Category: Poland

WKB Lawyers has advised Selvita on its acquisition of PozLab. DSK Kancelaria reportedly advised the sellers.

Selvita specializes in integrated research and development projects in the area of drug discovery and development that combine the early stage of drug discovery with the clinical trial stage.

PozLab is an independent research and development laboratory that provides R&D analytical services to the pharmaceutical, food, cosmetics, veterinary, and related industries.

The WKB team included Partner Jakub Jedrzejak, Counsel Bartosz Laski, and Attorneys at Law Sebastian Wozniak, Zuzanna Cybulska, Dorota Gajuk, and Marta Palyga.

Dentons has advised Ignitis Renewables subsidiary Pomerania Wind Farm on EUR 82 million in refinancing facilities from the EIB and the Nordic Investment Bank, with Skandinavska Enskilda Banken serving as the agent, security agent, and account bank. TGS Baltic reportedly advised the borrower as well.

According to Dentons, “the wind power project is located in the Pomeranian voivodship. It commenced commercial operations in December 2021 and its 29 turbines have a combined output of approximately 300 gigawatt/hours per year, enough to meet the demand of close to 160,000 homes.”

“We’re immensely thankful for the steadfast collaboration with the EIB and NIB, as their backing is fundamental to the success of our renewable energy projects,” commented Ignitis Group CFO Jonas Rimavicius. “At Ignitis Group, we’re at the forefront of driving the green energy transition in the Baltic region and Poland, aiming for a future powered entirely by sustainable energy. This ambitious vision hinges on the support from key European financial institutions.”

The Dentons team included Partner Mark Segall, Counsel Jakub Zienkiewicz, and Associate Jakub Olejniczak.

Editor’s Note: After this article was published, Norton Rose Fulbright informed CEE Legal Matters it had advised the European Investment Bank, the Nordic Investment Bank, and Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken on the EUR 82 million refinancing. The firm’s team included Partner Tomasz Rogalski, Counsels Marta Kawecka and Malgorzata Patocka, Senior Associates Daniel Popek and Cezary Zawislak, Senior Consultant Piotr Strawa, Lawyers Wiktoria Jadczak, Natalia Rybak, Bartosz Odziemkowski, and Mikolaj Wolczynski, Associates Karolina Majcher, Jakub Wiatrzyk, Paula Stepien, Mateusz Czuba, Przemyslaw Piasecki, Martyna Korzeniewska, Daniel Ksiazek, and Jan Nowjalis, as well as further team members in the UK and Luxembourg.

Ellex subsequently informed CEE Legal Matters it had advised lenders as well. The firm’s team included Associate Partner Egle Neverbickiene and Associate Ainis Augustas Petrulis.

SKJB Szybkowski Kuzma Jelen Brzoza-Ostrowska has advised the seller on the sale of two logistics parks with a gross leasable area of over 82,000 square meters located in Pruszkow and Ozarow Mazowiecki.

According to the law firm, the two logistics assets are known as the Warsaw West parks.

The SKJB team included Partner Wojciech Szybkowski, Associate Aleksandra Szykulska, and Junior Associate Maciej Wilk.

SKJB did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.

CK Legal Chabasiewicz Kowalska has advised PragmaGo on its PLN 25 million issuance of series C3 bonds.

According to the firm, “PragmaGo has successfully allotted all the series C3 bonds with a 57,83% subscription reduction. The public offering of the series C3 bonds was conducted under the prospectus for PragmaGo’s fourth bond program, approved by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority. Under the prospectus, PragmaGo may issue bonds with a total nominal value of up to PLN 500 million.”

Within the program, PragmaGo can issue either secured or unsecured bonds. “This is an original concept of CK Legal and Dom Maklerski BDM. The bonds will be listed on the regulated Catalyst market operated by the Warsaw Stock Exchange,” the firm reported.

PragmaGo is a non-bank financial institution in Poland specializing in providing online financing in the form of factoring and loans in the SME segment.

Two months prior, CK Legal also advised PragmaGo on its PLN 25 million issuance of series C2 bonds (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on February 1, 2024) as well as on its acquisition of single invoice financing market company Monevia (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on February 13, 2024).

The CK Legal team included Founding Partner Wojciech Chabasiewicz and Head of Capital Markets Anita Gwozdz.

DWF has advised German energy company SachsenEnergie on the acquisition of three photovoltaic farms with a total installed capacity of 23.1 megawatts from Onde. DLA Piper advised Onde.

SachsenEnergie is a utility service company that offers distribution of electricity and natural gas for residential and commercial use.

Onde engages in designing and construction solutions for the renewable energy sector.

The DWF team included Partners Karol Lasocki and Rafal Wozniak, Local Partner Malgorzata Lesiak-Cwikowska, Counsels Agnieszka Chylinska and Maria Kierska, Senior Associates Katarzyna Stefaniak and Paulina Stachura, Associate Joanna Derlikiewicz, and Junior Associates Joanna Maria Szczech, Iga Sukiennik, Andrzej Lenart, and Patrycja Strycharek.

The DLA Piper team included Partner Jakub Domalik-Plakwicz, Counsel Marek Kleczek, Associates Kamila Mozdzen and Karolina Pichit, and Junior Associate Konrad Nazarowski.

Wardynski & Partners has represented the Civil Society Drug Policy Initiative on a pro bono basis in a dispute with Meta.

The Civil Society Drug Policy Initiative is an NGO that works to spread knowledge about the harmful effects of psychoactive substances and assists drug users.

According to Wardynski & Partners, “by blocking the social media accounts and groups of the Civil Society Drug Policy Initiative (SIN) without warning, explanation, or a real opportunity to appeal those decisions, Meta infringed the organization’s personal interests. The court ordered Meta to restore the blocked content and apologize publicly to SIN for unjustly taking down SIN’s accounts and groups on Facebook and Instagram.”

Further, “in the oral justification for the judgment issued from the bench, the court pointed out that Meta’s removal of SIN content from Facebook and Instagram in this manner violated the association’s freedom of expression and reputation, as well as its sense of certainty and safety. The court also found that the case against Meta could be heard in Poland, rather than before the courts in Ireland, where Meta has its registered office,” the firm reported.

As background, Wardynski & Partners highlighted that “in 2018, Facebook, which was a strategic platform for SIN’s operations, deleted the SIN page and group, finding that they violated Facebook Community Standards, without warning or a transparent explanation. The suit against Meta (then still operating under the name Facebook) for infringement of SIN’s personal interests was filed in May 2019. SIN alleged in the complaint that the takedown unjustly restricted the organization’s ability to disseminate information, express its views, and communicate with audiences. On July 2, 2019, the court hearing the case issued an interim injunction prohibiting Meta from taking down pages, accounts, or groups operated by SIN on Facebook and Instagram, or blocking individual posts by SIN.”

The Wardynski & Partners team included Partners Lukasz Lasek and Piotr Goledzinowski and Attorney at Law Bartosz Troczynski.

White & Case has advised the State Treasury of the Republic of Poland – represented by its Minister of Finance – on an USD 8 billion issuance of notes registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission under its shelf registration statement. Rymarz Zdort Maruta and Latham & Watkins advised the underwriters.

Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, and Santander worked as joint book-running managers on the transaction.

According to White & Case, “this is the largest State Treasury bond issuance in the US dollar market.” The transaction included three tranches of bonds: USD 1.5 billion in 4.625% bonds due 2029; USD 3 billion in 5.125% bonds due 2034; and USD 3.5 billion in 5.5% bonds due 2054.

The White & Case team included Warsaw-based Local Partner Andrzej Sutkowski and Associates Damian Lubocki and Michal Truszczynski, as well as further team members in London.

The Rymarz Zdort Maruta team included Partner Lukasz Gasinski and Counsel Adam Puchalski.

The Latham & Watkins team was led by London-based Partner David Stewart and Washington DC-based Partner Paul Dudek.

KWKR, working with Lippes Mathias, has advised Software Mind on obtaining a PLN 150 million financing from BNP Paribas Bank Polska and the subsequent acquisition of US-based company Prosoft in a transaction valued at almost USD 50 million. Dentons advised the lender. Schoenherr, working with Roetzel & Andress, reportedly advised on the loan agreement as well.

The Software Mind Group is a software house with operations in the European and American markets. According to KWKR, “the acquisition of Prosoft LLC is another step in the Software Mind Group’s strategy of further dynamic development, implemented with the support of its partners: the Enterprise Investors fund and Ailleron, and another big step on foreign markets.” The investment was financed partly with the company’s own funds in addition to the PLN 150 million BNP Paribas loan.

US-based company Prosoft LLC owns and operates the Number8 brand. According to Ailleron, “Number8 has been engaged in software development for more than twenty years, providing consulting services and top-notch, carefully selected IT professionals to clients […] number8 is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, in the US, and also has offices in Costa Rica and Honduras. Prosoft employs 330 high-level IT professionals.”

The KWKR team included Partner Paulina Opielka, Associates Marcin Rudzki, Pawel Machowski, Michal Piechota, Dominika Wcislo, Bartosz Labecki, and Anna Bartosiak, and Junior Associates Jacek Kulig, Dominik Korybalski, and Maciej Ziemianski.

The Dentons team included Partner Bartosz Nojek, Counsel Jakub Zienkiewicz, Senior Associate Aleksandra Czyz, and Associate Paulina Surma.

Sobczynscy i Partnerzy FSG Prawo has advisd Minde on the development of the SEA Resort project in Miedzyzdroje, with Szczecin-based Assethome to commercialize the investment, WPIP Construction as the general contractor, and Europlan Artur Koziei to operate the facility.

According to the law firm, “the investment involves the construction of a luxury five-star facility, containing 153 unique apartments and full leisure facilities including a swimming pool zone with an Infinity pool, a large restaurant combined with a lobby bar, [a spa and] sauna zone, observation terraces, Sky Bar, a fitness zone, a kid’s room, and an outdoor jacuzzi with a sea view.”

The Sobczynscy i Partnerzy team included Managing Partner Michal Sobczynski, Partner Piotr Pawlowski, Attorney at Law Kamil Misiak, and Trainee Attorney at Law Jakub Krzywon.

The adoption of the Artificial Intelligence Act means a wide range of responsibilities for tech businesses in the European Union. This article guides through the new regulatory framework and its practical implications.

On 13 March 2024, the European Parliament adopted the AI Act – landmark EU legislation comprehensively addressing all issues connected with the regulatory framework of artificial intelligence.

The AI Act is poised to take full effect within 24 months of its publication, presumably in late 2026. However, the ban on AI systems posing an unacceptable risk will be enforced within 6 months – potentially during 2024! Additionally, the rules regarding general purpose AI systems will become applicable within 12 months, likely in mid-2025.

What is the AI system?

The AI Act will apply to AI systems, which are defined as machine-based systems designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy. These systems may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment and for explicit or implicit objectives, infer, from the input they receive, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments.

The broad definition of AI systems makes the scope of application of the AI Act very flexible, covering not only software products, but also all other tools, hardware or solutions that could be qualified as autonomous systems that can learn and make conclusions regarding new situations based on the input data previously delivered to them. Additionally, this broad definition makes the AI Act applicable not only to AI products as such, but also to any other products or solutions that use AI components.

Who is subject to it?

The AI Act applies to entities dealing with AI systems, above all :

• providers – entities developing AI systems and placing them on the market or putting them into service under their own brand;
• deployers – entities using AI systems under their own authority.

However, the AI Act also applies to further types of entities such as importers, distributors and authorised representatives.

Prohibited AI systems

The AI Act presents a risk-based approach and applies different requirements to different categories of AI systems depending on how they impact individuals (natural persons affected by the given AI system).

The first category refers to prohibited AI systems that pose an unacceptable risk. Prohibited AI systems include, with some exceptions, for example:

• systems deploying subliminal, manipulative or deceptive techniques affecting individuals making informed decisions;
• social scoring systems leading to detrimental or unfavourable treatment;
• facial recognition systems using untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage;
• emotion recognition systems in the areas of workplace and education institutions;
• certain biometric categorisation systems;
• certain real-time remote biometric identification systems.

High-risk AI systems

The core category of the AI Act is that of high-risk AI systems, i.e., systems that may pose a significant risk of harm to the health, safety or fundamental rights of natural persons.

According to the AI Act, high-risk AI systems are those covered by the EU product safety legislation, as well as systems categorised, but not limited to, as follows:

• AI systems used in critical infrastructure;
• AI systems intended for education and vocational training;
• AI systems for employment, workers management and access to self-employment;
• law enforcement AI systems;
• migration, asylum and border control management systems.

The list of high-risk AI systems is not exhaustive, meaning that sample categories of high-risk AI systems may be supplemented in the future and aligned with technology trends.

Apart from high-risk AI systems, the AI Act also refers to other medium- or low-risk AI systems.

Obligations for high-risk AI systems

Providers and/or deployers of high-risk AI systems will face a chain of obligations, such as:

• implementation of risk management systems throughout the entire lifecycle of the high-risk AI system; this comprises among other things the identification and analysis of the known and reasonably foreseeable risks, as well as the adoption of targeted risk management measures;
• implementation of adequate data governance mechanisms – to ensure that the data used for training, validating and testing AI models is suitable for the intended purpose and of appropriate quality;
• drawing up and maintaining detailed technical documentation of the AI system;
• equipping the systems with record-keeping functionalities for the automatic logging of events during the operation of the AI system;
• maintenance of human oversight over the AI system;
• maintenance of an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity of the AI system;
• implementation of quality management systems;
• performing impact assessments or conformity assessments for certain categories of AI systems;
• implementation of post-market monitoring – for the purpose of collecting and analysing AI system data;
• registration obligations in EU database;
• information/transparency obligations towards individuals affected by the AI system.

General purpose AI

Apart from the standard AI systems, the AI Act also defines a separate category: General-purpose AI system (GPAI). This is a system of a general nature that can be used in a wide range of downstream systems or applications.

GPAI includes AI models that can perform a variety of tasks, are general-purpose and usually learn autonomously from large amounts of data and may be used in a wide range of applications.

Under the AI Act, GPAI faces a separate set of requirements, particularly relating to:

• implementation of detailed technical documentation of the model;
• implementation of specific policies to respect copyright laws;
• making available “sufficiently detailed” summaries of the content of training datasets;
• labelling obligations towards AI-generated or manipulated content.

Sanctions for non-compliance

Depending on the type of violation and the size of the company, the AI Act brings severe sanctions for non-compliance. Breach of the AI Act prohibitions may result in fines of up to EUR 35 million or 7% of total worldwide annual turnover, while the failure to meet the obligations set out for high-risk AI systemsmayincur penalties of up to EUR 15 million or 3% of total worldwide annual turnover.

Broader legal framework

Although the AI Act primarily targets high-risk applications and GPAI, it is important not to overlook the broader spectrum of AI implementations. Businesses should thoroughly assess the deployment of all AI technologies within their operations, as well as review those already functioning prior to the adoption of the AI Act, ensuring compliance not only with the AI Act, but also with existing legal frameworks. This includes privacy and data protection issues governed under the GDPR, as well as adherence to intellectual property, consumer protection and anti-discrimination laws, which apply to a wide array of AI systems.

By Jakub Pietrasik, Counsel, Zuzanna Nowak-Wrobel, and Julia Biedrzycka, Associates, Wolf Theiss