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?

2025년 9월 12일, 중국 전국인민대표대회 상무위원회에 <기업파산법>의 개정안, 즉 <기업파산법(의견수렴안)>(이하 “<개정 초안>”)이 제출되었고, 2025. 10. 11.까지 의견 수렴 절차를 거쳤습니다. <개정 초안>은 2007년 <기업파산법>이 시행된 이후 약 18년 만에 이루어지는 전면 개정으로, 총 16장 216조로 구성되어 있습니다. 이번 개정은 파산제도의 실무적 효율성을 높이고, 개인 주주까지 절차의 범위를 확장하며, 경영진의 책임을 강화하는 데 중점을 두었습니다.

과거에는 중국에서 외상투자기업이 파산 절차를 활용하는 것이 현실적으로 어려웠습니다. 그러나 2018년 일반 외상투자기업의 파산에 대한 사전 승인 제도가 취소됨에 따라 외상투자기업의 파산 사례가 점차 증가하고 있습니다. 최근 매각이 어려운 기업의 경우 중국 시장에서의 철수를 모색하는 방안 중 하나로 파산 절차가 활용되고있습니다. 이번 개정은 중국 내에서 사업을 영위하거나 철수를 검토 중인 외국계 기업에도 실질적인 영향을 미칠 것으로 예상됩니다.

How to bring a dissolved company back to life through administrative or court restoration.

When a company is dissolved or struck off the Register of Companies it ceases to exist. Property belonging to the dissolved company vests in the Crown to be disposed of. However, that is not always the end of the matter and in certain circumstances it is possible to restore a company to the Register.

Why restore a company?

The concept that a court- or insolvency-appointed director (such as a liquidator or administrator) may “adopt” employment contracts — well known under UK insolvency practice — has no direct equivalent under Hungarian law. Nevertheless, it is important in practice to understand when a managing director becomes the actual addressee of employer obligations.

Hungarian Context

The key actors in Hungarian insolvency and restructuring proceedings are:

在没有股东协议的情况下，英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）公司的股东权利由公司章程大纲及细则的条款所规定。然而，控股股东可能采取损害少数股东权益的行为。在这种情况下，BVI法院有权处理与少数股东权益和不公平损害相关的问题。受损害的股东最常见的救济措施之一是要求法院以正当正当公平的理由将公司清盘。

本法律简报将概述BVI关于不公平损害的法律制度以及以正当公平的理由进行公司清盘的救济途径。此外，本简报还将探讨该救济措施适用与否的具体情形。

不公平损害

《英属维尔京群岛商业公司法（2020修订版）》（经修订）（“BCA”）为股东提起不公平损害救济诉讼提供了法律依据。如果股东认为公司事务“曾以、正在或可能以压迫性、不公平歧视性或对其股东身份构成不公平损害的方式处理，或公司行为曾有、正在或可能对其股东身份构成压迫性、不公平歧视性或不公平损害，可向法院申请裁决令“。

在评估受害股东所声称的公司事务是否对其造成不公平损害时，BVI法院将采用客观标准。每种情况各有不同，因此，为了确定是否存在不公平损害，BVI法院会综合考虑以下因素：

Following the publication of our recent article on the voluntary liquidation of solvent limited liability companies (LLCs) in the UAE, an important question was raised by one of the readers: what happens if, during liquidation, it is discovered that the company’s assets are insufficient to discharge all of its debts, and what liability may arise for shareholders or directors in such a case?

If a company faces a situation threatening insolvency, the satisfaction of creditors' claims is at risk. In such cases, the company's managers must prioritize the interests of the creditors, and for failure to do so, they are subject to civil and/or criminal liability, which we describe in this article.

Overview

Article 49, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law stipulates: "If a registered trademark has not been used for three consecutive years without a legitimate reason, any entity or individual may apply to the Trademark Office for the revocation of the registered trademark."

The core purpose of this provision is to clean up "zombie trademarks" and activate trademark resources. However, the definition of "legitimate reason" directly relates to the continuation of trademark rights, and there are many disputes in practice. So, what constitutes a "legitimate reason"?

In Re Bayview Health – Matilda Bay Pharmacy Pty Ltd; ex parte Smith & Jacobs [No 2] [2025] WASC 405, the Court held that a failure to provide the 14 days’ notice of a board meeting, required by a shareholder agreement, to appoint a voluntary administrator, was a procedural irregularity that could be cured.

Key Takeaway

According to the latest statistics from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the construction industry has faced sustained and accelerating financial distress over the past four years. Since FY 2021-2022, the number of insolvency appointments has almost tripled, with nearly 4,900 cases in FY 2024-2025 alone. And, the 744 cases already recorded for FY 2025-2026 indicate the construction industry continues to suffer severe financial distress.