The amount within the scope of A/6 is recorded as a debt to the fund account and is paid with priority from the cash obtained in liquidation. This position differs from merely participating in the liquidation balance in proportion to participation units; however, it does not guarantee immediate and complete collection of the entire claim. [4, A/6] [6]

The investor should therefore request, in addition to the screenshot showing “I gave the instruction”, the order number, the time of transmission to the system, the expected value date of the instruction, the reason for cancellation or rejection and every change in the transaction status. If there is a discrepancy between the bank’s instruction record and the TEFAS transmission record, an explanation of that discrepancy is of direct importance in determining the responsible person and the loss period.

September 17 instructions and orders given later

The SPK announcement stated that all instructions dated September 17 were canceled and that this also covers instructions given before 13:30. Therefore, asserting a definite right to payment outside the liquidation merely by saying “I sold before 13:30” is inconsistent with the current official statement. [6]

The fact that instructions given after 13:30 on September 16 and before 13:30 on September 17 are subject to the same price value date does not remove this distinction arising from the date of transmission to TEFAS. If it is alleged that the bank, through its own error, left until September 17 an order it should have transmitted on September 16 under the contract, not only default interest but also the effect on the collection outcome of the priority allegedly lost is investigated. The entire instruction amount cannot automatically be treated as a loss; the amount that could have been obtained with timely transmission should be compared with the current payment and the value of the continuing rights. [4] [6] [17]

However, if the investor was given different information, an earlier order was processed incorrectly or an untrue record was entered into the system, these allegations need to be examined on the basis of documents. The implementation of the administrative decision and the consequences of an earlier error attributable to the institution itself are assessed separately. The problem of default and damages exceeding default interest examined in the second article rests precisely on this distinction of date and liability.

How are the liquidation payment, the interim payment and the final balance determined?

Which items are included in the liquidation account?

The legal assessment does not rest only on the final amount visible in the app. The number of units, the valuation date and method, the fund’s assets, its receivables to be collected, its own debts and expenses, payments made previously and the distribution ratio are examined together. The ordinary liquidation rule is that the distributable balance is paid in proportion to participation units; the special implementation principles in the specific SPK decision also apply. [2, Art. 28] [4]

The investor should request from the liquidator, or from the institution where their account is held, the reconciliation and payment statement relating to them. A one-line notice in the form “this much has been deposited to your account” does not by itself show that the number of units, offsets or deductions are correct. A verifiable calculation should explain what each item is based on.

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

SPK’s October 1 interim payment announcement provided, at that date, for an interim payment of up to 1 million TL for the relevant funds in the Tera, Pusula, Atlas and Hedef group, on a fund and rights-holder basis according to specified principles, after the necessary reconciliations. This is not a general compensation ceiling limiting all of the investor’s legal claims to 1 million TL. The interim payment should be treated as a payment to be taken into account in the final liquidation account. [7]

The calculation in the announcement is made separately for each investor and each fund, according to the net investment amount shown in the MKK records. The interim payment is offset (mahsup) against the final payment amount; participation units are not redeemed at this stage. It is therefore not correct to add together both the interim payment received and the full value of the same right before the interim payment as independent items of gain or loss. [7]

Because Hedef was moved to a different procedure by the October 15 decision, as of October 18 a Hedef investor should not be guided on the assumption that they are still in the former four-founder interim payment group. For A1 Capital, Bulls, Pardus and Hedef, which was later brought within this scope, the relevant 64/1770 procedure applies; for other funds, their own current decisions apply. [8] [9]

A low amount credited to the account or a deduction appearing

Not every payment that appears short stems from the same cause. The amount being an interim payment, the offsetting of an earlier payment, a decrease in fund value, an incorrect number of units being taken or the existence of a deduction each require a different review. Until these causes have been clarified, it is not correct to characterize the whole difference between the initial money invested and today’s payment as a “definite compensation claim”.

In particular, where there is a deduction described as tax or withholding (stopaj), the deduction amount, its tax base, the purchase dates of the investment, the tax character of the relevant fund and the institution’s account statement should be requested. Stating “unjust withholding” in a complaint record is not proof of unlawfulness. Likewise, the fact that the institution carried out the transaction through an automated system does not of itself eliminate the possibility of a calculation error. Where necessary, this review is conducted separately from the tax-related correction and application routes.

What legal problems do current investor grievances reveal?

Inability to access cash, rent and loan payments

In investor accounts published in September 2026, the inability to access savings to be used for daily expenses and the non-execution of previously given orders stand out. A consumer complaint dated September 17 stated that rent and credit card payments had been put at risk; the bank replied that the application was being examined. This record is an investor statement; it does not establish the amount of the loss or the bank’s fault. [12] [13]

A legal review requires information that will make the statement concrete: Which payment was to be made, and when? Had the fund proceeds arrived on time, could this debt actually have been paid? Was a new loan taken out, or did additional interest accrue, because of the delay? Was the payment need shared with the institution before the investment decision or when the sell instruction was given? The answers to these questions turn a grievance that merely describes the inability to access cash into a review of provable loss.

The allegation that the fund was presented as a deposit or as risk-free

In another complaint dated September 23, it was alleged that the risk had not been explained correctly when switching from deposits to certain funds. The bank’s review response does not mean that this allegation has been accepted. The relevant conversations, the documents signed and the information the investor could actually access should be considered together. [14]

The statement “the risk disclosure form was signed” does not resolve every dispute; what matters is which product the form related to, whether it was presented before the transaction, whether it correctly reflected the fund’s characteristics and whether a statement contradicting it was made during the sale. On the other hand, the investor’s later discomfort with the risk does not by itself show that mis-selling took place. A link should be established between the specific information deficiency and the investment decision.

Communication breakdown and uncertainty about the calculation

For the investor, a failure to provide information can become as significant a problem as an incorrect payment amount. When the bank, the portfolio management company and the liquidator give different answers to the same application, the applications need to be gathered in a single file. The date of each answer, its addressee and the question it left unanswered should be recorded. Sending the same general petition to everyone without distinguishing the institutions’ duties may leave invisible the technical points that need to be clarified.

The core of the written application should therefore consist of the following information: the fund code and number of units, the disputed transaction, the date and order number, the explanation or correction requested, the payment record if any, and how the response to the application is to be communicated. If the investor’s existing documents are not sufficient, it should be stated clearly where the missing records are located.

How do hedge fund and qualified investor status affect rights?

Is there no limit on the management of a hedge fund?

Hedge funds (serbest fon) are subject to a regime that departs from the portfolio and transaction limits in Articles 17–24 of Communiqué III-52.1. Nevertheless, the investment strategy and limits disclosed on the fund’s KAP page remain important. Hedge fund status does not mean that the manager may carry out any transaction it wishes to the investor’s detriment or may disregard the disclosed strategy. [2, Art. 25]

The review should therefore not be made by looking at the loss that emerged afterwards. The assets permitted on the transaction date, concentration and risk limits, liquidity conditions, the valuation method and the transactions actually carried out should be compared. The fact that a high-risk strategy was disclosed does not answer an allegation of fraudulent valuation; nor does the loss in value of an asset by itself prove that a prohibited transaction was carried out.

Qualified investor record and the distributor’s duty

The Communiqué provides that personnel with sufficient knowledge and experience are to be used in the sale of hedge funds and that information and documents showing that the buyer is a qualified investor are to be kept. The status review should be carried out according to the rules in force on the purchase date and the records as of that date. Automatically applying a current monetary threshold to all past purchases would not be sound. [2, Art. 25(4)]

Being a qualified investor does not mean waiving all duties of care and loyalty. On the other hand, the client’s category may affect some of the information and assessment obligations to which the institution is subject. The investor’s classification request, documents and product preference should be examined together. A signature on a form should not be assessed independently of the actual transaction conditions.

To whom can one apply for a loss?

Founder and portfolio manager

As regards the founder and the manager, the review covers whether the fund was operated in compliance with the legislation, the founding documents and the disclosed strategy, whether investors’ interests were safeguarded and whether records were kept correctly. The mandate provisions to which Article 52(4) SPKn refers are important for the duties to act in accordance with instructions, loyalty, care and accounting. The fact that part of the work was delegated to another person does not mean that the founder’s liability automatically ceases. [1] [2, Art. 9/1–3] [17]

A claim cannot be built merely on the sentence “the fund lost money”. It should be explained which act or omission breached which obligation and what loss it caused the investor. For example, the purchase of an asset outside the strategy, the incorrect processing of an order and the disclosure of an untrue value are different facts; that they caused the same loss also needs to be shown separately.

Portfolio custodian

The custodian’s duty is not limited to physical or book-entry safekeeping. The control and monitoring obligations under Article 56 SPKn are examined according to the type of fund and the transaction. The Law regulates liability for loss arising from a breach of obligations and the unitholder’s right of action. The use of central custody or sub-custody does not eliminate the liability review under the relevant provisions. [1, Art. 56]

Nevertheless, it is not correct either to regard the custodian as unconditionally liable for every investment decision of the fund. It should be determined whether the alleged breach falls within the custodian’s area of duty, which control was not performed, when the irregularity could be detected and how it relates to the loss. The custody agreement, warnings and control records may therefore be important.

The bank or investment firm that made the sale

As regards the distributor, receiving and transmitting the instruction, the statements made about the product, client classification and the transfer of payments are separate headings. The fact that the bank sold the fund does not mean that it is liable for every market loss. On the other hand, the bank is not deemed to have disposed of an allegation of its own order transmission error or of a misleading statement of its own merely by saying “another company was managing the fund”. [2] [16] [17]

The application should make clear in what status liability is asserted. The same institution may be the sales channel in one transaction, the custodian in another and, in addition, the liquidator. Establishing the obligation and the breach separately for each role makes it possible to identify the correct defendant and the correct legal ground.

Liquidator, new founder and natural persons

The appointment of a bank in the liquidation process does not lead to the conclusion that it is the perpetrator of all acts in the past period. Delay or calculation errors within the liquidation process itself are examined separately. If there is a genuine change of founder, the joint and several liability for prior obligations under the legislation in the provisions 29/5 and 30/9 of the Communiqué should also be assessed. The appointment of a liquidator and a change of founder should not be treated as the same. [2]

Liability of managers, employees or third parties, by contrast, should be based on specific conduct, independently of job title. The roles of the persons who gave the instruction, carried out the transaction, breached a supervisory obligation or benefited from the unlawful transaction are distinguished on the basis of documents. Criminal liability is examined separately on the basis of personal responsibility and the elements of the offense; merely working at the same company does not constitute guilt.

What do court decisions show about the compensation review?

Making management contrary to the risk profile concrete

In its decision of May 27, 2021, E. 2020/6040, K. 2021/4503, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi) assessed, in an individual portfolio management dispute, transactions going beyond the investor’s risk profile and the resulting loss. The Chamber upheld the judgment partially awarding compensation. This decision does not hold that every fund loss must automatically be paid; it shows the importance of risk preference, the manner of the transactions and the loss review. Bearing in mind that the dispute concerned individual portfolio management, it should be applied with care to disputes over fund units. [18]

The link between faulty conduct and loss

The decision of the 43rd Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (İstanbul BAM 43. Hukuk Dairesi) of February 2, 2022, E. 2020/536, K. 2022/112, also arose from individual portfolio management. Pointing out that the effect of qualified investor status, the obligation breached and the adequate causal link with the loss had not been sufficiently explained, the Chamber set aside the first-instance judgment and requested a new review. The decision cannot be presented as one that finally accepted the investor’s compensation claim. [19]

Read together, these two decisions show that a defensible compensation claim cannot rest only on a loss in value or on the existence of an administrative fine. A file should be prepared that links the allegations, the response and the technical calculation and clearly shows the transaction, the breach, the loss item and the connection between them. An expert examination should also answer these questions.

How are an SPK complaint, a civil action and other applications distinguished?

SPK’s own guidance also distinguishes a review of compliance with legislation from compensation for loss. The fact that fund sales are made via TEFAS does not mean that the dispute is automatically subject to all of Borsa İstanbul’s exchange dispute procedures. Before turning to TSPB or another route, the nature of the transaction and the current application conditions should be examined. [16]

Court with subject-matter jurisdiction and mediation

The court’s subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be determined merely by looking at whether the investor is a natural person. The nature of the contract, the investment service, the status of the parties, the claim and the provisions on commercial cases are assessed together. There are examples of portfolio management disputes being heard by commercial courts. If there is a possibility that the specific relationship may be characterized as a consumer transaction, a separate review should be made under Law No. 6502. [18] [19] [25] [26]

In commercial receivable and compensation claims for the payment of money, mediation as a condition precedent to litigation under Article 5/A TTK is checked; in cases accepted as consumer disputes, the relevant special provisions are checked. Mediation, an SPK complaint and a criminal complaint are not processes that substitute for one another. The need for precautionary legal protection and application time limits should also not be left out of this assessment. [25] [26]

July 2026 amendment: Unquantified claims and partial actions

Law No. 7589, published on July 31, 2026, repealed Article 107 HMK and changed the partial action regime in Article 109. There is a transitional provision for actions filed before the amendment. Therefore, carrying over explanations of former Article 107 HMK unchanged to new actions to be filed concerning the events of September 2026 is not up to date. [20]

The current partial action provision contains a rule on increasing the relief sought once until the investigation phase (tahkikat) ends and on deeming the statute of limitations to have been interrupted on the date of the action with respect to the increased portion. Even so, when the action is filed, the basis of the claim, which claim is being divided and the calculation method should be explained. Uncertainty in the calculation does not mean that the entire explanation of the legal ground and the loss can be left until later. [20, Arts. 19–20 and provisional Art. 1/10]

Statute of limitations and administrative application time limits

There is no single “fund grievance statute of limitations”. For claims arising from a mandate relationship, the five-year period in Article 147(5) TBK; under the general contract provisions, Article 146; for a tort allegation, the periods in Article 72 tied to the dates of knowledge and of the event; and, where necessary, the longer criminal statute of limitations may come into play. Which provision applies is determined according to the true legal nature of the claim and the date on which it falls due. [17]

It should not be assumed that filing a complaint with SPK or applying to the prosecutor’s office automatically interrupts all private law time limits. Likewise, the fact that the liquidation lasts six months does not mean that all litigation time limits have been postponed by six months. Under Article 134 SPKn, administrative actions against Board decisions are heard by administrative courts; when applying, the rules specific to administrative jurisdiction on filing an action and on applying to a superior authority are examined separately. The notification or learning of the decision, the addressee of the application and its nature should be recorded for the calculation of time limits. [1, Art. 134] [17] [24]

Does the liquidation decision halt all enforcement proceedings and attachments?

Article 97(2) SPKn provides for special consequences concerning asset transactions, proceedings and time limits, for the period and under the conditions specified in that article, with respect to capital market institutions whose authorizations have been permanently revoked. However, it is not correct to equate a decision to liquidate an investment fund on the basis of Article 96 with all the consequences of Article 97(2) arising against all potential defendants. [3] [21]

What needs to be examined is which decision was issued against which person or institution, whether the condition of permanent revocation of authorization exists, to whom the claim is directed and to whom the asset for which protection is sought belongs. The separation of fund assets under Article 53 should also be taken into account separately. Without these distinctions, guidance such as “no action can be filed at all” or “a precautionary attachment can be applied to any asset” cannot be given.

How do a criminal investigation and seizure affect the payment process?

A criminal complaint may be important for investigating suspicious transactions, examining money movements and, where the conditions are met, taking measures concerning assets. Nevertheless, a seizure order is not an order of payment to the investor. Protecting the fund’s assets, recovering a value connected with the offense, confiscation and restitution to a particular investor are subject to different conditions. [27]

Public news reports on the September 2026 investigations reported judicial asset measures; a report dated September 28 stated that the measure on 45 firms and 19 funds had been lifted. This development shows both that the scope of the measures may change and that a judicial measure and an SPK trading restriction need to be examined separately. The report cannot be used as evidence that the same measure continues in respect of all companies or funds. [23]

For the investor, the information to be submitted to the criminal file should explain how the personal loss arose and with which transactions it is connected. The existence of a collective investigation does not mean that each applicant’s claim and its amount are automatically determined in the file. The effect of a criminal investigation on the protection of assets and the remedy of losses is discussed in detail in the third article.

What should be known about YTM, state backing and the new bill?

Does the Investor Compensation Center (Yatırımcı Tazmin Merkezi) pay for every fund loss?

The YTM system is connected with an investment firm’s failure, under certain conditions, to fulfill its obligation to deliver cash or capital market instruments belonging to the investor, and with the relevant compensation decision. YTM’s official statement indicates that losses arising from investment advice or from market price movements are outside its scope. It therefore cannot be said that all losses of a fund supervised by SPK will be automatically paid by the state. [15]

Protection of fund assets, deposit insurance, YTM compensation and an interim payment made under a particular decision are separate legal institutions. An expression evoking security in the fund’s name or promotion does not create deposit protection either. If there is a genuine guarantee, its scope, guarantor, conditions and to which investor it applies in which period should be determined from the contract and disclosure documents.

Is the bill of October 9 in force?

The “Bill on Certain Investment Funds Whose Liquidation Has Been Decided” (Tasfiyesine Karar Verilen Bazı Yatırım Fonları Hakkında Kanun Teklifi) was submitted to TBMM on October 9, 2026 under docket number 2/3939. A TBMM news item of October 14 reports its adoption in committee. In the bill record accessible at the October 18 review, the status appears as “In Committee”; these sources do not show that a law has entered into force. [22]

The special collection, refund, liability or calculation methods within the scope of the bill should therefore not be presented as rights already settled today. Conversely, SPK’s interim payment decisions in force should not be disregarded merely because similar subjects appear in the bill. The investor’s application is prepared under the current rules; if the bill becomes law and is published, the final text, entry into force and transitional provisions will be assessed separately.

How should the investor prepare the application file?

A well-prepared file allows the administrative, private law and criminal aspects of the same event to support one another. At the first stage it is useful to organize the following records:

• The full name and code of the fund; all purchase dates, purchase amounts and numbers of units.
• Account statements from the bank or brokerage firm and the unit information shown in the MKK records.
• The sell instruction number, creation and transmission times, value date and cancellation or rejection record.
• KAP documents as of the transaction date, the fund strategy, risk and sales conditions.
• Client classification, qualified investor documents and, if any, appropriateness or suitability records.
• Correspondence with the institution, calculations sent to the investor and lawfully held records of conversations.
• Liquidation or interim payment bank receipts (dekont); explanations of the calculation, deductions and offsets.
• If additional loss is asserted, the loan agreement, interest statement, payment dates and other expense documents.

After the documents have been placed in chronological order, each alleged error should be shown separately. For example, for an allegation of late transmission of the instruction, the relevant order records; for misinformation, pre-sale statements; for a valuation error, price and portfolio records come to the fore. Requesting missing documents from the institution, having them obtained by the court where necessary, or the preservation of evidence at risk of being lost is considered. [17] [28]

Careful records should also be kept when receiving payment. It should be determined whether the payment is an interim or a final payment, against which claim it is offset and whether a release or settlement text has also been presented. With respect to accrued interest, the issue of reserving the right under Article 131 TBK is important. Receiving a payment and waiving all claims are not the same; however, the content of the document signed and the legal nature of the payment may change the outcome. [17]

Related articles: Seizure in Criminal Proceedings: Legal Limits, Objection and Routes to Return; 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; Criminal Investigations, Seizure and Remedying Investor Losses in Investment Funds Under Liquidation; How to File a Complaint with the Capital Markets Board (SPK): Procedure, Required Documents and Legal Consequences; Forgotten Assets in an Investment Account: The 10-Year Period, Transfer to the YTM and the Return Application.

Conclusion

In SPK fund liquidation, the investor’s first objective is to establish the current legal status of their fund and the payment calculation relating to them. To this end, the fund code, the unit record, all stages of the sell instruction and the liquidation decisions should be examined together. The separation of fund assets provides protection as regards entitlement; but it does not create an unconditional assurance of payment for the entire principal.

The strength of a legal application depends as much on making the correct legal distinctions as on the severity of the grievance. When the liquidation proceeds, a past order error, mis-selling, a breach of portfolio or custody obligations and delay costs are shown separately, the correct addressee, evidence and claim can be determined. SPK review, a civil action and a criminal investigation may affect one another; the purpose, procedure and time limit of each should be preserved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a decision to liquidate the fund mean that my money is completely lost?

No. Liquidation requires the determination of assets and liabilities and the preparation of a payment calculation. The amount to be paid depends on the fund’s net value and the specific liquidation procedure. Having an entitlement record and being paid the initial amount invested in full are separate matters. [1] [2]

Are all Tera, Pusula, Hedef, Atlas, A1 Capital, Pardus and Bulls investors subject to the same procedure?

No. The fund code, the decision list and subsequent SPK arrangements are decisive. In particular, because Hedef was moved to a different payment procedure on October 15, 2026, earlier statements are not sufficient on their own. [4] [7] [8] [9]

Can I apply before the six-month liquidation period expires?

There is no need to wait in order to request information and calculations, preserve records and prepare specific breach allegations. Whether an action or enforcement proceedings can be brought, however, is examined according to the relevant decision, the debtor, the claim and special protection provisions. Six months does not mean that all rights are put on hold. [5] [21]

If I gave my sell instruction on September 17 before 13:30, do I have priority?

SPK’s September 28 statement indicates that all September 17 instructions were canceled. Definite priority cannot be assumed based solely on the time. If there is an earlier-dated order or an allegation of an error attributable to the institution, the full transaction records should be examined. [6]

If I receive an interim payment, will I have waived the remaining amount?

Receiving an interim payment does not by itself show that all claims have been waived. Against which claim the payment is offset, any release or settlement text, and the reservation of accrued interest should be assessed. The same loss cannot be collected twice. [7] [17]

If I invested more than one million TL, will the rest not be paid?

The interim payment limit is not a general ceiling on all liquidation and compensation claims. The interim payment calculation in a fund within the scope, the final balance and separate legal claims for loss are different. Moreover, not every fund group is subject to the same interim payment procedure. [7] [8] [9]

Does my right of action disappear because I am a qualified investor?

No. The status may affect the scope of some obligations; it does not entirely remove the obligations of care, loyalty, transacting in accordance with the contract and keeping accurate records. The loss and breach claimed should be made concrete. [2] [19]

If I complain to SPK, will SPK decide that compensation be paid?

In such complaints, SPK conducts a review of compliance with legislation; it does not award individual compensation for loss. For compensation, the arbitration committee, mediation or judicial route appropriate to the nature of the dispute is assessed separately. [16]

If the company’s assets have been seized, has payment become certain?

No. Seizure is a protective measure. To whom the asset belongs, its connection with the offense, the conditions for return and the other rights holders are examined separately. A measure in the criminal file does not mean that the investor’s personal claim has automatically been collected. [27]

Which documents take priority while the liquidation payment is awaited?

The fund code and unit record, the date and transmission information of the instruction, the value date, the reason for cancellation, KAP documents, the responses received from the institution and payment statements take priority. If there are additional costs because of the delay, documents showing their amount, date and connection with the inability to access the fund proceeds should also be kept.

Sources and legal bases

The legal and factual review date is October 18, 2026. Current events are reported within the scope of the official statements on the dates indicated. Complaints and interviews have been used only to show the problems raised by investors; they have not been treated as established findings of fault or offense.

1. Capital Markets Law No. 6362 (Sermaye Piyasası Kanunu), in particular Arts. 52, 53, 56, 82–84, 96–97 and 134. Official copy linked from MKK’s legislation page, including the 2024 amendments: mkk.com.tr
2. SPK, Communiqué on Principles Regarding Investment Funds (Yatırım Fonlarına İlişkin Esaslar Tebliği) (III-52.1), July 9, 2013/28702; text including the amendment of March 1, 2024, in particular Arts. 3, 9, 12, 25, 28–31: mevzuat.spk.gov.tr
3. SPK Bulletin No. 2026/60, decision No. 57/1707 of September 17, 2026: spk.gov.tr
4. SPK Bulletin No. 2026/61, decision No. 57/1708 of September 17, 2026, fund list and liquidation procedure: spk.gov.tr
5. SPK, Time Limit Arrangement Concerning Funds Subject to Liquidation (Tasfiye Konusu Fonlara İlişkin Süre Düzenlemesi), September 21, 2026: spk.gov.tr
6. SPK, Press Announcement on the Liquidation Period (Tasfiye Süresine İlişkin Basın Duyurusu), September 28, 2026; earlier orders and September 17 instructions: spk.gov.tr
7. SPK, Interim Payment Announcement Concerning Funds in Liquidation (Tasfiyedeki Fonlara İlişkin Ara Ödeme Duyurusu), October 1, 2026: spk.gov.tr
8. SPK, Announcement on the Liquidation Process of the Funds Founded by A1 Capital, Bulls and Pardus (A1 Capital, Bulls ve Pardus’un Kurucusu Olduğu Fonlara İlişkin Tasfiye Süreci Hakkında Duyuru), October 1, 2026; decision No. 64/1770: spk.gov.tr
9. SPK Bulletin No. 2026/70, decision No. 70/1821 of October 15, 2026, Hedef funds: spk.gov.tr
10. SPK, Statement on the Number of Investors in Funds Subject to Liquidation (Tasfiye Konusu Fonlardaki Yatırımcı Sayısına İlişkin Açıklama), September 23, 2026: spk.gov.tr
11. Directorate of Communications (İletişim Başkanlığı), Statement on the Fifth Fund Coordination Board Meeting (Beşinci Fon Koordinasyon Kurulu Toplantısına İlişkin Açıklama), October 13, 2026: iletisim.gov.tr
12. Aposto, Those affected by the fund crisis speak out (Fon krizinden etkilenenler anlatıyor), September 24, 2026; investor accounts and the institution’s response: aposto.com
13. Şikâyetvar, investor statement on the VakıfBank/Tera fund not being sellable and on rent and credit card payments, September 17, 2026; together with the bank’s response: sikayetvar.com
14. Şikâyetvar, investor statement on Odeabank’s fund information, September 23, 2026; together with the bank’s review response: sikayetvar.com
15. Investor Compensation Center, Scope of Protection (Koruma Kapsamı), in particular the scope of losses from price movements and investment advice: ytm.gov.tr
16. SPK, Where and How to File a Complaint? (Şikâyet Başvurusu Nereye, Nasıl Yapılır?), January 16, 2022: spk.gov.tr
17. Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Arts. 49–52, 72, 112, 117–122, 131, 146–147, 154 and 502–514; Ministry of Justice text: mgm.adalet.gov.tr
18. 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, May 27, 2021, E. 2020/6040, K. 2021/4503; publicly available reproduction of the full decision: hukukihaber.net
19. 43rd Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, February 2, 2022, E. 2020/536, K. 2022/112; publicly available reproduction of the full decision: hukukihaber.net
20. Law No. 7589, adopted: July 16, 2026; Official Gazette: July 31, 2026/33326; in particular Arts. 19, 20, 26 and provisional Art. 1/10; text as adopted by TBMM: cdn.tbmm.gov.tr
21. YTM, Article 97 SPKn — Measures to Be Applied in the Event of Deterioration of the Financial Position (Mali Durumun Bozulması Hâlinde Uygulanacak Tedbirler): ytm.gov.tr
22. TBMM, Bill on Certain Investment Funds Whose Liquidation Has Been Decided, docket no. 2/3939, October 9, 2026; status record: tbmm.gov.tr — Committee news item, October 14, 2026: tbmm.gov.tr
23. Anadolu Agency (Anadolu Ajansı), report on the lifting of the asset measure on 45 firms and 19 funds, September 28, 2026: aa.com.tr
24. Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), in particular Arts. 7, 11–13; Ministry of Justice archive text: rayp.adalet.gov.tr — For application and response time limits, together with the amendments of Law No. 7331, Arts. 1–3: cdn.tbmm.gov.tr
25. Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (Türk Ticaret Kanunu), in particular Arts. 4, 5 and 5/A; Ministry of Trade copy including the 2023 amendment of Art. 5/A: aydin.ticaret.gov.tr
26. Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), in particular Arts. 3, 73 and 73/A; Ministry of Trade copy: tuketici.ticaret.gov.tr
27. Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Arts. 128 and 131; Ministry of Justice text: alternatifcozumler.adalet.gov.tr
28. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Arts. 219–221, 266 and 400; Ministry of Justice article text: mgm.adalet.gov.tr — For Arts. 107 and 109, the 2026 amendment in [20] has additionally been taken as the basis.