tag: M&A

A growing number of family businesses are coming up for sale these days. This is partly due to the favourable investment environment, and partly to the difficulties to pass on businesses to the next generation. A critical aspect in such deals is: what kind of tax implications the sale will have for the sellers. While, in some cases, the sale can be made tax-free, at other times a private individual divesting his or her share in the business can be faced with a tax liability of up to 34.5%.

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.

The issue of governing law often arises in cross-border M&A deals or contractual relationships. At such times – either due to the UK domicile of a contracting party, or to the widespread use of the Anglo-Saxon templates – it is often the English law that is chosen. It may turn out to be important to understand the difference it can mean to the parties’ positions if instead of Hungarian law they were to opt for English law – for example, when drawing up the documents for a company acquisition. 

While dividends are the result of a happy process, namely the profitable operation of one’s business, the restrictions and difficulties associated with dividend payment have always given grounds for frustration. Particularly troublesome is the treatment of dividends in the course of corporate acquisitions, as the buyer and the seller need to elaborate special techniques for sharing the dividends among themselves. 

A cartel case of key importance is currently awaiting a decision from the General Court of the European Union (GC). If the GC approves the decision of the European Commission, this will open the door for declaring financial investors liable, under cartel law, for the illegal practices of businesses in their portfolio companies, regardless of whether or not the investor was aware of the cartel activities.

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”.