GKC Partners in association with White & Case has advised Garanti BBVA and the Alternatif Bank on their provision of a TRY 800 million dividend recapitalization loan to Test Tasit Muayene Istasyonlari Yapim Ve Isletme A.S. The Balcioglu Selcuk Ardiyok Keki Attorney Partnership advised the borrower.
Squire Patton Boggs, acting on behalf of the State of Turkmenistan, has persuaded the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes to dismiss in full a claim of nearly USD 500 million brought against the country by Turkish construction company Sehil Insaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. and its majority shareholder Muhammet Cap.
Turkey continues to prioritize the adoption and consistent implementation of sustainability principles throughout its economy. Indeed, the Turkish Capital Markets Board recently set a voluntary threshold for companies subject to its supervision, and many are finding the use of green buildings valuable in reaching them. In addition to their economic benefits, green buildings – which are socially and environmentally compatible with their environment – are gaining importance in determining a company’s level of sustainability credibility and sustainable investment commitment.
Over the last five years, Turkish payment services and payment systems have gone through turbulent times, with pressure both from competition authorities (demonstrated by BKM Express’ rollercoaster ride between 2016 and 2020) and financial market regulators. Though the power of incumbent banks remains strong, the market is liberalizing and opening up for fintech players.
On February 23, 2021, the Turkish Competition Authority (“Authority”) has published seminal judgments of the 13th Chamber of the Council of State (“Council of State”). These are landmark decisions that upheld the Turkish Competition Board’s (“Board”) analysis within the scope of its decision regarding the allegations that Mey İçki San. ve Tic. A.Ş. (“Diageo Turkey”) violated Article 6 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”) through exclusionary practices in the vodka and gin markets (“Vodka and Gin Decision”). The decisions of the Council of State are of particular significance since they affirmed a very rare usage of the “ne bis in idem” principle (i.e., a legal concept that restricts the possibility of a defendant being penalized repeatedly on the basis of the same offence, act or facts with the same time period) in terms of competition law.