| In Principle

On 12 April 2022, the new Holding Law was published in the Polish Journal of Laws, introducing into the Commercial Companies Code new regulations on the activity of corporate groups, including the possibility to squeeze out minority shareholder’s stakes in subsidiaries.
 

The recent amendment to the Commercial Companies Code introduces a number of important changes for companies, especially companies operating within corporate groups. This raises the question of whether companies should adapt their corporate documents to reflect these changes.

The latest episode of News from Poland is devoted to implementation by Polish companies of sanctions imposed on Russia for its attack on Ukraine. This topic is discussed by Anna Olejniczak-Michalska from the firm’s Private Client practice and Łukasz Lasek from the firm’s Dispute Resolution & Arbitration practice.

Until the end of April, contracting authorities in Poland have time to add to their procurement documentation and competition terms and conditions new mandatory grounds for exclusion of contractors included in the sanctions list or whose beneficial owner or parent company is on the list.

Contractual penalties are a common instrument for sanctioning failures to perform non-monetary obligations (e.g. completing construction on time). Contractual penalties can be cut by the courts, but generally the Polish Civil Code indicates only the grounds for mitigating a contractual penalty. The details must be sought in the legal literature and the case law. Indeed, the regulations do not even provide guidance on how much contractual penalties can be reduced. Thus each case should be treated individually, guided by the principles discussed below.

How should a spouse consent to incurring a debt encumbering the marital community property so that the creditor can obtain security against marital property or execute against marital property? And what should a creditor do if there is no written consent?

Dishonest debtors display great ingenuity in evading their obligations. They may also turn to advisers who, for a hefty fee, provide “sophisticated” ideas to lead creditors astray. Often such ideas involve the creation of legal entities (sometimes a whole group or “chain”) to hide components of the debtor’s business from creditors. Such actions constitute abuse of legal personality for the purpose of harming creditors. Can dishonest debtors and their supporters (including advisers) who knowingly use such methods really rest easy?

In late March, the European Commission published another package of proposals aimed at making the European Green Deal a reality. Some of the proposals relate to specific product categories, e.g. construction products and textiles, but there is also no shortage of proposals to make products more sustainable and environment-friendly.

Until now, the obligation to comply with the EU economic sanctions regime has arisen directly from the EU regulations, in particular Regulation 833/2014 and Regulation 765/2006 containing restrictive measures against Russian and Belarusian entities, but violation of bans has not been subject to fines. This situation should change, as a bill on special solutions to prevent the support of aggression against Ukraine and to protect national security is being taken up in the Polish parliament.

The construction market is facing more challenges. After many problems associated with the pandemic, other major difficulties have arisen due to Russia’s war on Ukraine. This presents the second recent case of force majeure affecting the economy. Although the construction sector did well in the pandemic crisis, this time the outlook is much more pessimistic. Thus the new reality requires a rapid response and search for solutions to mitigate numerous risks.

The Public Procurement Law of 11 September 2019 improperly implements the exclusion ground for improper performance of a former contract, as it ignores the specifics of the Polish public procurement market. This error can be corrected by a legislative change or by a pro-EU interpretation of the existing law.

Increased court fees for an application for a summons to conciliation have been in effect since August 2019. They were intended to prevent the use of settlement proceedings solely to interrupt the running of the limitations period. Has this effect been achieved?