When can a managing director be held personally liable in Hungarian liquidation proceedings—and when does the law allow the burden of proof to flip, making a creditor’s case dramatically easier to prove? This case shows that the answer depends not only on the director’s conduct, but on choosing the right legal basis in the statement of claim.
1. Facts
The defendant was the manager of the debtor (who has gone into liquidation) with independent representation rights and its sole member.
As of 1 March 2026, the Law on Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy No. 142/2025/QH15, adopted by the National Assembly of the 15th Legislature at its 10th Session (“Law on Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy 2025”), has officially come into effect.
Kể từ ngày 01/03/2026, Luật Phục hồi, Phá sản số 142/2025/QH15 do Quốc hội khoá XV thông qua tại Kỳ họp thứ 10 (“Luật Phục hồi, Phá sản 2025”) đã chính thức có hiệu lực. Luật Phục hồi, Phá sản 2025 được ra đời trong bối cảnh thực tiễn áp dụng của Luật Phá sản 2014 bộc lộ nhiều hạn chế, thiên về xử lý hậu quả là phá sản hơn là phòng ngừa và tái cấu trúc.
Introduction
概要
在离婚纠纷中，掌握公司经营主导权的一方，常以“股东会决议注销+简易清算”的方式处置婚内设立的公司，通过隐匿清算资产、虚构“无剩余财产”、未经合法清算即注销等手段，规避与另一方分割公司资产。而实践中，部分法院因对“公司清算资产与夫妻共同财产的关联性”认定模糊，或以“公司财产非夫妻共同财产”为由驳回非股东一方的调查申请，导致其合法权益难以保障。事实上，婚姻关系存续期间股东从公司清算中获得的剩余财产，本质是股权权益的转化形式，依法属于夫妻共同财产；即便公司已注销，另一方仍可通过法定程序查询资产去向、主张分割权益。本文结合5起各地法院生效典型案例，从资产查询实操方法、诉讼主张路径、法院裁判规则、实操维权要点等方面，为夫妻中非股东一方提供一套可直接落地的维权方案，同时明确法院处理此类案件的现存问题与解决思路，兼具合法性、实操性与参考性。
考虑到目前国内实践中掌握公司主要经营权的股东一方往往为男性，且本文选取的5起案例中除案例3外均为妻子维权，为增进行文的流畅和可读性，本文在说理部分将以丈夫注销清算公司资产，妻子维权的视角展开。本篇主要介绍清算资产查询全流程和离婚诉讼中分割清算资产的主张路径。
Introduction
In December 2025, the Supreme Court of Queensland delivered a judgement which probably hasn’t received the attention it deserves. In Star Recruitment Service Pty Ltd v Smith [2025] QSC 334 the court considered the proper construction of the coronavirus-era safe harbour defence in s 588GAAA of theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).
1. Legislative background and scope of article 198A
Welcome to the latest edition of Corporate Update.
The High Court’s recent decision in Reid-Roberts v Mei-Lin [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch) regarding WhatsApp communications may cause you to reconsider whether to add a moniker to your messages. While this decision related to s53 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (“LPA”) the principles set out in the judgment have wider-ranging significance, as they apply to any requirement for a document to be signed.
Background