The Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI ) introduced significant amendments to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 LODR Regulations on April 14, 2025. These amendments, primarily effective from April 1, 2025, strengthen corporate governance frameworks, with a particular focus on entities with high-value listed non-convertible debt securities, i.e., High-Value Debt Listed Entities (HVDLEs). The changes aim to enhance transparency, protect debenture holders, and align with global sustainability and governance standards.

As frontier technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Blockchain, Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), and Cryptocurrencies continue to transform industries, they pose new challenges and opportunities for intellectual property (IP) protection in Turkey. This article examines the evolving legal landscape, exploring how Turkey’s IP regulations adapt to these innovations and align with global frameworks like those set by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Key issues include the patentability of AI-generated inventions, copyright protection for machine-generated content, IP enforcement in the digital space, and the role of blockchain in securing IP rights. Additionally, we assess emerging trends in IP dispute resolution, licensing strategies, and regulatory compliance for businesses operating in Turkey’s technology-driven economy. Bıçak Law Firm, with its extensive expertise in intellectual property law and technology-related legal matters, provides strategic legal solutions to protect innovation and ensure compliance with both national and international IP standards. Our services support businesses, startups, and creators in safeguarding their intellectual assets against infringement, misappropriation, and legal uncertainties in this rapidly evolving digital era.

Background The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued the Digital Lending Directions under the recommendations of the “Working Group on Digital Lending”. Digital lending refers to the process of disbursing loans digitally, replacing the traditional system of...

The convening of a general meeting in a capital company is one of the most important moments in the corporate life of a company. This act not only activates the direct participation of the partners in the key decisions of the company, but also represents the legal...

Enforcing foreign maritime judgments in Turkey requires navigating a structured legal process to ensure compliance with Turkish law. Bicak Law Firm provides expert guidance to international clients seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign maritime decisions in Turkish courts. The process involves confirming reciprocity between Turkey and the issuing country, filing an exequatur lawsuit, and demonstrating compliance with Turkish public policy and due process principles. Our team assists clients with preparing necessary documentation, representing them in court proceedings, and addressing potential objections. Given Turkey’s strategic position as a key maritime hub, timely enforcement of judgments is crucial for protecting commercial interests. Bicak Law Firm’s extensive experience in maritime law ensures efficient handling of complex enforcement cases. We work closely with shipping companies, insurers, and legal professionals to safeguard our clients’ rights. Contact us for tailored legal solutions in enforcing foreign maritime judgments in Turkey.

Being part of a company group may be beneficial for companies as they can have a stronger financial background and coordinated business decisions. Must this also be taken into account if a company belonging to a group of companies is fined for violating the GDPR? In what way can it be relevant, in connection with GDPR fines, that a company is part of an undertaking? In our article, we analysed the recent decision of the CJEU which provides an answer to this question.

Smartlegal Schmidt&Partners reports from Hungary:

What constitutes a “close connection” between claims against parent company and subsidiary under the Brussels Ibis, allowing both to be sued in the court of one of the companies’ domiciles? Can the “close connection” be a rebuttable competition law presumption?

ILF’s Hungarian member, Smartlegal Schmidt&Partners summarizes this issue in the article.