INTRODUCTION

Investment funds are important capital market instruments that enable individual investors to put their savings to work through professional portfolio management. The management of resources pooled from different investors in accordance with specific investment strategies makes investment funds significant both for individual savers and for the financial system. Nevertheless, the existence of professional management and regulatory oversight mechanisms does not mean that investment funds are risk-free or that investors’ principal is protected under all circumstances.

Developments in September 2026 concerning investment funds established by various portfolio management companies, particularly Tera Portfolio Management Inc. and Pusula Portfolio Management Inc., have concretely demonstrated the importance of this distinction. By its decisions dated 17 September 2026, the Capital Markets Board of Türkiye (CMB) suspended trading in a total of 131 investment funds established by seven portfolio management companies and initiated the liquidation process for those funds. In its announcement dated 23 September 2026, the CMB reported that, according to the records of the Central Securities Depository (MKK), the number of unique investors in these funds was 455,758. This figure concerns not only investors in Tera and Pusula funds but all funds included in the liquidation process.

Following these developments, investors’ primary questions have focused on the extent to which they can recover their investments, when the liquidation proceedings will be completed, and against which persons or institutions any resulting losses may be claimed. These questions cannot be answered merely by examining the current values of the funds. The composition of the fund portfolio, the realistic valuation of assets, the conditions under which sales will be carried out, investors’ records of fund participation units, and the legal obligations of the relevant institutions must all be assessed together.

The CMB’s announcement dated 1 October 2026 introduced an additional procedure providing for interim payments to investors who have completed reconciliation procedures in connection with the liquidation of funds established by Tera, Pusula, Atlas, and Hedef Portfolio Management. The maximum amount of this payment was set at TRY 1 million for each investor in respect of each individual fund. The payment is to be calculated on the basis of the investor’s net investment amount determined by the MKK and deducted from the amount ultimately payable to the investor upon completion of the final liquidation. Accordingly, although this development establishes a significant payment mechanism for investors, it does not constitute a guarantee that all investments will be repaid in full.

The legal dimension of the fund crisis is not limited to the amount recoverable upon liquidation. It is also necessary to investigate whether the fund was managed in breach of applicable legislation, whether investors were provided with accurate and sufficient information, whether the assets in the portfolio were valued lawfully, and whether the relevant institutions duly fulfilled their obligations. Depending on the circumstances of the particular case, claims for damages under private law, complaints to the CMB, proceedings before the administrative courts, or criminal complaints to the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor may be considered. However, each of these avenues is subject to different legal requirements and produces different consequences.

1. WHAT IS THE TERA-PUSULA FUND CRISIS?

1.1. Structure and Operation of Investment Funds

An investment fund is a pool of assets established using resources collected from investors and managed in accordance with a specific investment strategy. A fund’s portfolio may include shares, debt instruments, money market instruments, and other assets permitted under applicable legislation. The fund’s type, risk level, investment strategy, and asset allocation are determined within the framework of its prospectus, investor information form, and relevant regulations.

Investors participate in a fund by purchasing fund participation units rather than by directly acquiring ownership interests in the fund’s underlying assets. The value of a participation unit is determined according to the value of the fund portfolio and the calculation principles applicable to the relevant fund. Therefore, the amount displayed in an investor’s account does not necessarily indicate that an equivalent amount of cash is immediately available. The displayed value represents the calculated value of the fund assets under the applicable valuation principles.

The fund founder assumes primary responsibilities for establishing the fund and ensuring that it operates in compliance with applicable legislation. Portfolio management involves selecting and managing assets within the framework of the fund’s investment strategy. The portfolio custodian, meanwhile, occupies a separate position with respect to the safekeeping of fund assets and the performance of the supervisory and control duties imposed upon it by law. These functions cannot be presumed to belong to the same legal entity; each institution’s liability must be assessed in light of its own responsibilities and conduct.

1.2. Development of the Fund Crisis

According to the CMB’s announcement dated 18 September 2026, during the final quarter of 2025, it was observed that the funds of certain portfolio management companies, particularly through hedge funds and money market funds, had caused unusual price movements in shares with low effective free-float ratios. In explaining the background to its regulatory work, the Board referred to the meeting of the Financial Stability Committee held on 2 December 2025, the work carried out throughout 2026, and the amendments made to the Guide on Investment Funds on 28 August 2026.

These developments demonstrate that the crisis was not limited to the liquidation decisions adopted in September 2026. Nevertheless, the legal nature of the relationship between subsequent regulatory amendments and the payment difficulties that emerged must be examined on the basis of concrete evidence. The entry into force of a regulatory amendment does not, by itself, establish that previous transactions were unlawful or that a particular institution has incurred liability for damages.

Pursuant to the CMB’s decisions dated 17 September 2026, trading in the funds included in the liquidation process through the Turkish Electronic Fund Trading Platform (TEFAS) was suspended. The list of funds subject to liquidation and the applicable procedures and principles were announced in the Board’s Bulletin No. 2026/61. Further announcements were subsequently published concerning the liquidation period and the status of certain transaction instructions.

1.3. Chronology of Major Developments

Date	Development	Legal Significance
2 December 2025	Matters concerning the effects of certain funds on the market were discussed at a meeting of the Financial Stability Committee.	Official explanation concerning the background to the regulatory work.
28 August 2026	The Guide on Investment Funds was updated.	A new regulatory framework concerning fund portfolios and market risks.
17 September 2026	Trading in 131 funds established by seven portfolio management companies was suspended, and liquidation proceedings were initiated.	Commencement of the liquidation process.
20 September 2026	A decision was adopted to amend a specified period under the liquidation procedure.	Amendment concerning the liquidation period.
21 September 2026	It was announced that the relevant period had been extended from three months to six months.	The six-month period is to be understood as the maximum period; liquidation does not necessarily have to take six months.
23 September 2026	It was announced that the funds subject to liquidation had 455,758 unique investors.	Official confirmation of the scale of the process.
28 September 2026	Clarification was provided on how certain earlier transaction instructions would be treated in the liquidation process.	Determination of investors’ positions according to the dates of their instructions.
1 October 2026	An interim payment procedure was announced for funds under liquidation established by four portfolio management companies.	Interim payment mechanism for investors who have completed reconciliation.

The information in the table is based on the CMB’s official announcements. The current list of funds subject to liquidation, the actual status of payment transactions, and any subsequent amendments should be monitored separately.

1.4. Liquidity Problems and Fund Valuation

Liquidity refers to the ability to convert an asset into cash within a short period without incurring a significant loss in value. The fact that the total value of a fund’s portfolio assets is high does not mean that all those assets can be sold simultaneously at the same price level.

In particular, large-volume sales of shares with limited trading volume may put pressure on market prices. If a fund is required to dispose of its assets within a short period, the resulting sale prices may fall below previous valuation levels. This may create a difference between the fund’s calculated value and the cash ultimately obtained upon liquidation.

On the other hand, a liquidity problem does not, by itself, establish mismanagement, irregularity, or the commission of a criminal offence. The legal assessment must examine the nature of the portfolio, the fund’s investment strategy, risk disclosures, valuation methods, investor information practices, and whether the relevant institutions acted in compliance with applicable legislation.

The developments in the Tera-Pusula process should not lead to the conclusion that all investment funds carry the same risks. Funds differ in terms of portfolio composition, investment strategy, liquidity, and risk classification. Each investor should first identify the full legal name and code of their particular fund.

2. INVESTORS’ MONEY AND THE LIQUIDATION PROCESS

2.1. What Does the Separation of Fund Assets Mean?

Article 53 of Capital Markets Law No. 6362 contains specific protective provisions concerning the assets of investment funds. The separation of fund assets from the assets of the fund founder and the portfolio custodian is intended to prevent fund assets from being commingled with those institutions’ own assets and liabilities. This separation constitutes an important safeguard for investor protection.

However, the segregation of fund assets does not mean that the investment is guaranteed to preserve its principal. If the market value of shares or other assets in the fund portfolio declines, if there are uncollectible receivables, or if assets cannot be sold at their expected prices, the amount obtained upon liquidation may be lower than the amount initially invested.

Two concepts must therefore be distinguished. Protecting fund assets against the founder’s liabilities concerns the legal segregation of assets. Protecting an investor’s principal concerns the economic outcome of the investment. The first safeguard does not automatically guarantee the second outcome.

2.2. How Is the Liquidation Process Conducted?

Liquidation is the process of identifying the fund’s assets within the applicable legal framework, converting assets into cash, performing the necessary calculations, and determining the amounts payable to entitled parties. The nature of the portfolio assets, market conditions, liquidity, and transaction costs are all important during liquidation.

In its announcement dated 21 September 2026, the CMB stated that a specified period under the liquidation procedures and principles had been extended from three months to six months. The Board clarified that the six-month period did not mean liquidation would necessarily take that long and that the process could be completed earlier, depending on the circumstances.

The relevant announcements stated that Türkiye İş Bankası A.Ş. had been appointed to carry out the liquidation of Tera Portfolio funds, while a different bank had been authorized in respect of certain other funds. The appointment of an institution to conduct liquidation does not automatically make that institution liable for all the conduct of the institution that previously managed the fund. The legal liability of each institution must be assessed separately.

The proceeds obtained from the sale of fund assets during liquidation are important in determining the final distribution. The difference between previous valuation prices and actual sale prices may affect the liquidation balance of the fund. Accordingly, investors should not assume that they will receive a definitive repayment amount solely on the basis of the value previously displayed in their accounts.

2.3. Interim Payments and the TRY 1 Million Limit

The CMB’s announcement dated 1 October 2026 introduced an additional interim payment procedure for funds under liquidation established by Tera, Pusula, Atlas, and Hedef Portfolio Management. Under this procedure, interim payments are envisaged for holders of fund participation units who have completed reconciliation, with the payments to be deducted from the final amounts to which they become entitled upon completion of liquidation.

The interim payment is calculated on the basis of the net investment amount determined by the MKK according to the relevant reconciliation results. The interim payment made to each investor in respect of each individual fund may not exceed TRY 1 million. Where the net investment amount is below TRY 1 million, the full amount is envisaged to be paid; where it is TRY 1 million or more, the payment may not exceed TRY 1 million.

The announcement states that fund participation units will not be returned in exchange for the interim payment and will instead be returned during the final liquidation payments. It was decided that implementation would initially commence with money market funds.

Three points are important in relation to this arrangement. First, reconciliation must have been completed for an interim payment to be made. Second, the TRY 1 million limit applies separately to each investor and each fund; entitlements relating to different funds should not be assessed as though they arose from a single fund. Third, because the interim payment is deducted from the final liquidation claim, it should not be treated as an independent and additional award of damages.

The announcement concerning interim payments does not establish that every investor will receive payment on the same date or recover their entire investment. The actual payment schedule and each investor’s reconciliation status should be monitored through the latest announcements issued by the relevant fund and the institution authorized to conduct the liquidation.

2.4. Difference Between the Value Displayed in an Investor’s Account and the Final Payment

The amount displayed in an investment account may represent the calculated value of the fund participation units on a particular date. The amount payable upon completion of liquidation, however, is determined by taking into account the sales completed, collections received, and applicable liquidation principles during the liquidation of the fund’s assets.

There may be several reasons for a difference between these amounts. Portfolio asset prices may decline, illiquid assets may have to be sold at a lower price, or collection of the fund’s receivables may take time. These circumstances do not establish unlawfulness in every case. Nevertheless, if there are concrete indications that valuation, disclosure, or management obligations have been breached, the matter should be examined separately.

2.5. The Role of the Investor Compensation Center

The Investor Compensation Center (YTM) is a specific compensation mechanism regulated under the Capital Markets Law. However, it is not a general state guarantee covering market losses suffered by all investment funds.

The scope of the YTM depends on statutory conditions, including circumstances in which investment institutions covered by the law are unable to fulfil obligations arising from their capital markets activities as defined under the applicable legislation. The fact that an investment fund has lost value or been placed into liquidation does not, by itself, require a payment under the YTM mechanism.

Investors should therefore distinguish between the interim payment envisaged under the liquidation process and the statutory compensation mechanism administered by the YTM. Whether an application to the YTM is possible in a particular case must be assessed in light of the legal status of the investment product and the relevant institution, as well as the nature of the loss.

3. LEGAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO INVESTORS

3.1. Applications and Complaints to the CMB

Under Capital Markets Law No. 6362, the CMB is authorized to regulate, supervise, and oversee capital markets and to protect investor rights. Investors may apply to the Board if they believe that the management of a fund, disclosure procedures, or capital market transactions have involved a breach of applicable legislation.

For an application to be effective, a general description of the alleged grievance alone may not be sufficient. The full name and code of the fund, the date of investment, the number of participation units, any sale instructions, transactions that were not executed, and correspondence with the relevant institutions should be clearly identified. The alleged unlawful conduct should, as far as possible, be linked to specific events and supporting documents.

A complaint to the CMB may contribute to the initiation of supervisory and investigative procedures. However, the Board’s supervisory authority and the direct compensation of an individual investor’s losses are distinct matters. A complaint does not, by itself, ensure repayment of the investor’s money or the award of damages.

Investors should retain their application reference numbers and any responses received from the Board. They should also avoid assuming that an application to the CMB automatically suspends or interrupts limitation periods or statutory time limits applicable to other legal claims.

3.2. Written Applications to the Portfolio Management Company and Relevant Institutions

Depending on the circumstances, investors may submit written applications to the fund founder, the institution conducting liquidation, the intermediary institution holding their investment account, or other relevant institutions.

The application should include the investor’s identification and contact details, the full name and code of the fund, the investment amount, the number of participation units, purchase and sale dates, outstanding payment requests, and the explanations sought. Where possible, investment account statements, payment receipts, and relevant correspondence should be attached.

Submitting an application in writing is important because it makes it easier to establish both the content of the request and the other party’s response at a later stage. Email, registered electronic mail, or other methods demonstrating delivery may be used. The correct recipient must be identified: a request directed to the institution authorized to conduct liquidation is not the same as an allegation of liability arising from past portfolio management activities.

A written application may help investors obtain information and clarify the scope of the dispute. However, submitting such an application does not necessarily constitute a mandatory prerequisite to commencing legal proceedings in every case. This issue must be examined separately in light of the legal nature of the claim to be pursued.

3.3. Claims for Damages Before the Civil Courts

If it is alleged that an investor’s loss resulted from unlawful conduct, a claim for damages under private law may be available depending on the circumstances of the particular case. Demonstrating merely that the fund has lost value or that a sale instruction was not executed may not be sufficient. It is necessary to examine which obligation the relevant person breached, what type of loss the investor suffered, and whether there is an adequate causal link between the conduct and the loss.

The provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 concerning contractual liability and tort liability may be relevant, depending on the nature of the dispute. For a contractual claim, the agreement between the parties, the scope of their obligations, and the consequences of the breach must be assessed. In a tort claim, the analysis focuses on unlawful conduct, damage, fault, and causation.

When assessing the liability of a portfolio management company, relevant issues may include whether the fund’s investment strategy was followed, whether risks were accurately disclosed, whether assets were managed in compliance with applicable legislation, and whether investors were exposed to misleading information. Nevertheless, it must also be remembered that investment funds are subject to market risk. The fact that an investment has generated a loss does not, by itself, establish negligence or fault in its management.

The calculation of damages should take into account the amount initially invested, payments already received, the status of any remaining participation units, interim or final payments to be made under the liquidation process, and the effect of the alleged breach on the loss. Although more than one legal remedy may be pursued in respect of the same circumstances, the same loss cannot be recovered more than once.

The court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction must be determined according to the parties to the dispute and its legal basis. It should not be assumed that every dispute involving an investment fund automatically falls within the jurisdiction of a commercial court of first instance or that all investors may bring identical claims against the same defendant on the same legal grounds. Before commencing proceedings, the contracts, fund documents, and applicable legislation should be examined together.

3.4. Potential Liability of the CMB and Other Public Authorities

The fact that the CMB has regulatory and supervisory duties does not mean that it will be liable for every loss suffered by fund investors. Nevertheless, if it is alleged in a particular case that an administrative act or action was unlawful, that the administration failed to fulfil its obligations properly, and that this failure caused a specific loss, the legal liability of the administration may be considered.

Article 125 of the Constitution provides for the administration’s obligation to compensate damage arising from its own acts and transactions. However, this provision does not mean that every economic loss must be compensated by the administration. In assessing administrative liability, it is necessary to examine unlawfulness, a failure in public service, or any other applicable basis of liability, together with the causal connection to the damage.

The procedure to be followed before the administrative courts may differ depending on whether the loss arises from an administrative act or an administrative action. Article 12 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 regulates options concerning full-remedy actions for damages arising from administrative acts and their relationship with actions for annulment. For losses arising from administrative actions, the procedures and time limits under Article 13 of the same Law may be relevant.

Accordingly, the possibility of bringing proceedings against the CMB should not be based solely on the fact that a liquidation decision was adopted. The administrative conduct in question, the allegation of unlawfulness, the damage, and the causal link must be specified. The procedural rules applicable to the nature of the case must also be identified with regard to applications and limitation periods.

3.5. Criminal Investigations and Criminal Complaints

If it is believed that the circumstances involve conduct contrary to capital markets legislation or conduct giving rise to suspicion of a criminal offence, a criminal complaint may be filed with the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor. The CMB may also file a criminal complaint following its relevant investigations.

Article 107 of Capital Markets Law No. 6362 contains provisions concerning market manipulation. Articles 157 and 158 of the Turkish Penal Code regulate fraud and aggravated forms of fraud, respectively. Other offences may also be considered depending on the circumstances of the particular case. Nevertheless, not every investment loss constitutes the offence of fraud. The statutory elements of the alleged offence, particularly the relevant requirements concerning the perpetrator’s conduct and intent, must be assessed on the basis of concrete evidence.

A criminal complaint may be supported by receipts relating to investment transactions, account statements, correspondence, disclosures made to investors, fund documents, and specific information concerning suspicious transactions. It is important to explain which conduct gives rise to suspicion of a criminal offence and why, rather than relying on general allegations.

The initiation or continuation of a criminal investigation does not mean that the investor’s money will automatically be repaid. Determining criminal liability and obtaining compensation for losses under private law are distinct legal processes. While following a criminal investigation, investors should also monitor the time limits applicable to their private law claims.

3.6. Mediation, Interim Injunctions, and Other Remedies

Whether investors are required to apply for mediation before commencing proceedings depends on the legal nature of the dispute and the applicable special provisions. In claims involving commercial monetary receivables and damages, Article 5/A of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 and the relevant procedural provisions should be examined. However, it should not be assumed that the same mandatory mediation requirement applies to every investment fund dispute.

An interim injunction may provide temporary legal protection to safeguard the right in dispute. A provisional attachment, where its statutory conditions are satisfied, serves to secure a monetary claim. The mere fact that an investor has suffered a loss is not sufficient for these remedies to be granted; the applicable requirements must be satisfied in accordance with the nature of the claim and the relevant procedural provisions.

Preservation of evidence may be considered where evidence is at risk of being lost or becoming difficult to obtain in future proceedings. In particular, where account records, transaction documents, and valuation data for specific dates are important to clarifying the dispute, the matter may be assessed under the applicable procedural rules.

The fact that several investors have experienced similar problems does not mean that their losses and legal relationships are identical. Investors may share information and benefit from common legal assessments; however, whether compensation claims may be brought jointly, and under which procedure, must be determined according to the circumstances and applicable procedural rules.

4. WHAT SHOULD INVESTORS DO TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS?

The first step for investors is to establish their legal and financial positions on the basis of documentary evidence. It is important to obtain and preserve the following documents:

• Fund purchase and sale receipts: These show the date and amount of the investment and whether a sale instruction was submitted.
• Bank statements and investment account records: These help establish cash inflows and outflows, payments made, and pending transactions.
• MKK records and participation unit information: These help determine the funds in which the investor holds participation units and the number of units held.
• Fund prospectus and investor information form: These enable examination of the fund’s investment strategy, risks, and the principles disclosed to investors.
• Correspondence with the portfolio management company and intermediary institution: This may establish the content of disclosures, sale instructions, and payment requests.
• Advertisements and return representations: These may be used to assess whether statements that influenced the investment decision were misleading.
• Contracts and other disclosure documents: These help determine the parties’ rights and obligations.
• CMB and Public Disclosure Platform (KAP) announcements: These enable official decisions and developments in the process to be monitored chronologically.

After collecting these documents, investors should prepare a timeline showing their investment amounts, participation unit holdings, transaction dates, and outstanding payment requests. They should then submit written applications to the relevant institutions to obtain the necessary records and preserve the requested explanations.

Investors should also regularly monitor the CMB’s weekly bulletins, official press announcements, KAP disclosures, and announcements issued by the institution conducting liquidation. Payment dates circulated on social media, promises of guaranteed repayment, and unverified legal claims should not be treated as reliable information on their own.

Finally, investors should assess the available legal remedies and applicable time limits without delay. Filing a complaint with the CMB or waiting for the outcome of a criminal investigation may not automatically suspend the time limits applicable to private law claims. The legal basis and applicable time limit for each claim must be determined separately in the circumstances of the particular case.

5. PRECEDENT JUDGMENTS AND LEGAL GROUNDS

In assessing the Tera-Pusula fund crisis, it is necessary to investigate separately whether there are judicial decisions whose full texts have been verified and which directly apply to the liquidation of investment funds. It would be inappropriate to cite a case without verifying that a judgment directly concerning the same events exists or to present general legal principles as though they determined the outcome of a specific dispute.

Nevertheless, depending on the nature of the particular dispute, established legal principles concerning breach of contract, tort liability, damage and causation, administrative liability, and capital markets obligations may be relevant. Applying these principles requires examination of the full texts of the relevant judgments and their similarities to the case at hand.

Before publication, targeted searches should be conducted in the judgment databases of the Court of Cassation, the Council of State, and the Constitutional Court of Türkiye under topics including liability arising from investment services, capital market transactions, public disclosure obligations, and failures in public service. A judgment should not be relied upon as precedent until its court, chamber, case number, decision number, date, and relevant legal principle have been checked against an official or otherwise reliable full text.

No judgment whose verified full text could not be obtained has been presented in this study as a definitive precedent. This approach is important to maintaining the reliability of the legal article and preventing investors from acting on the basis of inaccurate case citations.

6. LIMITATION PERIODS, EVIDENCE, AND THE RISK OF LOSING RIGHTS

It would be incorrect to assume that a single limitation period applies to all claims that may arise from the fund crisis. Contractual claims, tort claims, specific claims that may arise under capital markets legislation, and compensation claims brought before the administrative courts may be subject to different provisions.

Articles 146 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 contain general provisions on limitation periods, while Article 72 is relevant to tort claims. However, determining the applicable period depends not merely on how the claim is labelled but also on the nature of the legal relationship and whether a special provision applies. In administrative proceedings, Articles 12 and 13 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, together with the relevant application and filing deadlines, must be assessed.

The starting point of the relevant periods may also differ from one claim to another. Depending on the circumstances, relevant factors may include the date on which the damage became known, the date on which the responsible person was identified, service of an administrative act, or the emergence of damage arising from an administrative action. Consequently, investors may risk losing their rights if they simply wait for the liquidation process to be completed before taking action.

For evidentiary purposes, a connection must be established between the loss allegedly suffered by the investor and the conduct of the person alleged to be responsible. Determining whether the decline in the fund’s value resulted from market conditions or from unlawful management or disclosure practices may require technical examination. Expert analysis and court-appointed expert assessments may be necessary where appropriate.

The fact that a complaint has been filed with the CMB, that a response is awaited from an institution, or that a criminal investigation remains ongoing does not necessarily mean that limitation periods applicable to other legal claims have been suspended. Investors should therefore calculate the relevant time limits separately for each type of claim.

7. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. If I have money invested in a Tera or Pusula fund, can I recover all of it?

There is no definitive answer applicable to every investor. The amount recoverable will depend on the outcome of the fund’s liquidation, the investor’s entitlement records, and the applicable payment procedures. There is no general guarantee that the entire principal will be repaid.

2. Does placing a fund into liquidation mean that my money has been completely lost?

No. Liquidation is the process of assessing the fund’s assets under the applicable procedures and determining the amounts payable to entitled parties. The final amount depends on the realized value of the assets in the fund portfolio and other relevant factors.

3. Can I receive an interim payment during liquidation?

The CMB’s announcement dated 1 October 2026 provides for interim payments to investors who have completed reconciliation procedures in respect of funds established by Tera, Pusula, Atlas, and Hedef Portfolio Management. Eligibility and the payment amount must be determined by reference to the relevant fund and investor records.

4. When will payments be made?

The six-month period under the liquidation procedure does not mean that liquidation must take six months. The actual timetable for interim payments and the final liquidation payments should be monitored through the latest announcements issued by the authorized institutions.

5. Is filing a complaint with the CMB sufficient?

No. An application to the CMB may contribute to supervisory and investigative proceedings, but it does not guarantee direct compensation for an investor’s loss. Depending on the circumstances, remedies under private law or administrative law may also need to be considered.

6. Can I bring a claim for damages against the portfolio management company?

A claim for damages may be available if the relevant conditions of liability, such as unlawful conduct, damage, and an adequate causal link, are satisfied in the particular case. The fact that a fund has incurred a loss is not sufficient on its own.

7. Is it possible to bring proceedings against the CMB?

If it is alleged that damage resulted from an unlawful act or action of the administration, proceedings before the administrative courts, including a full-remedy action for damages, may be available where the relevant conditions are met. Liability and time limits must be assessed in light of the specific circumstances.

8. Should I file a criminal complaint with the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor?

A criminal complaint may be filed if there is conduct giving rise to suspicion of a criminal offence and evidence supporting that suspicion. However, not every investment loss constitutes a criminal offence, and a criminal investigation does not, by itself, ensure repayment.

9. Which documents should I preserve?

Purchase and sale receipts, bank statements, investment account records, MKK records, sale instructions, contracts, fund documents, and correspondence with the relevant institutions should be preserved.

10. Must I apply for mediation before bringing a claim?

This depends on the nature of the dispute and the applicable legislation. Mandatory mediation requirements should be examined in claims involving commercial monetary receivables and damages. No automatic conclusion should be drawn for every dispute.

11. Can I act together with other investors?

Investors may share information and documents and obtain common legal assessments. However, the procedural requirements for bringing joint proceedings or pursuing collective compensation claims depend on the nature of the disputes and claims.

12. Could I lose my rights because of limitation periods?

Yes. Missing an applicable deadline may result in the loss of certain rights or the dismissal of a claim on limitation grounds. Investors should therefore assess the applicable time limits for their specific claims without waiting for the liquidation process to conclude.

8. LEGAL GROUNDS

The assessment of the Tera-Pusula fund crisis should primarily take into account Capital Markets Law No. 6362 and the secondary legislation governing investment funds. Article 53 of the Law is relevant to the separate legal status of fund assets, while Article 107 concerns market manipulation. Other provisions of the Law should be examined separately according to the nature of the particular dispute.

Communiqué No. III-52.1 on the Principles Regarding Investment Funds and the relevant CMB regulations establish the framework governing the establishment, activities, portfolio structure, and management of investment funds. The provisions of these regulations applicable to the particular fund and transaction must be verified against their current texts.

The Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 may be relevant to breach of contract, tort liability, and limitation periods; the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 may be relevant to the nature of commercial disputes and mandatory mediation; and the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 may be relevant to subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, evidence, and interim legal protection.

The Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 and the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 may apply when assessing conduct giving rise to suspicion of a criminal offence and the investigation process. The Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 is important in determining the available application and litigation procedures concerning alleged damage arising from administrative acts or actions.

Article 125 of the Constitution may be relevant to administrative liability; Article 36 to the right to seek legal remedies; and Article 40 to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. However, the application of these provisions to a particular case must be assessed together with the legal nature of the dispute and the relevant special legislation.

D. Judicial Decisions

No judicial decision whose full text has been verified and which directly applies to the Tera-Pusula fund crisis has been presented in this study as a definitive precedent. Before publication, further searches should be conducted in the judgment databases of the Court of Cassation, the Council of State, and the Constitutional Court of Türkiye in relation to the relevant legal principles. The citations and contents of any judgments used must be verified.

CONCLUSION

The Tera-Pusula fund crisis demonstrates that professional management and regulatory supervision in investment funds do not eliminate investment risk entirely, but this does not mean that investors are without legal protection. Investors’ rights must be determined according to the nature of the fund in which they invested, their records during the liquidation process, the transactions carried out, and any unlawful conduct that may be alleged.

The separation of fund assets from the assets of the fund founder provides an important safeguard. However, this protection does not mean that the assets in the fund portfolio cannot lose value or that investors’ principal will be repaid under all circumstances. The amount obtained upon liquidation depends on the realized value of the fund’s assets and the applicable liquidation principles. The interim payment arrangement announced by the CMB on 1 October 2026 is likewise a payment mechanism that will be deducted from the final liquidation claim; it is not a general guarantee of repayment.

To protect their rights, investors should first identify their fund codes, participation unit holdings, and transaction dates; obtain their bank, investment account, and MKK records; and preserve their correspondence with the relevant institutions. Monitoring announcements from the CMB and other official bodies, avoiding expectations based on misinformation, and observing the applicable legal deadlines are also important.

Claims for damages under private law, administrative liability, and criminal investigations are distinct legal processes. The availability of each remedy must be assessed in accordance with its own requirements and the evidence in the particular case. Just as a fund’s loss does not, by itself, establish unlawfulness, the fact that liquidation proceedings are ongoing does not mean that investors must wait before exercising all their legal rights.

In conclusion, the most effective way for investors to protect their rights during a fund crisis is to preserve their records in full, monitor official developments, and assess the remedies appropriate to their individual legal circumstances in a timely manner. The extent to which losses can be recovered can be determined only by examining the liquidation results, the conduct of the relevant institutions, and the applicable legislation together.