One of the many questions asked by our clients is: “Does Polish law recognise the concept of ‘piercing the corporate veil?’” Is it possible to disregard the separate legal personality of a company or corporation and make shareholders liable for the debts of the company? This question has been asked since the introduction of the market economy in Poland (in 1989) and there is still no clear answer.
Before Polish insolvency law was significantly amended in January 2016, restructurings were extremely rare, with corporate insolvencies ending in liquidation in more than 90% of all cases. At that point, the number of insolvencies ending in the liquidation of the debtor’s assets significantly exceeded successful restructurings – the focus had been mainly on satisfying the creditors – and allowing the debtor to continue his business was not a major priority for the legislator and the courts.
Poland’s Parliament has enacted a new law creating a Borrowers’ Support Fund to help homeowners with mortgages that are underwater. Official statistics by mortgage amount show that 24.3% of mortgages, totaling PLN 84.1 billion (approx. USD 22.7 billion) exceed the value of the borrowers’ homes, affecting 236,400 borrowers.
On 5 August 2015, the President of the Republic of Poland signed an amendment to the Act of 29 August 1997 on Covered Bonds and Mortgage Banks and related laws (the “Amendment”). These new changes will come into force on 1 January 2016.
On April 9, 2015, the lower house of the Polish parliament adopted a new Restructuring Law. The main goal of the new law is to introduce an effective mechanism to restructure a debtor’s business and prevent its liquidation. Generally, the continuation of a business is more favorable to creditors, it preserves jobs and allows the uninterrupted execution of contracts.
Poland’s Supreme Court in a recent ruling found a grant of security for parallel debt to be invalid.
When we last discussed the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s efforts to restructure some $72 billion in municipal debt, a Federal District Court Judge had found the Commonwealth’s 2014 municipal debt-restructuring law, the “Recovery Act,” to be pre-empted by the federal Bankruptcy Code, unconstitutional and therefore void.
On September 22, 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, and overruled its own prior guidance, to hold that a committee of unsecured creditors had the right to be heard in adversary proceedings related to the restructuring of Puerto Rico’s debt. The Court’s decision in Assured Guar. Corp. v. Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd.
On February 6th, Federal District Judge Francisco Besosa ruled that Puerto Rico’s municipal debt-restructuring law, the “Recovery Act”, was unconstitutional stating that: “The Recovery Act is pre-empted by the federal Bankruptcy Code and is therefore void.” The Court also permanently enjoined current and future government officials from enforcing the Act. Puerto Rico has announced that it will be appealing the ruling.
We recently published a blog identifying issues which cryptocurrency pose in insolvencies; not least identifying and classifying it, how to take control of it and realising value for the insolvency estate.
Given cryptocurrencies are global, the question of how to classify cryptocurrency on insolvency is not limited to just one jurisdiction.