Since 2010, the Global Law Experts annual awards have been celebrating excellence, innovation and performance across the legal communities from around the world.
posted 2 hours ago
Understanding how to force out a minority shareholder is one of the most consequential questions in Hungarian M&A, particularly for bidders closing a public‑to‑private transaction or private‑equity sponsors consolidating a target. Hungarian law provides several distinct routes, the statutory squeeze‑out following a public takeover bid, contractual drag‑along mechanisms in private companies, negotiated buyouts, and court‑ordered remedies, each with its own threshold, pricing regime, and regulatory filing obligations. The primary mechanism, governed by Act CXX of 2001 on the Capital Market (the Tpt. ), allows an offeror who reaches 90% of voting rights to compel remaining minorities to sell.
This guide maps every step, from the initial MNB filing to final settlement, and identifies the pitfalls that can derail or delay the process.
Hungary’s squeeze‑out regime sits on two pillars: EU legislation and domestic statute. Directive 2004/25/EC on takeover bids, the EU Takeover Directive, establishes the baseline in Article 15, requiring Member States to grant a majority acquirer who holds at least 90% of voting capital the right to compel remaining shareholders to sell at a fair price. Hungary transposed this directive through the Tpt., which mirrors the 90% threshold and adds procedural detail specific to the Budapest Stock Exchange (BSE) ecosystem.
The National Bank of Hungary (MNB) acts as the supervisory authority for public takeover bids. Every mandatory or voluntary bid must be filed with, and approved by, the MNB before publication. The MNB reviews the offer prospectus, the price justification, and proof of funding. Once approved, the bid is published through the MNB’s electronic disclosure portal and the BSE’s own announcement system.
In addition, Act V of 2013, Hungary’s Civil Code, governs general corporate‑law principles applicable to private limited companies (Kft.) and private joint‑stock companies (Zrt.). For these entities, there is no statutory squeeze‑out equivalent; instead, majority owners must rely on contractual mechanisms (drag‑along clauses in shareholders’ agreements) or, in extreme cases, court remedies grounded in breach of duty, exclusion of a member, or dissolution claims.
The table below summarises the three principal routes available to force the exit of a minority shareholder in Hungary.
| Mechanism | Threshold | Typical Timeline & Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Public takeover + follow‑on squeeze‑out | 90% of voting rights | MNB approval of bid; follow‑on squeeze‑out exercised within 3 months after acceptance period closes; statutory pricing and offer‑security rules apply. |
| Drag‑along (contractual) | Contractual threshold (commonly 75–90%) | Private route; enforceable only if well‑drafted and consistent with Civil Code good‑faith duties. |
| Court remedy / buyout order | Facts‑based (unfair prejudice / breach) | Slow and litigative; minority can seek a sale order or fair‑price determination; outcome uncertain. |
The public takeover followed by a follow‑on squeeze‑out is the primary commercial route for forcing out minority shareholders in a BSE‑listed company. It unfolds in a structured sequence regulated by the Tpt. and supervised at every stage by the MNB.
The process begins well before the public announcement. A typical sequence, from pre‑bid planning through to the final squeeze‑out, runs as follows:
| Action | Statutory Basis / Requirement | Indicative Timeframe |
|---|---|---|
| Pre‑announcement due diligence and bid structuring | Internal (no statutory deadline) | 4–8 weeks |
| Filing of takeover bid application and offer prospectus with MNB | Tpt. (mandatory bid provisions) | Day 0 |
| MNB review and approval of the bid | MNB supervisory powers under Tpt. | Up to 15 business days (may be extended) |
| Publication of approved bid on MNB portal and BSE | Tpt. + BSE Rules | Within 2 business days of approval |
| Acceptance period for shareholders | Tpt. (minimum acceptance period) | 30–65 days (depending on bid type) |
| Settlement of accepted shares via KELER | Central securities depository rules | Within 5 business days of acceptance close |
| Assessment of whether 90% threshold is reached | Tpt. (squeeze‑out trigger) | Immediately after settlement |
| Exercise of follow‑on squeeze‑out right | Tpt. (call option for offeror) | Within 3 months after acceptance period closes |
| Delisting and final settlement | BSE Rules + KELER settlement | Varies; typically 2–4 weeks after squeeze‑out notice |
Throughout this process, updates must be published on the MNB’s electronic disclosure portal and communicated to the BSE. The target company’s board of directors is required to issue a reasoned opinion on the offer, which is also published and available to minority shareholders before the acceptance period begins.
Getting the offer price right is critical, both for MNB approval and for minimising post‑closing litigation. The Tpt. requires that the offer price in a mandatory bid must be at least equal to the highest price paid by the offeror (or persons acting in concert) for the target’s shares during a prescribed look‑back period. In practice, bidders also benchmark against the volume‑weighted average market price (VWAP) calculated over 180‑day and 360‑day windows preceding the announcement.
Where the squeeze‑out is exercised as a follow‑on to the accepted bid, the squeeze‑out price must generally match the bid price, unless circumstances have materially changed, in which case the MNB or a court may require an adjustment. Industry observers expect this price‑matching requirement to remain the standard approach, as it provides a clear, auditable benchmark and reduces the risk of valuation disputes.
For voluntary bids, which are less common but occasionally used by private equity sponsors seeking control at a negotiated premium, the pricing floor is more flexible. However, the MNB will still review whether the price is fair and may refuse to approve a bid it considers prejudicial to minority interests.
The MNB expects the offeror to demonstrate, at the time of filing, that sufficient funds or committed financing are available to settle all tendered shares plus the potential squeeze‑out. In practice this means providing a bank guarantee, an escrow confirmation, or committed facility letters from financing banks. Recent MNB filings show that regulators scrutinise the conditionality of financing commitments carefully, an offer backed by conditional financing that includes market‑out clauses may face delays or rejection.
For private companies, Kft. (limited liability) and privately‑held Zrt. (private joint‑stock), there is no statutory squeeze‑out mechanism. Instead, the most reliable way to force out a minority shareholder is through a well‑drafted drag‑along clause in the shareholders’ agreement or articles of association.
A drag‑along right allows the majority (or a defined super‑majority) to compel all other shareholders to sell their shares to a third‑party buyer on the same terms. In Hungarian practice, drag‑along provisions are enforceable provided they satisfy several conditions:
Drafting pitfalls are common. Agreements that omit a valuation mechanism, fail to address tag‑along reciprocity, or use ambiguous threshold language frequently lead to disputes. The recommended approach is to pair every drag‑along with a corresponding tag‑along right and an independent valuation procedure (typically a Big Four or recognised appraiser). For a deeper comparison of these mechanisms, see the related guide on drag‑along versus tag‑along structures in Hungary.
Practitioners dealing with deadlock provisions in shareholders’ agreements should ensure that the drag‑along clause interacts cleanly with any deadlock‑resolution or shoot‑out mechanism already in the agreement.
The simplest path, and the one that generates the least legal risk, is a negotiated buyout. The majority approaches the minority with an offer, ideally supported by an independent fairness opinion or at least a credible valuation report. In Hungarian practice, valuations for negotiated buyouts typically rely on discounted cash‑flow analysis, comparable‑transactions multiples, or net asset value, depending on the nature of the target business.
The key advantage of the negotiated route is speed: a willing seller and buyer can close within weeks, subject only to standard corporate approvals (board and, if required, shareholders’ meeting resolutions) and any pre‑emption rights set out in the articles of association or shareholders’ agreement. The downside is obvious, the minority has no obligation to accept.
Where negotiation fails and no contractual drag‑along exists, the majority’s options narrow to judicial remedies under the Civil Code. Hungarian company law, as codified in Act V of 2013, provides two main avenues:
Both routes are slow (typically 12–24 months to first‑instance judgment), expensive, and uncertain in outcome. They are best understood as last‑resort mechanisms or as leverage tools in negotiation rather than as reliable forced‑exit strategies. For further analysis of how courts approach minority shareholder protection, the general principles are broadly consistent across Central European jurisdictions.
Whether pursuing a statutory squeeze‑out or a contractual drag‑along, the following checklist covers the core compliance steps that deal teams should track:
Bidders should also conduct thorough disclosure‑letter analysis during the due‑diligence phase to identify any undisclosed liabilities or commitments that could affect valuation or trigger warranty claims post‑closing.
Price is the single most litigated element of a squeeze‑out. Under the Tpt., the follow‑on squeeze‑out price must ordinarily equal the original bid price. However, minorities may challenge the price as unfair, particularly where they argue that the bid price did not reflect true intrinsic value or where the market price was artificially depressed before the announcement.
Hungarian courts have regard to several benchmarks when assessing price fairness:
To minimise post‑closing disputes, industry observers recommend that bidders include a clear valuation protocol in the offer prospectus and establish a price‑adjustment escrow. The escrow, typically 5–10% of the aggregate squeeze‑out consideration, is held for a defined period (6–12 months) and released once any pricing challenges have been resolved or the limitation period for claims has expired. This mechanism provides comfort to both bidders (who can close and delist on schedule) and minorities (who retain a funded remedy if the price is later adjusted upward).
Minority shareholders who object to a squeeze‑out in Hungary generally pursue one or more of the following strategies:
Hungarian courts can grant several remedies to a successful minority challenger: a price adjustment (the most common outcome), an interim injunction suspending the squeeze‑out (rare, but possible where serious procedural defects are shown), or damages for losses caused by breach of duty. The likely practical effect of most pricing challenges, however, is a modest upward adjustment rather than a reversal of the entire transaction. Early engagement with key minorities, including structured settlement discussions before or immediately after the squeeze‑out notice, remains the most cost‑effective approach to managing litigation risk.
To illustrate how the process works in practice, consider a typical public‑to‑private transaction on the Budapest Stock Exchange. The following anonymised timeline is modelled on recent Hungarian squeeze‑out transactions, with filing mechanics drawn from MNB and BSE announcements:
The entire process from MNB filing to delisting took approximately 14 weeks, broadly consistent with well‑executed Hungarian squeeze‑out transactions. The critical variable was the acceptance rate during the offer period: had the bidder not reached 90%, the squeeze‑out option would have been unavailable, and the bidder would have needed to pursue alternative strategies (secondary offer, market purchases, or a drag‑along if contractually available).
Successfully forcing out a minority shareholder in Hungary requires careful alignment of legal strategy, regulatory compliance, and commercial execution. Before launching a bid or exercising a drag‑along, deal teams should confirm the following:
Hungary’s squeeze‑out framework, while procedurally demanding, offers bidders a clear and enforceable path to full ownership, provided the statutory requirements are met precisely. The consequences of missteps, whether in pricing, filing, or timing, can range from costly litigation to a failed squeeze‑out and continued minority participation. Early legal advice from specialists with direct experience of MNB practice and BSE mechanics is not optional, it is essential.
This article was produced by Global Law Experts. For specialist advice on this topic, contact Daniel Kaszas at DKKR Partners / ARCLIFFE, a member of the Global Law Experts network.
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Sign up for the latest advisor briefings and news within Global Advisory Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.
Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.
Global Advisory Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional advisory services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced advisors, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
