Sermaye Piyasasi Mevzuati Kapsaminda Yatirim Fonlarinda Güncel Gelişmeler

Summary

The İstanbul Bar Association panel examined the legal and financial fallout from investment-fund liquidations and related market disruption. Speakers described a liquidity crisis involving fund redemptions, allegedly concentrated and manipulated equity positions, and problems matching or settling sell orders. They stressed that the investigation was ongoing and that allegations should not be treated as proven.

How the alleged fund structure worked

One speaker described a cycle involving money-market funds and hedge funds:

1. Money-market fund assets were allegedly lent to hedge funds, including through reverse-repo-type transactions.
2. Hedge funds used the funds to buy concentrated equity positions, which speakers said may have created misleading or inflated valuations.
3. Those shares were used as collateral to obtain further financing from money-market funds.
4. As investors began withdrawing, money-market funds faced cash shortages, while hedge-fund shares were difficult to sell quickly. This contributed to payment delays and defaults.

The speaker noted that reverse repos are not inherently unlawful when conducted within applicable limits. The concern raised was whether fund managers breached their duties by favouring one portfolio over another or enabling manipulative activity.

Timeline, market mechanics and figures

• Speakers linked market outflows to an SPK guide published on August 28 and subsequent proposed changes or restrictions. They said the announcement contributed to investor concern and redemptions.
• September 14–16: Investors placed sell orders. A speaker cited approximately TRY 300 billion in sell orders on September 16.
• September 17: The SPK liquidation decision was discussed as a turning point. Speakers said more than 130 funds were involved in liquidation. One example involved an institution with 16 funds, 8 of which had liquidation decisions. The other 8 reportedly had no such decision, although investors could still face uncompleted transactions.
• Orders placed around 13:30 could receive that day’s or the next day’s fund price, depending on timing and fund terms. Settlement periods discussed included T+0, T+2 and T+3.
• Speakers distinguished between an order that was merely received or shown as pending and one that had actually matched and settled. A pending status—rendered in the subtitles as “PBLK”—did not necessarily mean the investor had completed a sale or become a creditor. Investors were advised to verify the status with their broker or bank and check MKK records.
• One investor cited a 17.5% withholding deduction on a transaction. The panel did not present this as a general tax rate.
• A speaker referred to figures reported as of October 30: 247,839 investors, approximately TRY 93.973 billion paid, and 178,537 investors who had received repayment of principal. The transcript is garbled in places, so these figures should be treated as figures quoted at the event.
• The panel discussed a TRY 1 million cap in connection with a distribution or payment process. The explanation in the subtitles is unclear; it should not be read as a complete statement of the applicable payout rules.
• A speaker said the qualified-investor threshold had moved from TRY 1 million to TRY 10 million and then TRY 50 million, and referred to a three-month trading-volume condition. The exact regulatory details were not fully clear in the transcript.

Investment and evidence-checking framework discussed

Before investing, the panel recommended reviewing the fund’s issuance document, prospectus, risk disclosures, trading terms, investor eligibility requirements, and redemption or settlement rules.

Speakers also discussed the importance of:

• Completing relevant KYC and investor assessments. They distinguished suitability checks for services such as investment advice or portfolio management from other investor assessments.
• Checking whether recommendations were actually made by an authorised adviser and whether they were recorded.
• Preserving contracts, order confirmations, emails, screenshots, and account records.
• Comparing disputed order times and statuses with records from the broker or bank, MKK, and relevant clearing or custody institutions.
• Asking the intermediary for written information about whether an order matched, what price was applied, and where any proceeds are held.

Investors should distinguish between an order being submitted, matched, settled, and credited. A sale that has settled may leave the investor with a cash claim even if payment is delayed; an unmatched order may leave the investor exposed to the fund’s liquidation process.

Risks, legal claims and cautions

• The panel identified concentration risk, liquidity risk, weak market depth, inaccurate valuations, collateral and counterparty exposure, and possible conflicts between funds as central concerns.
• For potential civil claims, a later speaker outlined a framework based on unlawful conduct, damage, causation, and fault. The proposed measure of loss was the difference between the investor’s actual position and the position they might have been in absent the alleged misconduct—not necessarily just the principal invested or the fund’s last displayed price.
• Speakers discussed potential responsibility of portfolio-management companies and managers, as well as possible roles for custodians, independent auditors, brokers, and public authorities. They disagreed on the extent of custodians’ responsibilities.
• The panel cautioned that liquidation does not automatically establish wrongdoing, and that different investors may have different legal and payment positions. Speakers also discussed the possibility of challenging provisions or administrative decisions, but did not give a single procedural route applicable to everyone.
• Participants were advised to preserve evidence and seek transaction-specific advice. The discussion was a legal panel, not an investment recommendation. No explicit “not financial advice” disclaimer appears in the subtitles.

Assets, instruments and institutions mentioned

• Instruments and fund types: Investment funds and participation certificates; money-market funds; hedge/free funds; equities and shares; government bonds; foreign-currency funds and currency-arbitrage strategies; venture-capital, real-estate, and pension funds; reverse repos and collateralised transactions.
• Company/security example: SASA was mentioned as an example in a discussion of valuation. No other explicit stock tickers were identified.
• Platforms and institutions: SPK (Capital Markets Board), BDDK, TMSF, MKK, Takasbank, TEFAS, and the Investor Compensation Center (YTM).
• Banks and intermediaries cited as examples: İş Bankası, Ziraat Bankası, Tera, Bulls Investment, Marbaş, and Midas.

Presenters and sources

The panel featured Av. Ece Ildır (also rendered as “Ece Yıldır” in the subtitles), Doç. Dr. İsmail Çınar, Dr. Mehmet Hamza Arslan, and Av. Özkan Özdoğan. The event metadata lists moderators Av. Umut Albayrak and Av. Dilara Sakallıoğlu. The discussion was hosted by the İstanbul Bar Association’s Banking and Finance Law Commission.