Category: Poland

  • Tax Aspects of the Amendment to Poland’s Code of Commercial Companies in Domestic Company Reorganisations

    The recent amendments to the Code of Commercial Companies (CCC) introduced on September 15, 2023, have prompted a review of the Polish Tax Ordinance System Act, stemming from concerns raised by tax advisers regarding potential discrepancies in the tax laws that may lead to interpretational disputes between taxpayers and authorities.

    One of the most notable modifications introduced by the amendments is the inclusion of a new method of dividing commercial companies known as division by separation. This new approach streamlines the process by focusing on the entity’s share rights through the principle of general succession, eliminating the complexities associated with in-kind contributions. However, the application of the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) Act provisions to division by separation gives rise to practical issues and interpretational uncertainties.

    Challenges primarily arise from two key issues. Firstly, the absence of the issuance of shares by the recipient company during the division by separation presents complexities in applying Article 12(1)(8d) of the CIT Act. As a result, the application of this provision to the division by separation becomes ineffective, potentially leading to non-neutral tax implications, which in turn is deemed unacceptable. Secondly, the determination of whether the remaining activity in the company being divided exhibits an organised and independent nature adds to the complexity of the situation, leading to varied interpretations and queries.

    Similar concerns emerge in relation to the simplified merger of sister companies, as outlined in the recent CCC amendment. The taxation provisions designed for the merger between a parent company and a daughter company, as defined in Article 12(1)(8f) of the CIT Act, do not seem to appropriately apply to the new simplified merger of sister companies. Consequently, the relevant tax provisions demand a comprehensive reassessment and potential modification to ensure the accurate and fair treatment of such company reorganisations.

    The implications outlined above highlight the necessity for an alignment between the recent amendments to the CCC and the corresponding tax laws to ensure clarity, coherence, and fair taxation within the scope of domestic company reorganisations.

    By Karolina Stawowska, Partner, Wolf Theiss, Wolf Theiss

  • SSW Pragmatic Solutions Advises Orlen Poludnie on Oil Pressing Plant Construction

    SSW Pragmatic Solutions has advised Orlen Poludnie on an EPC contract for the construction of an oil pressing plant in Ketrzyn, valued at approximately PLN 850 million. The contractor for the investment will be a consortium of companies including Polimex Mostostal and AB Industry.

    According to SSW, “the oil will be used in facilities in the Orlen Group to produce low-emission biofuels. The plant will process 500,000 tons of rapeseed per year (about one seventh of the domestic production of this resource) and produce 200,000 tons of oil. The main recipient for the oil will be Orlen Poludnie, which produces biodiesel at its plant in Trzebinia.”

    Moreover, SSW reports that “in addition to the pressing plant itself, the complex will include technological nodes related to the collection of feedstock and dispatching of products, storage of feedstock and products, pressing and extraction, production of technological steam and sewage treatment, as well as a railway siding. The investment is part of Orlen Group’s strategy for the development of biofuels in Poland.”

    The SSW team included Partner Hubert Wysoczanski and Counsel Katarzyna Cybulska.

  • Baker McKenzie Successful for Minova Ekochem Before Polish Supreme Court

    Baker McKenzie has successfully represented the interests of Minova Ekochem before the Supreme Court of Poland regarding a competition case.

    According to Baker McKenzie, the case ended before the Supreme Court which “dismissed the cassation appeal of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of January 28, 2022, due to the failure to demonstrate a significant legal issue in the case.”

    As Baker McKenzie reports, the case regarded Minova Ecochem’s alleged participation in “an unlawful anti-competitive agreement consisting of price fixing, market sharing, and bid-rigging on the mining chemicals market.” 

    The Baker McKenzie team included Partner Marcin Trepka, Counsel Elzbieta Buczkowska, and Senior Associate Martyna Wurm.

  • Adam Milosz and Emil Zalewski Join Maze Legal as Partners

    Former Argon Legal Partners Adam Milosz and Emil Zalewski have left the firm to take up Partner positions in Maze Legal Milosz i Zalewski.

    Milosz specializes in real estate, construction and investment processes, due diligence, corporate law, restructurings, and bankruptcies. He spent almost 14 years with Argon Legal and, earlier, another four with Clifford Chance. Before that, he spent four years as a Lawyer with ECE.

    Zalewski focuses on mediation, civil and criminal litigation, administrative proceedings, and intellectual property matters. He spent nine years with Argon Legal and, before that, three years with Wieckowska i Partnerzy. Earlier, he spent another three years with Nowosielski, Gotkowicz i Partnerzy.

  • Poland: New State Aid Instrument

    The Polish government has presented detailed conditions and modalities for providing support to investment projects of strategic importance for the transition to a net-zero-emission economy. The new State aid instrument implements the EU programme “Temporary Crisis Framework for State Aid measures to support the economy following the aggression against Ukraine by Russia”. The new financial support is to be regarded as a further incentive effect to attract new investments to Poland.

    On 30 September 2023, the Polish Ordinance of the Minister of Development and Technology on granting public aid for the implementation of investment projects of strategic importance for the transition to a net-zero-emission economy of 29 September 2023 entered into force. The Ordinance clarifies the conditions and procedure for obtaining the State aid referred to above, which is set out in the Act on the Preparation and Implementation of Investments in the National Data Processing Centre of 7 July 2023.

    Low-carbon project

    Financial support may be provided for investments consisting of:

    1. production of:
      1. equipment such as batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps, electrolysers and carbon capture and storage (CCUS) equipment,
      2. key components intended for direct use as materials in the manufacturing of equipment referred to in (a) above and used for that purpose;
    2. related critical raw materials necessary for manufacturing the equipment and key components referred to in (1.) above or their recovery.

    Granting of this public aid is subject to a number of conditions, including in particular a commitment by the investor to:

    1. incur eligible costs equivalent to at least €110 million;
    2. create at least 50 new jobs in connection with the low-carbon project;
    3. meet at least five of the 14 supplementary conditions indicated in the Ordinance, i.e.:
      1. creation of specialised jobs,
      2. net increase in the number of employees above the minimum threshold,
      3. eligible costs above the minimum threshold,
      4. cooperation with secondary schools or institutions involved in higher education and scientific research,
      5. SME status,
      6. location of the investment in an area at risk of exclusion,
      7. robotisation and automation of processes,
      8. investment in renewable energy sources,
      9. utilisation of human resources potential,
      10. support in the acquisition of education and vocational qualifications and cooperation with vocational education providers,
      11. creation of regional links,
      12. taking care of employees,
      13. carrying on business activities that have a low negative impact on the environment,
      14. conducting R&D activities;
    4. completion of low-carbon project no later than seven years from the start of the work.

    Aid intensity

    The aid intensity depends on where the investment is located. As a general rule, the aid intensity for a low-carbon project must not exceed 15 per cent of the eligible costs and the total amount of this aid for one entrepreneur must not exceed the equivalent of €150 million.
    However, if a low-emission project is carried out in the areas belonging to the Lower Silesian and Greater Poland Voivodeships as well as some districts belonging to the Mazovia Region, the aid intensity for a low-emission project must not exceed 20% of the eligible costs and the total amount of this aid for one business owner may not exceed the equivalent of €200 million.
    On the other hand, where investments located in the areas belonging to the provinces: Kuyavian-Pomerania, Lublin, Lubuskie, Łódź, Lesser Poland, Opole, Subcarpathia, Podlasie, Pomerania, Silesia, Holy Cross, Warmia-Masuria and West Pomerania and districts belonging to the Masovian Region other than those listed above, the intensity of aid may not exceed 35% of eligible costs, and the total value of this aid for one business owner may not exceed the equivalent of €350 million.

    Provision of support

    Support for a low-emission project is granted in the form of a targeted grant on the basis of a public aid agreement concluded with the business owner by the ministry of economics. Support can be granted until 31 December 2025.
    An investor who has received aid for a low-carbon project undertakes to maintain the low-carbon project at the location for a minimum of five years, and where SMEs are involved, for a minimum of three years from the date of completion of the project. This undertaking does not exclude replacing obsolete or defective installations or equipment during this period, provided that the business is maintained at the location for the minimum period.

    By Pawel Zelich, Partner, and Bartosz Ostrowski, Senior AssociateNoerr

  • Katarzyna Ignatowicz-Debska Makes Partner at MKZ Partners

    MKZ Partners Lawyer Katarzyna Ignatowicz-Debska has been promoted to Partner, in a move announced by the firm on October 26, 2023.

    According to MKZ Partners, Ignatowicz-Debska specializes in “processes related to the so-called Swiss franc loans and loans indexed to other foreign currencies,” and “other disputes regarding the protection of consumer rights.”

    Ignatowicz-Debska, Head of the Procedural Law Team at MKZ Partners, has been with the firm for almost a decade. Before joining the firm in 2014, she spent three years with Kancelaria Radcy Prawnego Sebastiana Mroz and, earlier, a year and a half with Kancelaria Prawnicza Komor i Wspolnicy.

  • Act Legal BSWW Advises Victoria Dom on Bond Issuance Program Prospectus

    Act Legal BSWW has advised Victoria Dom in obtaining the approval of the Financial Supervision Commission for the company’s second public bond issuance program prospectus, for an up to PLN 200 million public offering of bearer bonds.

    Victoria Dom is a family company that has been operating in the Polish development market for 25 years. During this time, it completed over 13,300 apartments and houses with a total usable area of over 496,000 square meters. It currently has over 1,000 apartments under construction in 11 projects in Warsaw and Krakow.

    According to Act Legal BSWW, Victoria Dom intends to apply to the Warsaw Stock Exchange for the introduction of the bonds to the Catalyst alternative trading system.

    The Act Legal BSWW team included Managing Partners Piotr Wojnar and Piotr Smoluch, Partner Sebastian Sury, Senior Associates Katarzyna Krzykwa and Lukasz Swiatek, and Associate Hanna Szczepanska.

  • SSK&W Advises on Aper Ventures and Adamed Technology Investment in Inuru

    SSK&W, working alongside Berlin-based Lindenpartners, has advised Aper Ventures and Adamed Technology on their investment in Inuru. Taylor Wessing reportedly advised Inuru.

    Founded by Marcin Ratajczak and Patrick Barkowski, Inuru develops OLED lighting technology that can be integrated with different surfaces.

    Aper Ventures is a fund cofinanced by PFR Ventures.

    Adamed Technology is a corporate venture capital fund established by Polish pharmaceutical and biotech company Adamed.

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

  • BSJP BNT Advises JSK Architekci on Winning Bid for CPK Air Traffic Control Tower Design

    BSJP BNT has advised JSK Architekci on its winning bid during public contract award proceedings for the design of the Air Traffic Control Tower of Centralny Port Komunikacyjny – including representation in three appeal proceedings before Poland’s National Appeals Chamber.

    CPK is a planned transfer hub between Warsaw and Lodz that will integrate air, rail, and road transport. It has been billed as “the largest transport investment in Europe,” with the airport alone expected to cost around EUR 8 billion. “This is a prestigious project which, due to its scale and its expected planned functions, will constitute a signature feature of the planned CPK,” BSJP BNT announced.

    According to the firm, the three different appeal proceedings before the National Appeals Chamber concerned: first, the rejection of “a competitor’s bid, previously selected by CPK as the most favorable one […] due to its proven unreasonably low price; second, another competitor’s bid being downgraded; and third, the successful defense of JSK’s bid, once it had been selected as the prospective winner.

    “The decision in the first of the appeal proceedings deserves particular attention, where the Chamber accepted the allegation of submitting a bid with an unreasonably low price,” BSJP BNT reported. “In the justification for this ruling – ordering the contracting authority (CPK) to reject the bid initially selected as the most favorable one – the NAC indicated the issue of the omission of certain elements of the price and the lack of sufficient justification for the other essential elements of the price, the far-reaching underestimation, also as regards the required number and remuneration of personnel. It also questioned that, in the face of experienced market participants competing against each other, the experience of one contractor is supposed to be the factor that allows it to offer a price less than half the average value of the submitted bids.”

    According to the firm, the decision “is a positive example in light of previous rulings in similar cases. The Chamber confronted the tendency of contracting authorities to automatically recognize explanations of unreasonably low prices and drew attention to the necessity to provide detailed and specific demonstration – and thus submission of evidence – confirming that the price and its essential components are of a market nature, are realistic, and ensure the due performance of the contract.”

    The BSJP BNT team included Partner Jaroslaw Sroka and Advocate Michal Rusin.

  • Key Amendment to the Code of Commercial Companies in Cross-Border Company Reorganisations

    The new provisions of the Code of Commercial Companies, which came into force on 15 September 2023, include a number of changes regarding cross-border and domestic mergers, divisions and conversions of commercial law companies. This is yet another major amendment to the Act, introduced less than a year after a significant amendment specifically concerning the formation and operation of capital groups, as well as changes to the rules of operation of company bodies, came into force.

    These regulations will enable Polish entrepreneurs to expand their operations abroad more efficiently. For foreign entrepreneurs, in turn, the amendment means the introduction of additional options for choosing how to enter the Polish market.

    While the introduction of the new solutions within cross-border reorganisations itself should be assessed positively, the new extensive procedure for obtaining opinions from the tax authorities may raise some concerns. Similar doubts relate to the imposition of an obligation on the registry courts to examine whether a given cross-border reorganisation involves abuse, infringement or circumvention of the law. These regulations may make carrying out of such a procedure lengthy endeavour and its outcome uncertain, which in turn may negatively affect interest in said procedure.

    1. FLAWED PRINCIPLE OF GENERIC SUCCESSION

    Thus far, Polish law limited the possibility of cross-border restructurings solely to international mergers. In addition, EU law, within the freedoms established under it, was to guarantee the possibility of transferring a company’s registered office to the territory of another Member State without the need to conduct a liquidation process.

    With respect to the realities of globalisation and an intensified economic turnover within the EU, the possibility of performing merger processes on a cross-border basis alone was insufficient. Specifically, in the context of intra-group restructuring processes, very often directed at the sale of certain assets or companies within a given group, Polish law so far has not provided for the possibility of the conversion and division of companies between jurisdictions and, consequently, has not created a legal framework for the free transfer of assets using the principle of general succession. This led to the need of transferring assets on an asset-by-asset basis or through transfers of businesses or their organised parts. Such processes were therefore complex and time-consuming as their successful completion in principle required a number of consents from counterparties and, in the case of regulated activities, from the competent public authorities as well.

    2. NEW PROVISIONS INCREASE THE LEVEL OF CONTROL OVER THE LEGALITY OF REORGANISATIONS

    At the same time, domestic law was not properly harmonised with EU law and did not outline an unambiguous procedure allowing the transfer of a company’s registered office outside Poland without prior liquidation. In practice, entrepreneurs attempting to carry out this type of operation were confronted with resistance from the courts, which refused to delete companies from the Polish register of entrepreneurs, on the grounds that the liquidation process had not been carried out. This constituted a significant limitation both for the termination of activities within the national territory, as well as for cross-border expansion by Polish entrepreneurs. Liquidation of a company is a complex and time-consuming process, and as a rule involves the realisation of the assets of the dissolved entity and termination of its business activity (which, incidentally, contradicts the idea of transferring the company abroad).

    The new regulations aim to address the above issues. They also introduce other changes, which we discuss in more detail below.

    Moreover, the new provisions increase the level of control over the legality of cross-border reorganisation processes. Firstly, the amendment introduces a broader scope of the registration court’s competence with regard to legality when issuing a certificate on the compliance of the reorganisation with national law. The registration court will be able, for example, to consult administrative authorities or an auditor as part of the proceedings. Secondly, irrespective of the foregoing, the new provisions introduce the obligation to obtain a positive opinion from the tax authorities regarding the restructuring procedures carried out. This shows that the legislator’s aim is to establish a system of preventive control over the process of cross-border reorganisations. This is intended to benefit creditors who could be disadvantaged by the uncontrolled transfer of entities’ property abroad. However, the initial reactions of market participants are not surprising, as they are concerned that the new procedure may prove too burdensome and uncertain for entrepreneurs and thus unpopular.

    In the previous wording of the Code of Commercial Companies, only transnational mergers were allowed to take place. Now, as in the case of domestic reorganisations, it is possible to conduct cross-border:

    • mergers,
    • divisions and
    • conversions.

    The creation of a legal framework for cross-border divisions and conversions of companies has long been propounded by practitioners. Positive experiences of entrepreneurs related to the possibility to perform cross-border mergers, which had been in place for years, made the market expect that other types of reorganisation proceedings of an international nature would also be possible. The amendment meets these expectations.

    With regard to cross-border reorganisations, the new rules introduce fundamentally corresponding regulations in all three phases of the processes, i.e. in the:

    • management’s phase,
    • owners’ phase and
    • registration phase.

    Consequently, in addition to the establishment of appropriate procedures for newly introduced cross-border divisions and conversions, the existing merger procedure has also undergone significant changes.

    From the perspective of Polish law, only Polish companies and limited joint-stock partnerships (but no other partnerships) may be subject to cross-border reorganisations. On the other hand, from the perspective of foreign law, only companies governed by the laws of Member States of the European Union or states which are party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (i.e. also Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) may participate in such processes. Interestingly, the list of permissible legal forms of foreign companies in Annex II to Directive 2017/1132 nonetheless does not explicitly indicate such legal forms in relation to Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein.

    Companies whose purpose is the collective investment of capital raised through public issue, operating on a risk diversification basis and whose participation units are repurchased or redeemed directly or indirectly from the assets of such companies at the request of their holders, may not participate in any of the above processes.

    As far as the cross-border division is concerned, it should furthermore be noted that it can only be conducted by transferring the property of the company being divided to the newly incorporated company or companies. In this respect, division by spin-off (podział przez wydzielenie) and division by separation (podział przez wyodrębnienie) are also permissible. The legislator does not therefore provide for the possibility of a cross-border division by transferring property to an existing company or companies.

    As regards cross-border conversion, on the other hand, it should be assumed that not only a classic change of the legal form of a Polish company (e.g. conversion of a Polish limited liability company (spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością) into an Austrian joint-stock company Aktiengesellschaft) is permissible, but also the conversion of a Polish company into an “equivalent” form governed by the law of another country (e.g. conversion of a Polish limited liability company (spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością) into a German limited liability company – Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH)).

    The regulation of cross-border conversions is supplemented by confirmation of the possibility of transferring the registered office of a limited liability company / joint-stock company abroad without the need to liquidate it. To date, the Code of Commercial Companies contained scarcely any regulations in this regard, and the transfer of the registered office of such a company was, as a rule, associated with the necessity of its dissolution and liquidation in Poland. These regulations were negatively assessed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in particular in the widely commented case C106/16 Polbud. The amendment thus resolves the above problem of inconsistency between Polish law and the free movement of capital, which is one of the pillars of the European legal order.

    3. PROCEDURE – STEP BY STEP

    As mentioned, cross-border reorganisation processes, much like domestic ones, involve three main phases – management’s, owners’ and registration (judicial).

    1. Management’s phase

    The management’s phase consists of the preparatory activities related to the implementation of a cross-border reorganisation, the most important stage of which is the drawing up of the relevant plan by the board(s) of the participants in the cross-border process.

    Cross-border process plan

    The plan for each cross-border reorganisation should include basic information on the companies involved (including legal form, company name and registered office), as well as elements typically associated with the reorganisation process regardless of its international nature (e.g. proposals for appropriate ratios for the exchange of shareholder rights, information on special benefits granted to members of company bodies, etc.).

    As a result of the amendment, in addition to the above information, the cross-border process plan also needs to include:

    a. the proposed timetable for cross-border division/conversion. The presentation of the timetable is expected to enhance the transparency of the process, namely for the company’s stakeholders – its creditors, employees and shareholders. Interestingly, it is not necessary to propose such a timetable in the case of a cross-border merger;

    b. the likely repercussions of the cross-border process on employment and the procedures by which it will be determined how employees will participate in the definition of their rights to participate in the bodies of entities operating after the cross-border process. This requirement is one way of protecting the company’s employees and also ensuring their participation in the cross-border operation;

    c. security of claims proposed to creditors and the conditions for the exercise of the rights of creditors, employees and shareholders, as well as the address of the website where information on these conditions can be obtained free of charge. This requirement is also intended as one way of protecting the creditors, employees and shareholders of a company involved in a cross-border process.

    Opportunity to comment on the cross-border process plan

    As part of the management’s phase, the management boards of companies participating in any cross-border process are required to give separate notice to shareholders, creditors and representatives of the company’s employees (or, in the absence of said representatives, to the company’s employees) of the opportunity to comment on the plan. However, the new rules do not specify the consequences of submitting such comments on the plan for a particular process. Practice will show how this tool can be used by company stakeholders.

    Management report

    Within the next stage of the management’s phase, the boards of the companies involved in the cross-border process are required to draw up a report for the shareholders and employees, which lays down the legal basis and the economic aspects of the cross-border operation, including the effects of such an operation on the employees and on the future activities of the company. Alternatively, it is possible to prepare two separate reports – for the shareholders and for the employees respectively.

    The preparation of a report is not required in respect of the shareholders’ portion in the case of single-member companies or where all shareholders of the company agree to waive the requirement for the report.

    In the context of the employee portion , on the other hand, this requirement does not arise if the company undergoing reorganisation and its subsidiaries do not employ any staff other than those who are part of the company’s management. This means that where such a company (and its subsidiaries) employs staff, it will always be necessary for the management board to prepare a report in the employee portion and the shareholder will not be able to exempt the body from preparing such a document.

    Examination of the cross-border process plan by an expert and issuance of the opinion

    As a general rule, the plan of cross-border operations is subject to examination by an expert. However, this obligation is excluded if all shareholders of the company agree to waive this requirement. In the case of single-member companies, it is not necessary to examine the plan and issue the opinion.

    Submission of documents/information on cross-border reorganisation to the registry court

    Another common feature of cross-border processes is the requirement to actively inform the registration court of the planned process. It is incumbent on companies participating in a cross-border operation to file documents/information regarding the process with the registry court. Two ways of making such a filing have been introduced.

    The first includes the obligation to provide the court with the relevant documents, i.e. the plan for the cross-border reorganisation process, and notification of shareholders, creditors and representatives of the company’s employees (or, in the absence of said representatives, the employees) of the opportunity to submit comments to the company regarding the cross-border reorganisation plan.

    The second involves submitting a range of information without the need to produce the above documents. Such information involves the data of the participants in the cross-border process, the indication of the relevant registers, the conditions for the exercise of the rights of creditors, employees and shareholders and the address of the website where the above-mentioned documents and the expert’s opinion (if any) are made available free of charge.

    Notification to shareholders

    In all cross-border operations, the management boards of the companies involved in the process are also required to traditionally notify the shareholders twice of their intention to carry out such a process, in the manner provided for convening shareholders’ meetings and within the relevant regulatory deadlines.

    2. Owners’ phase

    Adoption of a resolution on cross-border reorganisation

    The owners’ phase of a cross-border reorganisation process boils down to the adoption of the relevant resolution of the shareholders’ meeting.

    Resolutions to this effect require a majority of three-quarters of the votes representing at least half of the share capital, unless the articles of association prescribe stricter conditions for the required majority. In the case of a cross-border division and conversion, however, the majority may not exceed 90% of the votes. In terms of the resolution on a cross-border reorganisation, the effectiveness of such a reorganisation may be conditional on the approval by the shareholders’ meeting of the terms of participation of the employees’ representatives.

    At this point, it is worth noting that the legislator has introduced an upper limit to which the articles of association may more strictly enforce the requirement to obtain a majority of the shareholders’ consent to conduct a cross-border division and conversion.

    On the one hand, it was set at a fairly high level of 90% of votes. On the other hand, market practice shows that, in view of the importance of a company’s reorganisation (particularly cross-border) and the potential impact on its shareholders, very often the implementation of such a process required unanimity of shareholders. This was also the case for joint venture projects, where the minority shareholder was guaranteed the right to oppose the implementation of such a significant action without its consent.

    Share repurchase

    The relocation of activities outside Poland, which is connected with a cross-border reorganisation process, may constitute a significant impediment for shareholders in exercising their rights from the shares they hold. This is particularly the case for non-professional natural persons holding small blocks of shares in a given company. In view of the above, the legislator provides for a procedure to enable the shareholders who are against the cross-border reorganisation to exit the company.

    The new regulation stipulates that the right to request the repurchase of shares for a price corresponding to the fair value is vested in a shareholder who voted against the resolution on the cross-border reorganisation and who requested that his or her objection be recorded no later than at the shareholders’ meeting at which the resolution was adopted or who was unjustifiably prevented from participating in the shareholders’ meeting at which the resolution on the cross-border operation was adopted. As with squeeze-out procedures, the effectiveness of the repurchase depends on the payment of the repurchase price or the deposit of an amount equal to that price with a court.

    3. Registration phase

    Securing creditors’ claims

    Trading practice indicates that the transfer of part of a company’s assets outside Poland, resulting from a cross-border reorganisation process, may be a tempting opportunity for entities wishing to prevent or significantly hinder the enforcement of claims against them.

    In order to prevent the above practices, the creditors of a company participating in a cross-border reorganisation are entitled to demand security for their claims not due at the time the plan for the cross-border reorganisation process is disclosed, or made available if they substantiate that their satisfaction is jeopardised by such a process. The demand must be made within the time limit provided by the legislation. At the same time, the mere filing of an application by a creditor does not suspend the process of issuing a certificate by the registry court on the compliance of the cross-border reorganisation with Polish law, as regards the procedure subject to that law.

    Application for a compliance certificate of a cross-border process with Polish law

    Due to the fact that cross-border reorganisation procedures, in essence, require the application of laws applicable in different jurisdictions, it is necessary to have in place appropriate legal mechanisms to confirm that, as far as Polish law is concerned, a given procedure has been conducted in a compliant manner. One such instrument is the certificate of compliance of the cross-border process with Polish law, issued by the competent registration court.

    It is incumbent upon the management board of a Polish company participating in a cross-border reorganisation to submit an application for such a certificate to the registration court, together with an application to the competent tax authority for an opinion and the relevant attachments (inter alia, the plan of the cross-border reorganisation, a copy of the resolution on such a process, a statement of the management board concerning the place of effective management or business activity of the company after the reorganisation, or a certificate of the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) concerning the number of insured persons and not being in arrears in the payment of contributions).

    The registration court is obligated to immediately send the application to the Head of the National Fiscal Administration (KAS) for an opinion. The subject of the opinion in each case is:

    a. to assess whether there is a reasonable prospect that the cross-border reorganisation may (i) constitute a tax avoidance activity or an element of a tax avoidance activity or (ii) be the subject of a decision issued by means of measures restricting contractual benefits or (iii) constitute an abuse of rights within the meaning of the Act on Goods and Services; and

    b. to confirm that the company’s monetary liabilities to tax authorities or non-tax budget receivables of a public law nature, for the assessment or collection of which the National Fiscal Administration authorities are competent, are satisfied or secured.

    The opinion should be issued within a maximum of three months (in justified cases, this deadline may be extended by another three months), and in the course of issuing it, the Head of the National Fiscal Administration may also turn to other authorities (e.g. the minister competent for public finance or the General Inspector of Financial Information).

    The registration court should issue the certificate to the company within three months from the date of the filing the application. In some cases, this deadline may be extended by three months.

    The court then enters a reference to the cross-border reorganisation in question in the register, unless it finds that it serves to abuse, infringe or circumvent the law. In such a case, the registry court may request an opinion from the competent authorities in order to examine the indicated scope of the company’s activities or consult an expert. However, a presumption has been introduced that it will not be an abuse, infringement or circumvention of the law to transfer, in a cross-border reorganisation, the effective management or business activity to another Member State or a state that is party to the EEA.

    The previous legislation did not explicitly impose on the registration courts the duty to control reorganisation processes in terms of illegality. On the one hand, the processes in question may be used for purposes contrary to the law or aimed at circumventing it, and therefore, explicitly granting the courts the right to exercise control in this respect appears to be a positive development. On the other hand, it raises the concern that such a review will impede the smooth conduct of the trial and significantly prolong it. Only the practical application of the new provisions will determine to what extent the courts will interfere in reorganisation processes in order to confirm their legality.

    The importance of the certificate on the lawfulness of a cross-border reorganisation is manifested by the fact that such a certificate should be regarded as conclusive proof of the due completion of the procedures and formalities as regards the procedure governed by the law applicable to the company involved in the cross-border reorganisation.

    In view of the international nature of the reorganisations in question, the legislator has determined that until the date of receipt of the compliance certificate of the cross-border process with national law, the cross-border reorganisation will be governed by the law of the state of the registered office of the reorganised entity. Subsequent to that date, the jurisdiction of the applicable foreign law will already be competent.

    4 SOURCE OF THE AMENDMENT

    The amendment implements the so-called EU company law package comprising a number of directives of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU), i.e. Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions of companies and Directive (EU) 2019/1151 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards the use of digital tools and processes in company law.

    5 OPINION ON THE AMENDMENT

    The introduced possibility of cross-border divisions and conversions as part of a reorganisation meets the expectations of both practitioners and entrepreneurs and as such, it should be viewed positively.

    The regulations on cross-border conversions provide a legal framework for conducting the long-awaited smooth and formally regulated transfer of activities across borders, without the need for an arduous liquidation procedure.

    Cross-border divisions, namely division by spin-off and separation preceding the sale of shares in the resulting new companies, will provide an interesting alternative to cross-border asset deals involving the disposal of a company’s business or its organised part. It also appears that both cross-border divisions and conversions may be of interest to companies planning to exit Poland without going through the liquidation process.

    By Maciej A. Szewczyk, Partner, Pawel Szumowski, Senior Associate, and Marika Grzybowska, Associate, Wolf Theiss