This text refers to the Capital Markets Law No. 6362 (“CML”), the Law No. 7596 on Certain Investment Funds Ordered to be Liquidated (“Liquidation Law”), the Code of Administrative Procedure No. 2577 (“CAP”), the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (“TCO”), the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (“TCC”) and the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey No. 2709 (“Constitution”). The abbreviations Capital Markets Board (“CMB” or “the Board”), Central Securities Depository (“CSD”), Investor Compensation Centre (“ICC”) and Constitutional Court (“CC”) are used.
What is the Final Deadline for Fund Creditors with PBLK Status to Bring a Claim?
At the outset, we note that the topical nature of this matter has prompted considerable commentary. The time limits discussed here must be taken into account if proceedings before the administrative courts are contemplated. It is important to understand that there is no single “final filing deadline for affected fund investors”
Then why are the dates 16 November or 30 November mentioned?
The time limit for bringing proceedings is calculated separately for each administrative decision. These dates are the deadlines calculated for taking legal action in respect of the initial decisions published by the CMB, details of which are set out in the table below. For example, as you can see in the table, if the publication of a decision dated 17 September 2026 is deemed to have triggered the time limit, the general 60-day period would expire on Monday, 16 November 2026. This is a conditional date; its applicability to the entire 17 September decision or to each of its sub-decisions, and the individual’s legally protected interest, must be assessed separately.
| Decision | What It Regulates | Conditional Final Date for Bringing Legal Proceedings |
|---|---|---|
| Decisions Nos. 57/1706–57/1707 dated 17 September 2026 | CMB Bulletin 2026/60 | The suspension of trading in TEFAS funds established by certain portfolio management companies and the liquidation of the funds listed. | Monday 16 November 2026, assuming that the announcement/notification commencing the period was issued on 17 September 2026. This is not a common date for the termination of all investor claims. |
| Decision No. 57/1708 dated 17 September 2026 and Regulation A/6 | CMB Bulletin 2026/61 | Custody and liquidation procedures; appointment of Türkiye İş Bankası for Tera Funds and T.C. Ziraat Bankası for the other specified funds. A/6: Accrual of a debt to the fund account in respect of unexecuted TEFAS redemption instructions falling within the scope, with priority payment from the cash proceeds obtained. | Assuming an announcement/notification was issued on 17 September 2026 to commence the period, the deadline is Monday, 16 November 2026. Each constituent administrative act must be assessed separately; annulment of the favourable A/6 provision is not automatically the appropriate relief to seek. |
| Decisions Nos. 64/1775 and 64/1770 dated 30 September 2026 | CMB Bulletin 2026/67 | Interim payment procedure based on the net investment amount for the Tera/Pusula/Atlas/Hedef funds; separate liquidation order for A1 Capital/Bulls/Pardus. Subsequent changes regarding Hedef shall also be taken into account. | Assuming an announcement/notification was issued on 30 September 2026 to commence the period, Monday 30 November 2026 (the 60th day being Sunday 29 November). |
| Hedef decision dated 15 October 2026 | CMB Bulletin 2026/70 | Hedef funds are to be excluded from the scope of Decision No. 64/1775 and subject to the liquidation principles set out in Decision No. 64/1770. | If 15 October 2026 is taken as the start of the period, the deadline is Monday, 14 December 2026; if the bulletin announcement of 16 October 2026 is taken as the basis, the deadline is Tuesday, 15 December 2026. The date to be taken as the basis is determined according to the nature of the administrative act and the announcement/notification. |
| Administrative acts dated 26 October 2026 | CMB Bulletin 2026/75 | Temporary suspension of operations; appointment of İş Bankası as the liquidation bank for investment funds (other than those ordered to be liquidated pursuant to the decisions dated 17 September 2026), real estate investment funds and venture capital investment funds established by Tera, and Ziraat Bankası for those established by Pusula. | Friday 25 December 2026, assuming there is an announcement/notification commencing the period on 26 October 2026. This is assessed separately for the relevant separate administrative act. |
| Decision No. 76/1903 dated 27 October 2026 | CMB Bulletin 2026/76 | Determination of the liquidation and payment procedures relating to the Tera/Pusula/Atlas funds under the Liquidation Law. | Assuming the notice dated 27 October 2026 triggers the time limit, the deadline is Monday 28 December 2026 (the 60th day being Saturday 26 December). The final day cannot be determined definitively without examining the investor-specific notification or implementation date. |
The above dates represent general calculations of a 60-day administrative period, based on the assumption that the relevant administrative act triggered the time limit on the specified date via a proper announcement or written notification, and that there is no valid application that would cause the period to be suspended.
In individual cases, the effect of each decision must be examined in the context of the person’s specific circumstances. Once it has been determined which decision is at issue, and the grounds and subject matter of the claim, the final deadline for bringing proceedings must be checked. Bulletin 2026/61 A/6 sets out the recognition of a liability in the fund account for qualifying unexecuted redemption instructions, and the rule requiring priority payment from the cash realised. If an investor falls within the scope of this provision and relies on the priority claim, seeking the annulment of the rule in their favour may weaken the desired outcome. The objective of the claim should, as a rule, not be the annulment of this provision in their favour; rather, it should be the specific administrative act that fails to apply it, excludes the investor from the relevant status or account, or applies the Liquidation Law to the detriment of the investor. This reasoning does not lead to the conclusion that ‘no PBLK investor should bring a claim against any administrative act of 17 September’. The separate impact on the investor of the various decisions made on 17 September and the procedures set out in Bulletin 2026/61 will be examined individually. If the first administrative act causing loss occurred on 17 September, the time limit for challenging that act may have run independently of the period relating to the decision dated 27 October. Therefore, it must first be determined which provision is in the investor’s favour, which is against them, and what outcome is sought in respect of each administrative act.
To summarise, the legal action to be taken for all PBLK creditors is not exactly the same, and each creditor’s specific circumstances must be assessed individually.
In Which Courts Can a Claim Be Brought?
In this specific case, two paths may be followed:
Against the CMB | Administrative courts
Annulment of a CMB decision: Pursuant to CAP, an application may be made for the annulment of an administrative act that adversely affects an investor. The general time limit for bringing an action is 60 days from the day following the notification or publication that triggers the time limit, depending on the nature of the act.
Request for administrative action: Under Article 10 of the CAP, an application may be made to the CMB for the issuance of an administrative decision regarding entitlement, correction of records, or accounts/payments. Under the general regime, failure to respond within 30 days is deemed a tacit refusal; thereafter, the relevant time limit for bringing a claim commences.
Revocation, withdrawal or amendment of an existing decision: Pursuant to Article 11 of the CAP, these are matters for which an application may first be made to the administrative authority. An application made within the time limit for bringing legal proceedings suspends the running of the time limit, where applicable; the remaining time limit runs following a rejection.
Damages arising from a CMB decision: Depending on the circumstances, compensation may be sought either alongside an action for annulment or through an action for damages before the administrative courts under the other options set out in Article 12 of the CAP.
Damages arising from negligence in supervision or oversight: For damages characterised as resulting from an administrative act or omission, both the preliminary application and an action for damages before the administrative courts are considered. The one- and five-year application periods under Article 13 of the CAP, as well as the time limit for bringing an action following a rejection or failure to respond, must be calculated separately from the dates on which the act and the damage were discovered.
Against companies and banks | Civil courts
Claims based on tort: Pursuant to Article 72 of the TCO, a general limitation period of two years from the date the damage and the liable party are discovered, and in any event a ten-year limitation period from the date of the act, applies; this is subject to cases where a longer criminal limitation period may apply.
Liability of directors and auditors: Taking Article 560 of the TCC into account, in matters of corporate liability, a two-year period from the date on which the damage and the liable party are discovered, and in any event a five-year period from the date of the act causing the damage, are separately assessed; this is subject to cases where a longer criminal limitation period may apply.
Claims based on a contract: Unless a specific time limit applies, the general limitation period is ten years; if a breach of contract is established following a careful examination of the contractual obligations, this course of action may be pursued.
We would like to emphasise that, in the context of specific cases, it must be assessed separately whether mediation is a prerequisite.
In addition, should the fund’s assets be distributed at the conclusion of the liquidation process, there is a risk that no recoverable amount may remain even if the case is decided in your favour; therefore, the application for interim measures in the civil courts, as well as the request for a stay of execution alongside the action to be brought in the administrative courts, should also be considered.
As regards the question of the CC, an individual application cannot be lodged directly with the CC without first bringing proceedings before the competent courts. Nor is the route to the European Court of Human Rights open unless all these legal remedies have been exhausted.
Which Provisions Could Be Alleged to Have Been Violated?
The provisions listed below constitute potential legal grounds; however, the articles that may be cited as having been breached are not limited to those set out here. To establish a concrete breach, the elements of duty, fault, damage and a proper causal link must be proven.
| Basis | Allegation / provision that can be substantiated | Required distinction / proof |
|---|---|---|
| CML Articles 1, 2(2), 3(1) | Protection of investors’ rights and interests; application of general provisions in the absence of specific regulations; distinction between the capacities of investment firm, custodian and collective investment undertaking. | Provisions regarding purpose and definition do not, in themselves, give rise to a claim for compensation. The institution’s capacity in the specific transaction must be determined. |
| CML Article 10; Articles 14–15, 32, 36(1) and 54(1)(ç) | Liability arising from incorrect, misleading or incomplete information in prospectuses, financial reports and other disclosure documents; disclosure of developments affecting the price or investment decisions. | The document, the responsible signatory/issuer, the incorrect information, and the link between the transaction and the loss must be identified. The provisions of Article 32 concerning specific causation, exemption from liability and the limitation period are assessed separately. |
| Article 13(2)–(3), (5) and Article 81(1), (4)–(5) of the CML | Monitoring of book-entry rights with the CSD; liability of the CSD and its members in proportion to their fault for losses arising from incorrect registration. | PBLK/blocking status, entitlement and claims for correction of records are compared with the CSD’s member records; the recording error and its impact on the loss are demonstrated. |
| CML Article 21(1)–(4) and 94 | Prohibition on the hidden transfer of profits in collective investment undertakings; documentation of related-party transactions and the repayment of the transferred amount with statutory interest; the Board’s powers to bring legal proceedings and impose measures. | The related party, the deviation from arm’s-length terms, the reduction in the fund’s assets and the transfer of benefits are substantiated. The investor’s individual claim for compensation is distinguished from restitution to the fund. |
| Article 37(1)(a), (b), (ç), (ğ) of the CML; Article 39(1), (8)–(9) and Article 40 | Separation of order reception/transmission, order execution, portfolio management and custody services; operating licence and scope of authorisation. | The authorisation certificate of the bank/brokerage firm and the services it actually undertakes are specified. Order reception, transmission to TEFAS, execution and settlement are separate stages. |
| Articles 42(2) and 45(1), (4)–(5) of the CML | Client agreements; principles governing the provision of services; investor classification; internal control and complaint handling systems designed to safeguard investor interests. | The framework agreement, order channel, internal control records, date of the complaint and the institution’s response are examined. Specific obligations are determined in conjunction with secondary regulations. |
| Article 46(4)–(8) of the CML | Collateral must not be used for purposes other than those intended; investors’ cash and assets must be tracked separately, unauthorised use must be prevented, and clients’ cash must be held in separate accounts at the bank. | The fund’s assets are kept separate from the client’s assets held with the investment firm. Written authorisation, account transactions and the purpose of use are examined; the bank’s liability under Article 46(7) is limited to notifications. |
| CML Article 52(1)–(4) | The fund’s assets are held on a fiduciary basis; the founder represents and manages the fund whilst safeguarding the rights of unit-holders; where there is a gap, Articles 502–514 of the TCO apply by analogy. | The fund rules, management arrangements and the investor’s unit-holding are determined. The liability of the portfolio management company is not to be confused with that of the institution transmitting orders. |
| Article 53(1)–(4) of the CML | The separation of the fund’s assets from those of the founder and the custodian; restrictions on security, attachment and insolvency; payment to unit-holders upon liquidation and the prohibition on set-off. | The fund account, unlawful transfers/offsets and ownership rights are examined. The special regime of the Liquidation Law and its effect on PBLK status are assessed together. |
| CML Article 54(1)(a)–(ç) and 55(3), (6) | The Board’s authority to determine the principles of valuation, redemption price, trading, liquidation and disclosure; the portfolio management company’s duty to safeguard the interests of the fund and investors. | Failure to disclose prices, incorrect valuation, and allegations regarding fund management and liquidation must be matched to the relevant fund rules, secondary legislation and Board decision. |
| Article 56(1)(a), (c), (ç), (d), (e) and (f) of the CML; Article 56(2)–(9) | The custodian’s controls regarding issuance/redemption, valuation, instructions, transfer of proceeds, use of income and portfolio compliance; liability for damages to unit-holders; right to bring legal action, joint and several liability in the case of sub-custody and independence. | The breached control duty, the period during which the duty applied, the loss and the causal link must be demonstrated. Where sub-custody exists, the applicability of Article 56(4) is examined. The roles of custodian and order-handling bank/liquidation institution are distinguished. |
| Article 79(1)–(3) and Article 80(3)–(4) of the CML | The irrevocability of clearing instructions/transactions and payment transactions; the protection of central clearing collateral and central custody supervision. | Whether an order has been entered into the clearing system and the stage it is at are indicated by the record. Not every sell order given to a bank automatically constitutes a finalised clearing transaction. |
| Articles 82–85 of the CML | The Board’s compensation decision, the ICC, the scope of compensation and the application/payment process in the event that an investment firm is unable to fulfil its obligation to make cash payments or deliver securities. | The conditions for the compensation decision and scope must be met. Losses arising from market price movements and investment advisory services are excluded from the scope. Fund liquidation does not automatically trigger ICC compensation; the current ceiling and the application period under Article 85(1) must also be checked. |
| Articles 86 and 98 of the CML | The gradual liquidation of the investment firm, outstanding customer claims, the order of payment and the suspension of enforcement proceedings; where the conditions are met, the Board may request the personal bankruptcy of those responsible. | A distinction is made between the gradual liquidation of an investment firm and the liquidation of a fund. The relevant Board decision, the determination of liability and the conditions regarding persons and capacities set out in Article 98 must be met. |
| Articles 88–90 of the CML; Articles 91(3), 92, 96 and 97 | Audit and examination of records; measures against the misuse of assets contrary to the prospectus, transactions reducing the assets, and unlawful activities; powers to suspend operations, order compensation and initiate liquidation in the event of financial deterioration. | The facts of which the Board became aware or which it established, the timing of intervention and the link to actual damage are determined. The provisions on powers do not constitute an automatic guarantee of administrative compensation; the suspension of proceedings and the distinction regarding special powers in relation to banks are taken into account. |
| Article 110(1)(a), (c) and Article 110(2); Article 115(1) of the CML | Criminal assessment in cases of misuse of assets held in trust, hidden profit transfers within collective investment undertakings, and the falsification or destruction of records; a written application by the Board is a prerequisite for prosecution. | The elements of the offence and the relevant status of the perpetrator must be proven separately. Not every loss or delay to a fund constitutes an offence; criminal proceedings do not replace individual claims for debt or compensation. |
| Liquidation Law, Articles 1, 3 (in particular 3(5)); Articles 4–6 and 8 | Scope of special liquidation; unit-holding of investors with PBLK status, due care in liquidation, accounts/interim payments, recovery and entry-into-force provisions. | TEFAS transmission, default/failure to disclose prices and blocking conditions; the net investment calculation and its application in the specific case are examined. The relationship between the general regime of the CML and the special provisions is determined. |
| TCO Articles 112, 114 and 116 | Failure to perform a contractual or service obligation as required; acts of an auxiliary person. | The duties undertaken by the bank or brokerage firm and the impact of the breach on the loss are demonstrated. |
| Articles 506–508 of the TCO | Duties of loyalty, care and accounting, and liability for the use of substitutes in services governed by the rules on mandate. | The time of the instruction, transmission records, the outcome of the instruction, collection/transfer and account records are examined. |
| Articles 117–120 and 122 of the TCO | Default on a due debt; loss arising from delay and loss exceeding default interest. | A PBLK entry alone does not constitute proof of a due debt or default against the bank. Damages are calculated separately. |
| Articles 49–51 and 61–62 of the TCO | Unlawful act, multiple liability for the same loss and recourse between liable parties. | The investor’s direct claim for compensation is distinct from the claim for recourse by the liable party who has made the payment. |
| TCC Articles 18(2), 553 and 557 | The prudent businessperson standard; liability arising from a company director’s negligent breach of duty and differentiated joint and several liability. | Holding fund units does not constitute shareholding in a company; Article 555 of the Turkish Commercial Code does not provide an automatic route to individual compensation. Direct/indirect damage and standing to sue are distinguished. |
| Constitution, Articles 2, 10, 13, 35, 36 and 125 | Legal certainty, equality, proportionality, property rights, access to justice and administrative liability. | The comparison group, the impact on personal assets, and the purpose and extent of the intervention are specified; state liability is not an automatic guarantee. |
Parties That May Be Liable
- Bank receiving/transmitting the order: Obligations to receive the instruction, transmit it correctly and in a timely manner, report the outcome of the transaction and provide an account are examined. If it transpires that the bank transmitted the order in a timely manner but the fund transaction could not be completed for reasons attributable to the fund, this alone does not render the bank liable for the entire loss in value of the investment.
- Brokerage firm: Its role in the order chain, the client agreement, order records, execution and the transfer of proceeds are assessed. Automatic joint and several liability between the bank and the brokerage firm is not presumed.
- Portfolio custodian and liquidation bank: Custody and oversight duties relating to fund assets and cash movements must be distinguished from reconciliation, sale and payment duties arising after the commencement of liquidation. The appointment of a liquidation bank does not mean that it automatically assumes the debts of the institutions previously involved.
Separate notices may be sent to the relevant institutions via a notary or by a verifiable registered method. The notice may request the time of order receipt/transmission, the TEFAS order number, price/value date, rejection or default code, the basis for the PBLK entry, the CSD reconciliation, the net investment calculation and the payment schedule; the preservation of the relevant records may be requested. If there is a claim for payment of a due debt, payment of this is explicitly demanded; the request for information and records is kept separate from the claim for compensation.
Pursuant to Article 117 of the TCO, a notice of demand may be significant in relation to default in the case of a due debt. However, a notice of demand does not suspend the time limit for bringing an administrative action against a decision of the CMB; nor should it be presumed to interrupt the limitation period on its own.
If a breach relating to order transmission or the transfer of proceeds is proven, the investor may bring a direct claim for payment or damages from the relevant bank or brokerage firm. The loss must be calculated by comparing the actual economic situation with the situation that would have arisen had the breach not occurred; the fund’s entire loss cannot be attributed solely to the order transmission institution.
Finally, we would like to point out that the recovery of fund losses under Article 5 of the Liquidation Law is distinct from an investor’s claim for damages arising from individual order transmission. The same loss cannot be recovered twice; in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(5) of the Liquidation Law, payments made through other legal channels shall be set off against the final payment.
