The concept of an insolvency officeholder “adopting” employment contracts—well-established in UK administration law—does not have a direct equivalent in Hungarian insolvency practice. Nonetheless, understanding when a court-appointed trustee or restructuring administrator assumes employment obligations is crucial for both practitioners and employees.

Hungarian Context

In Hungary, the key officeholders in insolvency or restructuring proceedings are:

Introduction

On 12 November 2025, the Federal Court delivered an important judgment that brings much-needed clarity to the powers, responsibilities, and protections available to liquidators acting under the Companies Act 2016 ("CA 2016").

The decision provides authoritative guidance on what constitutes "costs and expenses of winding up" under section 527(1)(a), and on the high threshold applicable to efforts to remove or sue a liquidator.

Brief background

Introduction

The Federal Court has recently delivered a decision in the case of Victor Saw Seng Kee v Wong Weng Foo & Co; London Biscuits Berhad (In Liquidation) (Civil Appeal No.: 02(f)-61-12/2024) ("London Biscuits"), addressing four important questions of law. This ruling provides clarity on the powers of liquidators, the role of creditors in appointing liquidators, and the treatment of employee-related payments during winding up.

Background and Procedural History

The insolvency framework governing real estate projects in India has undergone a significant transformation with the recognition of “Reverse CIRP”, a judicial innovation designed to protect homebuyers’ interests while ensuring completion of stalled real estate projects. This mechanism was recently endorsed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in the Satish Chander Verma v. Grand Reality Private Limited^[1] ("Grand Reality Case").

The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in Mansi Brar Fernandes vs. Shubha Sharma and Anr. inter alia held that ‘speculative investors’ cannot be permitted to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and has laid down certain key principles and criteria for determining who a ‘speculative investor’ would be.

Brief facts

The UK retail sector faces ongoing challenges from shifts in consumer behaviour and persistent economic pressures. In this light, Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 has become a vital mechanism for struggling companies, enabling them to undertake a holistic restructuring, effectively using one process rather than combining the Part 26 scheme technology with the CVA as had been the case prior to the introduction of the restructuring plan.

Commissioner of Taxation v Runcity [2025] FCAFC 152 is the most recent decision arising from litigation involving disqualified liquidator, David Iannuzzi. In previous decisions, Mr Iannuzzi was found to have mismanaged the liquidation of 23 companies and was banned from practising as a liquidator for ten years. Eight of those companies (Companies) were deregistered between 2015 and 2016.

Johnson v His Majesty's Attorney-General [2025] EWHC 1943

The English High Court decision of Johnson v His Majesty's Attorney-General [2025] EWHC 1943 is the first time that an English court has sealed a non-royal will, contrary to the ancient tradition that wills are available to the public.

Background

Executive Summary:

In UK venture deals, investors often negotiate the right to appoint a director to the company’s board (as a rule of thumb, an investor with 5% to 10% or more of the company might ask for board rights). On paper, it makes sense, giving a seat at the table, direct access to management, and visibility on key decisions. But before taking that seat, we often advise investors to ask themselves: is it worth the hassle?