Category: Poland

  • SSK&W Advises Open Innovation by YouNick Mint on nCage Therapeutics Investment

    SSK&W has advised Open Innovation by YouNick Mint and its co-investors on their investment in nCage Therapeutics. Krzysztof Rozko i Wspolnicy reportedly advised nCage Therapeutics.

    Open Innovation by YouNick Mint is a fund managed by business practitioners in healthcare and industry 4.0. The size of the fund is PLN 57 million.

    nCage Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company developing synthetic virus-like particle platform technology to develop vaccines against infectious diseases and deliver drug conjugates and second-generation antibodies.

    According to SSK&W, “the funds from the investment will be used to develop [nCage Therapeutics’] own innovative synthetic platform based on virus-like particles, which in groundbreaking experiments on animals has demonstrated its possibility of being used to produce both new generation vaccines and innovative drug carriers.”

    The SSK&W team included Partner Szymon Syp and Associate Katarzyna Bakowska.

  • LSW Advises Infranity on Invsetment in Vantage EMEA

    LSW Bienkowski Laskowski Lesnodorski Melzacki, working with Simmons & Simmons, has advised Infranity on its investment into Vantage EMEA.

    Vantage operates 30 hyperscale data center campuses across five continents with a capacity of over 1.9 gigawatts. It has a presence and development projects in Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, South Africa, Switzerland, and the UK. Vantage’s data center campus in Poland is situated on more than 12 acres of land just outside of Warsaw.

    Infranity is an asset management company specializing in sustainable infrastructure investments. The company was founded as part of a partnership with the Generali Group and manages approximately EUR 9 billion of assets on behalf of institutional investors.

    According to LSW, “Infranity joins DigitalBridge, a leading global alternative asset manager dedicated to investing in digital infrastructure, and AustralianSuper, Australia’s largest pension fund, as shareholders in Vantage EMEA. This investment will enable the expansion and development of hyperscale data centers to meet the growing demand from global big data and cloud computing companies.”

    The LSW team included Partners Aleksandra Polak, Krzysztof Marzynski, and Marcin Wlodarski.

    LSW could not provide additional information on the matter.

  • Gessel and Noerr Advise on Sale of Profit4You Group to TEP Capital

    Gessel has advised the partners and founders of the Profit4You Group on the sale of the company to the TEP Capital fund. Noerr advised the TEP Capital private equity fund.

    The transaction remains contingent on regulatory approval.

    TEP Capital is a Polish private equity fund founded in 2020 that focuses on investments in Polish manufacturing companies. This is the first transaction through which TEP Capital is moving beyond its current investment focus.

    Profit4You specializes in the direct recruitment of foreigners in the logistics and production process outsourcing industry.

    According to TEP Capital Managing Partner Tomasz Wozniak, “with a low unemployment rate and an aging population, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find employees and, therefore, sustain key processes for production or logistics operators.” He expects demand for Profit4You’s services to grow well beyond TEP’s investment horizon.

    The Gessel team was led by Partner Maciej Kozuchowski and Senior Associate Diana Strzalkowska-Grad and included Partners Adam Kraszewski, Dominika Ramirez-Wolkiewicz, and Malgorzata Badowska, Counsels Agnieszka Nowacka and Klaudia Krawiec-Guz, Senior Associates Majka Rucinska, Kasia Olszak, Michal Bragiel, Marcin Iwaniak, Karolina Olszewska, and Natalia Lesna, Associate Karolina Sobola, and Junior Associate Jakub Dolhun.

    The Noerr team was led by Associated Partner Karol Kicun and included Senior Associates Katarzyna Zwierz-Wilkocka, Jaroslaw Karlikowski, Agnieszka Besiekierska, and Pawel Hoc, Associate Ada Zahorodna, and Legal Advisor Gustaw Steinke.

  • CK Legal Advises Telemedycyna Polska on Public Offering

    CK Legal Chabasiewicz Kowalska has advised NewConnect-listed Telemedycyna Polska on its public offering of Series E shares and their registration in the National Depository for Securities. 

    The total value of the offering was PLN 2 million. Telemedycyna Polska is a telecardiology company. It specializes in telecardiology services for individual patients and medical facilities.

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

  • SSK&W and MFW Fialek Advise on Aleet’s Financing Round with CofounderZone, FundingBox, and Private Investors

    SSK&W has advised founder Katarzyna Marczuk on Aleet’s financing round with CofounderZone, FundingBox, and various business angels. MFW Fialek advised CofounderZone.

    According to SSK&W, “Katarzyna Marczuk is one of the founders of the American start-up NuTonomy which has been acquired for USD 450 million. Currently, Katarzyna is working on cutting-edge technologies for transportation services and traffic prediction through her startup – Aleet.”

    CofounderZone is a platform connecting entrepreneurs with start-ups. The fund works closely with the business angels network it has created, which provides added value through an individual approach to structuring and financing transactions on the private market.

    Funding Box is a VC fund from the PFR Starter program.

    The SSK&W team included Partner Szymon Syp.

    The MFW Fialek team included Partner Miroslaw Fialek, Counsel Michal Karwacki, Associates Cezary Gizinski and Mateusz Wieckowski, Junior Associates Franciszek Furmaniak and Natalia Grzegorzewska, and Intern Matylda Franczak.

  • Rymarz Zdort Maruta Advises Empol on Gorlice Waste-to-Energy Project

    Rymarz Zdort Maruta has advised PUK Empol on its project to construct a Gorlice facility to process the combustible fractions obtained from waste treatment for the production of energy.

    PUK Empol is a municipal waste collection, management, and treatment company in Poland.

    “The waste-to-energy installation will be used to incinerate combustible waste generated from the mechanical and mechanical-biological treatment of municipal waste for the combined production of electricity and heat. It is an innovative project that aims to address the demand for the management of such waste,” Rymarz Zdort Maruta reported.

    The Rymarz Zdort Maruta team was led by Partner Agnieszka Skorupinska and included Partner Jakub Rachwol, Senior Associate Adrian Wieslaw, and Associates Marta Szczepkowska, Weronika Iskierska, Urszula Zawadzka, Augustyna Porzucek, and Agnieszka Jablonska-Zachwieja.

    Editor’s Note: After this article was published, DLA Piper announced that it advised Alior Bank on the construction financing for the project. The firm’s team included Counsels Aleksander Haleniuk and Magdalena Zablocka – Foulkes, Associate Bartlomiej Slemp, and Junior Associates Szymon Piotrowski and Krzysztof Chlebowski.

  • Gessel Advises Anwim on Clearing Acquisition of Three Petrol Stations from Elbah II

    Gessel has advised Anwim on the necessary competition clearance for its acquisition of three petrol stations – in Chorzow, Radzionkow, and Tarnowskie Gory – from Elbah II.

    Anwim operates a network of over 350 petrol stations under the Moya brand.

    Elbah II is a petrol station company.

    According to Gessel, “in the course of the proceedings, the President of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection examined the state of competition on the local markets within a radius of 2.5 kilometers and 5 kilometers from the acquired stations.”

    Back in 2021, Gessel also advised Anwim on its acquisition of The Fuel Company (as reported by CEE Legal Matters on November 26, 2021).

    The Gessel team included Partner Bernadeta Kasztelan-Swietlik and Managing Associate Karolina Krzal-Kwiatkowska.

    Gessel did not respond to our inquiry on the matter.

  • DLA Piper and Gessel Advise on Affidea Acquisition of Medisport Medical Center in Lublin

    DLA Piper advised diagnostic imaging and oncological treatment network Affidea on its acquisition of the Medisport Medical Center in Lublin. Gessel advised MediSport majority shareholder Adam Lewczyk on the sale.

    MediSport offers a full range of primary healthcare services – including magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, X-ray, specialist consultations, as well as surgical and orthopedic procedures – and assists in the recovery of all patients in need of comprehensive diagnostics and rehabilitation.

    Affidea is a provider of medical diagnostic services in Europe. It has more than 300 centers in 15 countries.

    “The acquisition will make it possible to offer one-day surgery, which significantly shortens the patient’s stay in the hospital, thanks to the use of minimally invasive and modern techniques,” DLA Piper reported.

    The DLA Piper team included Partners Piotr Miller and Bartosz Matusik, Senior Associates Anna Chrabota-Bajson and Ewelina Jaworska, Associate Jakub Niemiec, and Junior Associates Aleksander Stanek and Izabela Wychowaniec.

    The Gessel team included Partner Maciej Kozuchowski, Managing Associate Bartlomiej Wozniak, and Senior Associates Katarzyna Olszak and Diana Strzalkowska.

  • DWF and Schoenherr Advise on Avallon MBO Sale of Marketplanet to Byggfakta

    DWF has advised the Avallon MBO fund on the full sale of Marketplanet to the Byggfakta Group. Schoenherr advised Byggfakta on the acquisition.

    The Byggfakta Group is a software and information company within the construction industry, with a proprietary cloud-based service and a fully integrated data and software platform. The Byggfakta Group has been listed on Nasdaq Stockholm since 2021. “The acquisition of Marketplanet aligns with the Byggfakta Group’s strategic goal of strengthening its footprint in Central and Eastern Europe,” Schoenherr announced.

    Headquartered in Warsaw, Otwarty Rynek Elektroniczny (Marketplanet) is a company in the Polish B2B e-commerce sector, providing IT solutions to support purchasing procedures in companies as well as in public administration, DWF reported.

    Avallon MBO is a private equity fund based in Lodz, Poland, specializing in management buy-outs.

    The DWF team was led by Partner Rafal Wozniak and Senior Counsel Radoslaw Biedecki and included Senior Associate Katarzyna Stefaniak and Junior Associate Joanna Szczech.

    The Schoenherr team was led by Partner Pawel Halwa and Senior Attorney at Law Krzysztof Lesniak and included Partners Daria Rutecka and Weronika Kapica, Attorney at Law Klaudia Szatan, Associate Karolina Samocik, and Junior Associate Piotr Podsiedlik.

  • Acquisition of Real Property on the Polish Retail Market

    In the recent years, the Polish retail properties market went through a difficult period. The coronavirus pandemic and the related social restrictions had a major impact on the financial results of shopping malls. In addition to that, the changing consumer behaviors contributed to a massive increase in online sales. However, the years 2022 and 2023 brought a gradual improvement of the situation on the retail market and, consequently, of the overall climate for investing in real property. Furthermore, alternatives to large shopping malls, i.e. smaller retail parks, have been enjoying growing popularity on the market for several years now; these are often located closer to residential areas and in smaller cities. This sector has been growing dynamically in terms of both volume and the share in the entire retail market in Poland.

    Investors interested in purchasing real property on the retail market in Poland should take into account certain significant differences related to the process of acquisition versus standard real property transactions.

    Selling such an atypical facility as a shopping mall requires taking into consideration the special nature of this type of transaction, as well as choosing the most optimal model for the transaction. The transaction needs to take into account that its object is a living and functioning organism. This means that the nature of the operations carried out in the shopping mall has to be taken into account, so that the buyer can continue these operations in an uninterrupted manner. This is justified with the interest of the buyer, who wants to acquire not only the right to the land and the building, but also an efficient shopping mall that generates a specific level of profit. This, in turn, is the main element determining the course of actions. That element should govern the structure of the transaction and the agreement of sale itself, without disregarding, however, the need to secure the rights of the buyer, as well.

    As for the structure of a transaction of sale of a shopping mall, it should be pointed out that before the final agreement of sale is executed between the parties, several other stages of preparatory nature have to take place. 

    First, the parties sign a letter of intent specifying the fundamental parameters and the structure of the transaction, such as the duration of the selling process and the process of executing the agreements implementing the provisions of the letter of intent, as well as the price. Simultaneously, in that letter, the seller undertakes not to sell the real property to another entity for a specific period of time and not to offer the real property for sale, so as to make it possible to carry out the arrangements made by the parties and to finalize the process of sale. The signing of a letter of intent usually precedes the next two stages of the process. The first one of these is a due diligence of the entire shopping mall complex. This covers primarily a legal and technical analysis of the real property and the building. Furthermore, all of the issues and the documentation related to smooth functioning of the shopping mall, including but not limited to issues concerning the tenants, have to be analyzed. This aspect is related to another element of a commercial analysis of the object of sale or of a corporate analysis: a situation where the object of sale is an organized portion of a business or shares in the company that owns the shopping mall. Due diligence is highly important not only due to the fact that it allows the buyer to learn, in a comprehensive manner, about the status of the object of sale, but mainly because the result of this process determines whether the transaction will go ahead. 

    If the result of the due diligence process is positive, the next step is usually a preliminary agreement of sale. However, the market standard allows for changing the sequence of these stages, so that a preliminary agreement of sale is executed first, followed by due diligence.

    As for the preliminary agreement of sale itself, it is an initial act binding the buyer and the seller, whereby the seller undertakes to sell the real property to the buyer on the terms and conditions specified in the agreement and the buyer undertakes to purchase the real property on these terms. The preliminary agreement of sale specifies in detail the object of sale, the price, the date by which the final agreement of sale is to be executed, and the conditions whose fulfillment will determine whether the preliminary agreement can be deemed to have been carried out, as well as the manner of fulfilling these conditions. What is more, this agreement lays down the rules of the transitory period, which is intended to ensure that the status of the object of sale remains unchanged, as well as the procedure to be followed if the status of the object of sale does change.

    On significant benefit of executing the preliminary agreement of sale in the form of a notarial deed is the possibility of enforcing the execution of the final agreement of sale if the conditions for its execution have been fulfilled. Furthermore, this solution allows for disclosing, in the court documents for the real property, the claim resulting from the preliminary agreement of sale. This claim protects the rights of the buyer, virtually preventing the sale of the real property to a third party on the market until the term of the preliminary agreement of sale has expired. Consequently, it is crucial for ensuring the buyer’s legal certainty. 

    The contracting process is finalized by executing the final agreement of sale, which is the basis for transferring the rights to the shopping mall from the seller to the buyer and makes the claim for the payment of the price enforceable.

    Specifying the terms and conditions of the transaction in an agreement is intended to ensure that the key interests of both parties are secured. In the case of the seller, those are (i) receiving payment for the real property sold, at the same time eliminating any forms of deferred payment, (ii) excluding or limiting the liability for the real property sold, both in terms of dates and subject matter, and (iii) shortening the duration of mutual financial settlements. For the buyer, these interests are (i) purchasing a smoothly functioning shopping mall that generates a specific level of profit and (ii) ensuring that there are no negative changes between the execution of the preliminary agreement of sale and the final agreement of sale and then between the execution of the final agreement of sale and the moment of handing over the real property to the buyer. Furthermore, the buyer’s interest also includes receiving from the seller a guarantee of revenues, allowing for maintaining a certain level of profitability of the mall that existed at the moment of making the purchase decision, that exists at the moment of executing the final agreement of sale, and that will exist for an agreed period of time following the acquisition of the real property.

    For the entire structure of a sale of a shopping center, choosing the right object of sale is of fundamental importance since this translates to the form of the agreement that will allow the buyer to make the purchase. The classic way of making the purchase is direct acquisition of the real property. Another variant is the acquisition of an organized portion of a business that is related to running a shopping mall. These two variants are asset deals where the object of sale are specific assets of the seller. Irrespective of those, there is also the option to purchase all of the shares of the seller’s company that is the owner of the shopping mall and carries out operational activities (as long as this is an SPV that manages exclusively the object of the transaction). In such a case, the investor, as the buyer, does not become a direct owner of the shopping mall, but acquires control over it as the sole shareholder of the company owning the shopping mall. This is called a share deal. 

    The above variants differ not only in terms of the object of sale, but also with respect to the form of the agreement of sale and the form of taxation. If the object of sale is the real property, the parties are required to execute the agreement of sale in the form of a notarial deed and the tax applicable to this type of a transaction is, in principle, the value added tax (VAT), whose rate is currently 23%. Even if the conditions for exemption of the sale from the VAT are fulfilled, parties will often, for a number of reasons, including the possibility of settling the VAT paid and receiving a return of a potential overpayment, resign from this exemption and choose to have the transaction taxed. In turn, in the case where an organized portion of the seller’s business or shares in the seller’s company are sold, the agreement is executed in an ordinary written form with the signatures certified by a notary. In this case, there is no VAT—it is replaced with the tax on civil law transactions (PCC). If the object of the transaction are shares in the seller’s company, the PCC is 1% of the market value of the shares; in the case of a sale of an organized portion of a business, the rate is 2%. Unfortunately, the PCC is not subject to any tax settlement and has to be paid by the buyer directly to the relevant tax office, which often leads to choosing the acquisition of the real property as the preferred form of the transaction.

    At the same time, it should be pointed out that the difference between a direct sale of real property (including the building of the shopping mall) and a sale of an organized portion of a business is very slight. The transaction being classified as either of the two could be determined for instance simply by the fact of the seller assigning to the buyer all of the agreements executed with suppliers of utilities and service providers. In turn, considering the significance of the consequences of incorrectly classifying the form of the transaction, especially in terms of the type of agreement of sale and the rules of taxation, the market standard is for the parties to apply for a tax ruling confirming that the standpoint of the parties is correct as regards the structure of the transaction and, as a result, the adopted form of taxation. Receiving a positive tax ruling that confirms the standpoint of the parties is, in principle, a prerequisite for finalizing the transaction as intended.

    Other key aspects of an agreement of sale include:

    • Forms of securing the payment of the purchase price—the parties usually agree for the funds to be deposited with a notary or, in the case of larger sums, use an escrow account.
    • Limiting the seller’s liability—since the seller allows the buyer to carry out a full due diligence process with respect to the object of sale, the parties often exclude statutory warranty, agree on limitations to the duration of liability, or specify a cap for the amount up to which the seller is liable.
    • Regulating the transitory period—the parties agree on the concept of a material adverse change, which often entails a decrease in the income on account of tenancy falling below a certain level or the loss of one of the key tenants, and regulate a potential situation where defects are found in the shopping mall, the costs of those defects exceed a specific sum, and certain agreed actions have to be taken with respect to the defects.
    • Releasing the collaterals encumbering the real property—the parties agree that the seller will be required to obtain payoff letters from the bank that provides financing to the seller. These letters specify the terms of repaying the amounts due to the bank; once this has taken place, the bank is obliged to release the collaterals, which is done by means of release letters, and, in particular, to agree for mortgages to be removed from court documents.
    • Transferring the rights under tenancy agreements—there is no need to specify an additional procedure in this respect since the buyer takes over, by operation of law, as the landlord. However, taking over as the landlord by operation of law will not entail an automatic transfer to the buyer of all of the collaterals established by the tenants; consequently, additional contractual regulations are required in this respect.
    • Securing the possibility of a future redevelopment of the shopping mall and its repairs, as well as the use of the mall’s logo, which may be highly recognizable among consumers—the transfer of the seller’s rights to project documentation and logos should be covered by the agreement. Additionally, if the periods of the construction guarantees granted by the contractors who erected the building have not lapsed yet, the agreement needs to provide for their transfer to the buyer.
    • Rules of financial settlements following the execution of the agreement of sale—the agreement of sale has to lay down the rules according to which the parties will settle the costs related to the functioning of the shopping mall and the rents paid by the tenants. This issue is especially important in a situation where the sale takes place in the middle of a calendar year. Depending on the nature of the rent, it is important to remember to regulate the rules of settling the rent by reference to the turnover, which is accounted for at the end of the calendar year. In turn, as for the costs settled on an annual or quarterly basis, such as the real property tax or the perpetual usufruct fee, it is standard for the parties to make financial settlements proportionally to the time for which they hold the specific rights to the shopping mall.
    • Agreements concerning utilities and maintenance agreements—since a shopping mall is a living organism, there is a need for each current owner to ensure the supply of the relevant utilities and maintenance services. In this respect, the parties carry out an assignment of these agreements (from the seller to the buyer) or decide that only some of these agreements will be assigned in order to ensure the supply of the key utilities and services to the shopping mall.

    Clearly, therefore, a sale of a shopping mall is not only a major interdisciplinary challenge, covering areas such as finance, logistics, and operations, but primarily a legal project. The sale of such an unusual facility entails the need to agree on the terms of sale of the land and the building, but also requires for a number of matters to be regulated, including but not limited to the rules of transferring the collaterals for tenancy agreements, construction guarantees, the rights to logos and project documentation, and the agreements for the supply of utilities and for the rules in force during the transitory period to be specified—these apply to the financial settlements with the tenants and the costs incurred in connection with the real property being sold. Precisely regulating all of the necessary aspects related to the shopping mall that is being sold is a key element of the agreement of sale, as this agreement is the basis for providing the buyer with a means not only to efficiently take over a functioning mall, but also to continue the smooth operation of the facility.

    By Mariusz Mielczarek, Attorney and Associate, KWKR Konieczny Wierzbicki and Partners