Blog » 4 MUST KNOWS ABOUT LIMITED LIABILITY “BREAKTHROUGH” IN HUNGARY
4 MUST KNOWS ABOUT LIMITED LIABILITY “BREAKTHROUGH” IN HUNGARY
14 March 2017
Under special conditions, the shareholder of a terminated LLC will be directly and unlimitedly liable for the company’s debts. You might think that your debt recovery problem is then solved: if the debtor company is terminated, you will sue the shareholder. However, the devil is always in the details and certain conditions must be met in order to turn successfully against the shareholder. In this short article we tell you 4 things that you need to know if you decide to sue the shareholder of a terminated LLC in Hungary.
1. Being a creditor
What a useful advice, you might think. Your company has claims against the terminated debtor, of course it is a creditor. In the common sense, you are right, but here comes the legal sense, that might cause some troubles.
Indeed, your company will only be regarded as a creditor if it has announced its claims against the debtor within the given deadline in the liquidation procedure or in the compulsory liquidation procedure.
In the compulsory liquidation procedure an additional condition is, that your company’s claims must be based on a final and enforceable court decision or at least it is non-disputed or acknowledged by the debtor.
We cannot say enough about how important deadlines are if your company would like to recover its debts against a debtor who is under liquidation or compulsory liquidation.
As mentioned before, you will be regarded as a creditor if you announced your claim within the given deadline. The trigger point of this deadline is the publication of the court order about the liquidation (compulsory liquidation) procedure in the Official Gazette. After the publication you have 40 days in case of a liquidation and 60 days in case of a compulsory liquidation procedure to announce your claims against the debtor.
No surprise that the above are not the only deadlines that you must consider. If the (compulsory) liquidation procedure has been terminated, the court publishes its order about the deletion of the company from the company register. If your claim against the company remained unsatisfied, from the date of this publication, your company has 90 days to sue the shareholder of the deleted company.
3. The shareholder’s “fault”
You cannot afford to rest on your laurels even if you have overcame the obstacles of the strict deadlines. There is a further criteria that must be met, namely the “fault” of the shareholder in connection with the insolvency and deletion of the debtor company.
In this regard you only can turn successfully against the shareholder if you can prove that
- the shareholder abused his limited liability which is the case if he implemented a disadvantageous business strategy, disposed over the assets of the company as if those were his own assets or made a decision which is obviously against the lawful operation of the company,
- the former 50%+ shareholder who sold his business share within 3 years before the starting of the (compulsory) liquidation acted in bad faith when transferring his business share.
In the meantime, the former shareholder may defend himself by proving that
- when he has sold his business share the debtor was solvent and it has been indebted after the transfer;
- the company has been already indebted by the time of the transfer of the business share but the former shareholder has taken into account the interest of the creditor.
4. Who is the shareholder?
Last but least, you must consider whether it makes sense to sue the shareholder of the debtor. Unfortunately in most cases the shareholders of liquidated companies are not listed on the Forbes’ World’s Billionaire list.
It is more likely that they have tremendous debts, for example against the tax authority and a number of execution procedures are ongoing against them.
That is why it is advisable to check the shareholder’s financial situation before starting a long and costly procedure against him. You can find useful information on the webpage of the tax authority about tax execution procedures.
IS THE JUDGE BIASED BECAUSE OF UNFAVOURABLE JUDGMENT IN OTHER CASE?
Can a judge be disqualified from deciding the legal dispute on the grounds of bias if he has delivered a judgment unfavourable to the plaintiff in another case? Can a court be biased if the plaintiff has "challenged" a previous decision of the court before the European Court of Human Rights? In this article, we answer these questions by analysing a recent judgment of the Hungarian Supreme Court.Read more »
CAN INCOMPATIBLE WORKPLACE BEHAVIOUR BE A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL IN HUNGARY?
Refusal of employer 's instructions, unjustified absence, intentional damage: some cases where the justification for dismissing an employee is relatively easy to determine. What happens, however, if the employee does not commit a severe breach of duty similar to the one above, but his or her colleagues consider him incompatible, with whom it is impossible to cooperate, or even afraid of him or her. Can dismissal be justified by behaviour that is incompatible with others and creates disharmony in the working environment? In our article, we seek the answer to this question in the light of Hungarian judicial practice.Read more »
CAN A JUDICIAL ERROR CREATE HUNGARIAN JURISDICTION DESPITE A PLACE OF PERFORMANCE ABROAD?
Can a defendant, domiciled abroad, be sued in Hungary under the Brussels I Regulation in the event of defective performance of an international sales contract if the place of performance is abroad? Can the jurisdiction of a Hungarian court be established based on the fact that the lower court expressly established its jurisdiction at the beginning of the litigation? How is the EXW clause to be interpreted within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation? In our article, we analyse the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Hungary.Read more »