On 4 February 2026, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court issued a ruling (2-24-8398) clarifying the conditions for restoring a company to the commercial register and conducting additional liquidation where a company has been deregistered following the termination of bankruptcy proceedings due to insufficient assets, but questions later arise previously unaccounted assets or their value. Although the Court dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, it used the opportunity to harmonise case law and provide detailed guidance for resolving such disputes.

The case concerned an application to initiate additional liquidation of a deregistered company on the basis that the company still held assets and was involved in ongoing litigation that could increase their value. The lower courts took differing approaches: the court of first instance held that the assets had been deemed worthless at the time the bankruptcy proceedings were terminated, while the court of appeal found that any potential assets should be assessed במסגרת bankruptcy proceedings rather than through separate liquidation.

The Supreme Court emphasised that termination of bankruptcy proceedings generally indicates that the debtor lacks sufficient assets even to cover procedural costs, and that the interim trustee liquidates the company without standard liquidation proceedings. In such cases, a company may be deregistered even if it holds assets of minimal value. However, difficulties arise where assets later emerge that were not taken into account or where their value was incorrectly assessed.

To ensure consistency in practice, the Court held that such situations should be addressed by analogy with the rules governing the subsequent distribution of bankruptcy assets. Restoration of the company to the register is therefore not an end in itself, but a technical step enabling asset administration under court and trustee supervision. Where material assets are identified, the company must be restored and proceedings continued under bankruptcy law. This approach prevents the distribution of an insolvent company’s assets through ordinary liquidation without the safeguards inherent in bankruptcy proceedings.

The Court further clarified that additional liquidation requires the actual existence of undistributed assets. Mere assumptions about potential increases in asset value or ongoing litigation are insufficient. The applicant must demonstrate that the assets are sufficient to cover procedural costs and that there is a party willing, if necessary, to fund the proceedings. It also noted that a shareholder of a company deregistered following the termination of bankruptcy does not have the right to demand subsequent distribution, although they may draw the court’s attention to potential assets.

The Court additionally confirmed that pending litigation does not prevent deregistration following termination of bankruptcy proceedings, nor can it independently justify restoring the company. The ruling provides important guidance on distinguishing between additional liquidation and the subsequent distribution of bankruptcy assets, confirming that previously unaccounted assets must primarily be handled under bankruptcy law principles, ensuring creditor protection and judicial oversight.