In post-arbitral proceedings, parties challenging an unfavourable award or its enforcement often argue that they were deprived of the right to present their case or that the tribunal violated the rules of procedure or committed some other procedural error and often request the state courts to order the tribunal to present the arbitral case file. A recent Supreme Court decision evaluated the usefulness and necessity of granting such requests and clarified that such measures should be granted only rarely.
Parties unhappy with an arbitration award often try to question its enforcement based on public policy, raising numerous violations of law that do not amount to public policy. However, public policy is a tool that can also protect the legal system in certain situations. Two interesting Katowice Court of Appeals decisions made on the same day by the same judge in two non-related cases demonstrate how the courts deals with collusion cases.
It is a well-established rule that the setting aside of an arbitral award or the refusal of its recognition or enforcement due to a violation of public policy can occur only as a last resort to remedy a grave error in the award. It is also well established that the state courts in post-arbitral proceedings do not reconsider the facts established by an arbitral tribunal. A recent Supreme Court decision illustrates that although these rules are clear on paper, they are less clear when applied in practice.
The Supreme Court recently held that the autonomous position of arbitration courts as an alternative to state courts means that the judicial review of an arbitral award by an arbitral tribunal cannot be considered the equivalent of appellate review by a court. The control over arbitration exercised by common courts is primarily aimed at eliminating abuses of arbitration, including violations against the public order; however, provisions regarding the statutes of limitations of claims are excluded from this category.
The assignment of rights and obligations stemming from an agreement forms part of everyday business. This issue can become complicated if a transferred claim is covered by an arbitration agreement. A recent Supreme Court decision shows that in such a case, the assignee and the debtor must resolve their disputes through arbitration. This decision confirms the arbitration-friendly approach of the Polish courts, especially regarding the validity and scope of arbitration agreements.
The Commercial Company Code allows representation by a supervisory board or proxy appointed by a resolution of a shareholders' meeting in contracts or disputes between companies and their management boards. In this context, the Supreme Court recently examined whether a limited liability company should be represented by a general partner or its management board when amending a limited partnership agreement, despite the fact that the limited partner was a member of the company's management board.
Appealing against shareholders' resolutions is one of the most controversial areas of Polish company law. A recent Supreme Court resolution found that the shareholders' resolution of a limited liability company could not be annulled by the courts just because it was contrary to the company's articles of association. This resolution appears to put an end to many years of controversy.
The Code of Commercial Companies provides that the supervisory board of a limited liability company cannot give binding instructions regarding the management of the company's affairs to its managers. As there is no similar explicit provision prohibiting a shareholders' meeting from issuing such instructions, the question arises as to whether this was an intentional omission by the legislature and whether managers of limited liability companies must follow instructions given by shareholders.
Parties that negotiate a contract for sale when they are based in different countries are not always aware of the legal nature of their negotiations and the possible legal consequences. As such, it is advisable that parties choose the law applicable to the contract being negotiated and the negotiations themselves as soon as discussions begin. In the event of a dispute, this will enable them to avoid the potential risk of the courts finding that the contract in question has already been concluded.
The Constitutional Tribunal recently analysed regulations regarding dawn raids carried out by the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection and ruled that the respective law is not in line with the Constitution insofar as it excludes the possibility to challenge rulings allowing searches to be conducted. As a result, the Competition Act will be amended to provide searched undertakings with the possibility to appeal against Circuit Court consent to conduct searches.
One year has passed since the Act on Counteracting the Unfair Use of Contractual Advantage in the Trade of Agricultural and Food Products entered into force. The act aimed to protect small farmers and grocery suppliers against the abuse of power by large supermarkets and chain stores. The government recently adopted an amendment to the act which will allow the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection to intervene in cases involving smaller farmers.
Merger control is one of the Polish Office for Competition and Consumer Protection's main areas of activity, as it deals with 170 to 220 filings annually. Recent notable developments in this regard include proceedings initiated against Gazprom and its five partners involved in the financing and construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and the unconditional approval of Cyfrowy Polsat's takeover of Netia.
Almost eight months after the Act on Counteracting the Unfair Use of Contractual Advantage in Trade of Agricultural and Food Products came into effect, the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (OCCP) issued a decision regarding Cykoria SA's abusive practices. The case was closed with a commitment decision, which is unlikely to be appealed. Therefore, the courts will not provide their assessment of the OCCP's interpretation of some of the vaguer terms used in the act.
In a recent antitrust judgment, the Supreme Court provided an additional explanation of its approach to calculating fines in cases of collusion concerning resale prices (ie, resale price maintenance). Further, for the first time in its judicial practice, the Supreme Court provided general remarks concerning the privilege against self-incrimination that alleged infringers may claim.
Shareholder activism has grown in popularity in recent decades due to leading law firms specialising in the implementation of available shareholder activism strategies, and the role of hedge funds and related services constitutes a significant niche in the legal services market. Under Polish legislation, various forms of shareholder activism can be applied.
By assumption, the process of merging capital companies is advantageous from the point of view of the merging companies and their shareholders. However, sometimes a shareholder may receive fewer shares in the acquiring company than he or she should have. In such a context, the question that arises is whether the protection of shareholders' interests against an unfavourable share exchange rate is possible under Polish law and, if so, how it can be accomplished.
The Act of 27 October 2017 amending the Personal Income Tax (PIT) Act, the Corporate Income Tax Act and the Flat Income Tax on Certain Revenues Performed by Individuals Act amended the PIT Act to introduce categories of creative activity which entitle authors to settle 50% of their tax deductible expenses and doubled the annual limit of tax deductible expenses. Following doubts over the shortcoming of the amendments, the legislature decided to remedy their scope.