Venture capital funds financed partly or entirely with government money have been all the rage in the equity markets these past few years. Initially the Jeremie funds pumped capital into the market in four successive rounds, but as the placement period for this scheme ended, the first solely state-owned venture capital investor also entered the market. And from this year on, new venture capital funds with EU money at their disposal are coming on stream, as well as a state-financed equity fund is set up to assist ventures with potential for future stock exchange listing.
The new Civil Code that came into force a couple of years ago broadened the autonomy of companies, which are now free to shape their internal organisation and operation to their own needs. Nevertheless, there are still several lesser-known, rigid company-law rules that, if ignored, can entail severe legal and financial consequences.
The “new” Civil Code, which entered into force more than two years ago, has made it possible for businesses to shape, in their own image, the regulations governing their organisation and operation. This opportunity has certainly captured the imagination of legal practitioners. All sorts of extreme ideas were mooted. For example it was suggested that a limited liability company (Kft.) could issue shares or other securities embodying members’ rights. The company courts soon put a dampener on things, however, creating the category of “status rules”: no matter how flexible the law, it still isn’t possible to depart from the rules that constitute the defining features of a particular form of business entity.
A recently revealed ministerial decree could render the operation of domiciliation service providers in Hungary untenable – at least for those who provide this service at a high professional standard. As the new piece of law contains no explanation, the question that springs to mind is: who does the new legislation favour?
Many people could be in for a nasty surprise when trying to set up a company: the company court refuses to register the majority owner or managing director on grounds that the person is subject to a ban. While the banned persons sometimes know that they have “been up to no good”, in other cases they are baffled as to the reasons for the ban. A lot is at stake: a person who is banned could end up on the “black list” for up to 7-8 years.
ESOP (Employee Share Ownership Programme) entities have been springing up like mushrooms in Hungary since last year, and the acronym itself has become something of a buzzword. And this is hardly surprising, as ESOP entities can be a tax efficient vehicle for paying out work incomes. Caution is advised, however: alongside the many advantages, the regulations also conceal a number of pitfalls.
The corporate law is based on the “majority principle”: the majority shareholder can control the decisions at the shareholders’ meeting. While the old Companies Act already contained certain exceptions to this principle the new Civil Code broadens the scope of the exceptions. The new Civil Code declares that if a shareholder is “personally interested” in a decision, it is not allowed to vote on the given question. Although the courts’ interpretation of this new provision is not yet known, a conservative interpretation could lead to a substantial weakening of the “majority principle”.
The law is constantly in flux. While many people may find this intimidating, for us it’s precisely what makes it so exciting. We’d like to share this attitude with businesspeople and managers, and with those who just have an interest in business law, in the form of a regularly updated blog that discusses the latest tax law and commercial law issues in an accessible style. Feel free to send your questions and suggestions for topics you’d like us to cover to email@example.com.