Author: adminTS

act BSWW provided legal services to Zeitgeist Asset Management (via SPV of its Specialized Investment Luxembourg based Fund – Real Added Value SCS) on all stages of acquisition of the office building located in Warsaw at Solec St. The building provides office leasable area on seven floors, with GLA of approx. 4.000 sq. m.

act BSWW lawyers were responsible for the preparation and execution of the whole transaction including: (i) due diligence examination of the property as well as (ii) advice on the contractual documentation regarding purchase of the property and (iii) assistance in closing of the transaction itself. The team working on this project consisted of: Marek Wojnar as well as Magdalena Piotrowska and Michał Sołtyszewski.

Zeitgeist Asset Management has vast experience on the Polish commercial real estate market – last year it purchased a real estate on Długa St. for over 50 million Polish zlotys for the purpose of developing a luxurious apartment building.

“We are happy to have been given the opportunity to participate in this transaction. We are proud that we can work with such a prestigious and demanding Client, making sure that its ambitious investment plans become a reality” – says Marek Wojnar, managing partner at act BSWW, who led this project. Peter Noack, the Co-founder and Managing Director of Zeitgeist Asset Management, adds: “We are very pleased that we, in cooperation with the act BSWW lawyers, managed to acquire an office building in an attractive location in the centre of Warsaw. In the future we would like to create high-quality, affordable student housing, thus expanding the existing offer, which has long been insufficient in the Polish capital.”

Kontakt dla mediów: Marta Bieniakońska | marta.bieniakonska@actlegal-bsww.com | +48 22 420 59 59

act BSWW (act legal Poland) was providing legal consulting services for YIT (Finnish developer listed on the stock exchange in Finland) in regard to the purchase of 100% shares in GF Ramba, a company belonging to UBM capital group (Austrian developer).

GF Ramba is the perpetual usufructuary of the land on which Parkur Tower business park is located at Kłobucka 25 in Warsaw.

YIT intends to develop 400 (four hundred) residential apartments with accompanying infrastructure on the site.

The range of services provided by act BSWW included all aspects of the transaction – from the letter of intent, through a due diligence analysis of GF Ramba, its assets, permits and the property, negotiation and closing of agreements with the bank financing the acquisition, to negotiation and closing of the share purchase agreement and other transaction-related documents.

With respect to services pertaining the Austrian law, act BSWW was cooperating with act WMWP (act legal Austria).

act legal is an alliance made up of law firms based in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Poland.

Michał Wielhorski (Managing Partner at act BSWW) acted as the team leader. He was supported by Małgorzata Wąsowska (Tax Advisor, Partner) and Mateusz Prokopiuk (Associate).

Dr Roman Hager (Partner) from act legal Austria advised as to all aspects of the Austrian law.

“We are more than happy to have been given a chance to cooperate with such a renowned partner. Parkur Residence is an absolutely unique investment project. The transaction was very complex and entailed advisory services covering the Polish and Austrian legal systems. We are proud to have been able to effectively support YIT in this project.” says Michał Wielhorski, Attorney-at-law, Managing Partner and team leader.

About act legal: It provides a comprehensive range of top-quality legal services, meeting the challenging expectations of companies, partnerships, sole traders and investors. With offices in continental Europe’s major markets, it combines the skills, knowledge and experience of approx. 300 professionals.

About YIT: One of Europe’s largest developers, operating in Poland since Q3 2015. The formation of the Polish branch is an element of the company’s long-term CEE growth strategy.

Media contact – act legal Polska: Marta Bieniakońska | marta.bieniakonska@actlegal-bsww.com | +48 22 420 59 59
Media contact – act legal Austria: Maraja Fistanic | maraja.fistanic@actlegal-act.com | +49 69 24 70 97 – 22

act BSWW advised Nielsen in the intragroup merger between its Polish subsidiaries i.e. ACNielsen Polska Sp. z o.o. with its seat in Warsaw and Brandbank (Poland) with its seat in Szczecin.

Marta Kosiedowska was the leading partner responsible for the project and was supported by associate Marlena Suchonos. The Warsaw team was responsible for preparation of the merger’s documentation and finalization of the process.

”Nielsen is our long term client to whom we are providing day-to-day assistance with respect to contractual and corporate matters for several years now. We really appreciate that we were engaged in the process of intragroup merger and hope to provide additional value to Nielsen in other key matters,” said Marta Kosiedowska.

In a much anticipated judgement of 25 January 2017, case file No. C‑367/15, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that the provision of the Polish act on copyright and related rights, whereby a right holder whose economic copyrights were infringed is entitled to request that the infringer pay double the sum which would have been due, if the right holder had given permission for the work to be used is consistent with European law.

The judgement referred to hereinabove is essential from the perspective of law enforcement by economic copyright holders.

By way of a reminder, the judgement was passed in connection with the dispute between Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich (SFP), an organization for collective management of copyright, and Stowarzyszenie “Oławska Telewizja Kablowa” (OTK), broadcasting television programmes by means of a cable network in the town of Oława. The action brought by SFP sought, i.a., to request the payment of lump sum damages equal to three times the appropriate remuneration (Article 79(1)(3)(b) of the Copyright Act).

The Supreme Court examining the appeal on a point of law became doubtful whether or not the above said provision of copyright law, whereby it is possible, at the request of a person whose economic rights of copyright have been infringed, for compensation to consist in payment of a sum of money corresponding to twice or three times the amount of the appropriate fee, is compatible with the European law, to be specific with Article 13 of Directive 2004/48 and, in consequence referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The Supreme Court had particular concerns whether the penalty imposed on the infringer provided for in the Polish law is not excessively severe – considering the compensatory nature of damages – and therefore whether it is admissible.

Before the contemplated judgement was passed, the Polish copyright regulations had been examined by the Constitutional Tribunal. As a result of a constitutional appeal, under a widely-discussed judgement of 23 June 2015, case file No. SK 32/14, Article(79)(1)(3)(b) of the Copyright Act was found to be partially unconstitutional in so far as that provision permitted a person whose economic rights of copyright were infringed to claim, in the event of a culpable infringement, payment of a sum corresponding to three times the amount of the appropriate fee. In the opinion of the Constitutional Tribunal, the law maker, in pursuit of the fullest possible protection of economic copyright holders, breached the rule whereby the least severe enforcement measure of those available should be selected. As a result, the provision in question provides for excessively severe penalty and is a too deep an interference into the horizontal relations between entities involved in a dispute for economic rights.

Seen as the Constitutional Tribunal examined only a part of Article 79(1)(3)(b), the provision in question remained in force in so far as it provides for a claim for the payment of lump sum damages, however, equal to two times the due remuneration. On these grounds, Polish courts started to pass judgements awarding to right holders the right to request the payment of such damages, regardless of culpability of the infringer (e.g. judgement of the Court of Appeals in Łódź dated 27 July 2015, case file No. I ACa 110/15).

The judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU was therefore supposed to decide, in the context of the EU law, on the admissibility of applying Polish provisions of law allowing a right holder to request flat rate damages equal to the multiple of (in this case double) a hypothetic due remuneration.

As stated at the outset, the EU court found that the European law is not in conflict with state provisions of law which provide a right holder with an alternative in terms of seeking compensation for damage suffered on general rules and requesting the payment of a sum equal to double the due remuneration which would have been due, had the right holder granted its consent for the use of work.

The CJEU noted that directive 2004/48/WE introduced certain standards of minimum protection of right holders and prohibits the introduction of measures provided for further protection. It follows from the very nature of lump sum damages that the value of damage suffered does not always have to correspond to the value of the awarded damages.

It is worth noting that according to the CJEU the provisions of the above said directives should not be interpreted as a prohibition of introducing a protective measure which would entail a form of a penalty; the Court of Justice had doubts whether Article 79(1)(3)(b) could actually be described as such (this allegation is often raised by the opponents of the construction accepted under the Polish provisions of law).

The CJEU reminded that the payment of a hypothetical license fee could not always compensate a right holder fully for the suffered damage because it may fail to include expenses related to infringement. Our experience shows that the conclusion is accurate. Potential abuses related to such requests should be remedied in individual cases by a court (e.g. a claim that the right holder abused the right).
In the discussed judgement, the Court of Justice took the side of economic copyright holders.

Does it mean the end of controversies around Article 79(1)(3)(b) of the Copyright Act? I do not think so. It should be noted that the Court of Justice of the European Union does not determine whether the provision of question in so far as it grants the right to request double the due remuneration is constitutional. It is safe to assume that sooner or later this question will be referred to the Constitutional Tribunal as well. There is no guarantee it will share the position of the European court.

For now, however, economic copyright infringers will not find peace.

The judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU of 25 January 2017, case file No. C‑367/15, is available at:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=187122&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=PL&cid=540464

BSWW assisted in providing financing to Fedha Sp. z o.o. intended to cover the costs of the offer to subscribe for 100% of shares of Vantage Development S.A.

Vantage Development S.A. is a dynamic developer based in Wrocław, currently running projects also in Warsaw and other cities – the company has been listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange since 2012.
Fedha Sp. z o.o. is indirectly dependent on Grzegorz Dzik – the main shareholder of Vantage Development S.A. The offer was published by Fedha with the approval of Grzegorz Dzik and its subsidiary Nutit a.s. as well as Józef Biegaj and its subsidiary Trade Bridge Czechy a.s. – the second largest shareholder in the share capital of Vantage Development.

As part of the process, the law firm provided comprehensive legal services to the entity extending the LBO financing, which included preparing debt-related documentation and security-related documentation.
The transaction involved financing of a few dozen million zloty.