CC BY
8
ЗАРУБЕЖНЫЕ НАУЧНЫЕ ШКОЛЫ
4.9. THE ARRANGEMENT PROPOSALS LIMITING THE DEBTOR ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ESTATE
Adamus Rafal, Doctor of Science, professor. Department of Economic, Commercial and Bankruptcy Law at the Faculty of Law and Administration
Work place: University of Opole, Poland
Keywords: compulsory management, reorganization law, arrangement.
1. Introductory issues
The arrangement is the essence of the four restructuring proceedings under the Polish Reorganization Law of 15th May 2015 (hereinafter "R.L."). These proceedings serve the adoption of the arrangement by the creditors and finally approval of the arrangement by the restructuring court after a prior examination of its legality. The restructuring law allows the adoption of a proposals that are not accepted by the debtor - entrepreneur.
According to art. 155 sec. 3 R.L. the arrangement proposals determine the method of restructuring the debtor's obligations. The purpose of the arrangement is therefore to set new and collective rules for satisfying creditors. Proposals for restructuring obligations in principle relate to already existing legal relationships and their purpose is to determine the manner of satisfying the claims covered by the arrangement (Article 150 R.L.)1.
From the semantic content of art. 155 sec.3 R.L. it can be prima facie to conclude that the arrangement proposals cannot introduce restrictions for the debtor in the scope of management of his assets after the approval of the arrangement by the restructuring court. Nevertheless, this conclusion is not accurate. The legislator explicitly allows the formulation of arrangement proposals consisting in limiting the right of the debtor to manage his property. Such arrangement proposals indirectly affect the restructuring of the debtor's obligations. In the literature on the subject, no attention has been devoted to this issue so far.
In restructuring proceedings - subject to the exceptions referred to in art. 156 sec. 3-4 R.L.- there is no closed catalog (numerus clausus) of proposals for restructuring liabilities2. The legislator indicated in the Act only exemplary types of restructuring of obligations. The arrangement proposals may indicate one or more restructuring methods. Thus, the legislator introduced, in the wake of the concept adopted in the Polish legislation in 2003, a general competence standard (as opposed to the special competence standard, which was applicable, for example, in the arrangement procedure of 1934, under which only such arrangement proposals could be made as indicated in normative Act).
1 R. Adamus, Prawo restrukturyzacyjne. Komentarz, Warszawa 2015, passim
2 B. Groele, [in]: Prawo restrukturyzacyjne. Komentarz, A. Hrycaj, P. Filipi-ak, Warszawa 2017, p. 576 - 577, A. J. Witosz, [in]: Prawo re-strukturyzacyjne. Komentarz, A. Torbus, A. Witosz, A. J. Witosz, Warszawa 2016, p. 442, A. Lubicz-Posochowska, M. Kuznik, Swoboda ksztattowania propozycji uktadowych w postçpowaniu upadtosciowym z mozliwosciq zawarcia uktadu, [in]: Ustawowe ograniczenia swobody umów. Zagadnienia wybrane, B. Gnela, Warszawa 2010, p. 194, S. Gurgul, Prawo upadtosciowe. Prawo restrukturyzacyjne. Komentarz, Warszawa 2016, p. 1119, P. Zimmerman, Prawo upadtosciowe. Prawo restrukturyzacyjne. Komentarz, Warszawa 2016, p. 1342.
The open catalog of arrangement proposals fully meets the needs of modern legal transactions. At present, one can talk about "named" arrangement proposals, that is, those listed in the Act and on "unnamed arrangement proposals."
Against the background of the previous legal status from 2003. a view that is still valid is expressed that the arrangement proposals, unless expressly stipulated otherwise, may include any legal measure that will allow the most satisfactory satisfaction of claims3.
The arrangement proposals may indicate one or more restructuring methods. Therefore, the entitled person can submit homogeneous or different arrangement proposals. Various arrangement proposals may be addressed to all creditors, and in the case of the division of creditors into groups (Article 161 R.L.), it is permissible to submit different arrangement proposals for individual groups. When submitting various arrangement proposals, the principle of equal treatment of creditors should be taken into account. It is permissible to apply various arrangement proposals to particular parts of the claim, e.g. amortization in x% and in the remaining y% conversion into shares. However, various arrangement proposals within a single system cannot interfere with each other and lead to conflicting conclusions4.
The arrangement proposals (due to the existence of two types of the layout of the so-called restructuring and liquidation systems) may be restructuring and liquidation proposals. The arrangement proposals may be independent or accessory, i.e. they may only occur in combination with other arrangement proposals. The arrangement proposals may be universal in the sense that they can be submitted in the restructuring proceedings of each entity (for example reducing the sum of debts). The arrangement proposals may also be specific, limited to a selected group of debtor (conversion of claims for shares or stocks may only take place in the case of a debtor being a company limited by shares or joint stock company).
It is necessary to defend the view that the arrangement proposals may concern, first of all, claims covered by the arrangement. If the arrangement proposals are subject to the general rules of voting over the arrangement, without asking third parties to agree to change the content of the legal relationship, then the restructuring of liabilities may concern only those obligations that are covered by the arrangement. Moreover, although in practice this will probably have a marginal significance, the arrangement proposals
3 A. Witosz, Restrukturyzacja spótek handlowych jako propozycje uktadowe w upadtosci z mozliwosciq zawarcia uktadu spótek handlowych, Prawo Spótek z 2003, No 11,p. 2.
4 K. Piasecki, Ustawa Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, War-szawa 2004, p. 253.
may refer to claims not covered by the arrangement. In such a case, the consent of the non-payment creditor for the debt restructuring would be necessary. However, such a creditor would not have the right to participate in the vote. Under the arrangement, with the consent of the creditor concerned, the content of the legal relations and rights may change regardless of whether they are subject to the arrangement and whether they relate to arrangement creditors.
The arrangement proposals cannot be subject to facts or their assessment. Therefore, it is not possible to submit arrangement proposals involving, for example, a reception that the debtor is not liable for improper performance of certain obligations due to the fact that the subject of the service is of adequate quality or that the construction works made by him have no defects, etc.
2. Restructuring limits as part of the arrangement proposals
The legislator, as mentioned above, accepts an open catalog of layout proposals as to the type (content) as well as sec. 2 of art. 154 R.L. it does not limit the number of these proposals5. The "release" of the arrangement proposals should be considered a positive phenomenon, even at the cost of hindering the system's judicial review. In the absence of a closed list of layout proposals, the question arises about legal boundaries for arrangement pro-posals6.
First of all, the boundaries for arrangement proposals are laid out in the regulations on restructuring proceedings. First of all, they will be art. 156 sec. 3 and art. 160 sec. 1 R.L., which for some types of creditors provide for a closed catalog of arrangement proposals. The boundaries for arrangement proposals in proceedings regarding the restructuring of obligations under an employment relationship are set out in a special provision of art. 163 sec. 1 R.L.7 Further,
5 t. Szuster, Sposoby restrukturyzacji zobowi^zan upadtego okreslane w propozycjach uktadowych, Prawo Spotek 2007, no 12, p. 19, A. Witosz, Re-strukturyzacja spotek handlowych jako propozycje uktadowe w upadtosci z mozliwosciq zawarcia uktadu spotek handlowych, Prawo Spotek z 2003, No 11, p. 2, A. Witosz, Wykonanie uktadu obejmuj^cego konwersjç wierzytelnosci na akcje, gdy wierzytelnosci okazaty siç nieistniej^ce, Przegl^d Prawa Handlowego 2007, no 6, p. 6, A. Witosz, Zatwierdzony uktad z kon-wersjq wierzytelnosci na udziaty lub akcje a podwyzszenie kapitatu zaktadowego, Przegl^d Prawa Handlowego 2005, No 3, p. 17, A. Witosz, Konwersja wierzytelnosci na udziaty lub akcje w upadtosci z mozliwosciq zawarcia uktadu a chwila podwyzszenia kapitatu zaktadowego upadtej spotki, Przegl^d Prawa Handlowego 2007, No 5, p. 27, R. Lewandowski, P. Wotowski, Transformacja spotek prawa handlowego jako propozycja uktadowa, Prawo Spotek, 2009, no 1, D. Czajka, Prawo naprawcze - analiza systemu, Gazeta S^dowa 2003, no 9 - 10, D. Czajka, Postçpowanie naprawcze, Warszawa 2004.
6 K. Piasecki, Prawo upadtosciowe. Prawo o postçpowaniu uktadowym. Komentarz, Bydgoszcz - Warszawa 1999, p. 372, F. Zedier, Prawo upadtosciowe i uktadowe, Torun 1997, p. 345, J. Korzonek, Prawo upadtosciowe i Prawo o postçpowaniu uktadowem, Wroctaw 1992, p. 807, M. Allerhand, Prawo upadtosciowe. Prawo uktadowe, Bielsko - Biata 1998, p. 620, S. Baudouin de Courtenay, Prawo o postçpowaniu uktadowem. Komentarz do nowych ogolno polskich przepisow o zapobieganiu upadtosci, Warszawa 1935, G. Lauter, Prawo upadtosciowe. Prawo o postçpowaniu uktadowem. Komentarz, Warszawa 1935, W. Gawlas, W. Jonsik, Prawo upadtosciowe i Prawo o postçpowaniu uktadowem, Poznan 1935, T. Ko-horewicz, Postçpowanie uktadowe jako instrument naprawczy (w^tpliwosci na tie stosowania), Prawo Spotek 2000, No 3, p. 43, S. Gurgul, Otwarcie postçpowania uktadowego, Monitor Prawniczy 2001, No 24, D. Czajka, Przedsiçbiorstwo w kryzysie. Upadtosc czy uktad. Warszawa 1999, D. Czajka, Uktad w postçpowaniu uktadowym i upadtosciowym, Gazeta S^dowa 2002, No 3, D. Czajka, Uktad w prawie uktadowym, Warszawa 2002, t. Szuster, Sposoby restrukturyzacji zobowi^zan upadtego okreslane w propozycjach uktadowych, Prawo Spotek 2007, no 12, p. 26.
7 A. Witosz, Uktad i jego zmiana ..., p. 142, A. Witosz, Spotka w upadtosci
uktadowej, Warszawa 2009, p. 79
it should be pointed out the general provisions on the nature and aims of restructuring proceedings. As a consequence, no arrangement proposals may be added to enhance the current status of the debtor's liabilities. It is not allowed to submit arrangement proposals for any purpose other than restructuring the debtor's obligations. The arrangement proposals should also not violate the obligation of equal treatment of creditors resulting from the standard (Article 162 R.L.). In setting the boundaries for the arrangement proposals, some help is provided by the provisions on the grounds for refusing approval of the agreement (Article 165 sec. 1 R.L.). On the basis of the previously binding legal status, the view was expressed that the obviousness of nonperformance of the arrangement cannot serve as a determinant of the content of the arrangement proposals. In addition, the content in art. 165 sec. 1 R.L. indicates that the legislator distinguishes between the law and the actual circumstance in the form of impossibility of implementing the arrangement.
Secondly, legal boundaries for arrangement proposals should be seen in the text of Article 353 [1] Civil Code. The content of the arrangement should have the same boundaries as the content of the contract. The content and purpose of the arrangement cannot be opposed to the legislation, or the rules of social coexistence (for exaample in the case of excessive debt reduction). Compliance of the content and purpose of the arrangement proposals with the nature of the arrangement in restructuring proceedings can be derived from general provisions on the procedure. In the literature on the subject, prof. P. Machnikowski pointed out that the provision of art. 353[1] Civil Code is a competence standard8. Consequently, any action carried out outside the scope of competence specified in the Act (Article 353 [1] Civil Code) is an action contrary to the Act, even if the exceeding of competences would consist in arranging a legal relationship in a manner contrary to the Act or the legal relationship.
The principle of freedom of contract refers to obligatory legal relations (inter partes not erga omnes). Therefore, thirdly, the limits of the arrangement proposals should be sought in the text of art. 58 Civil Code for, in the context of arrangement proposals, there may sometimes be relations of property law (see Article 151 R.L.). The arrangement proposals should therefore be in accordance with the law and principles of social coexistence.
One can defend the view that the use of arrangement proposals consisting in limiting the debtor on the management of his assets is subject to the principle of proportionality, because they do not directly aim at restructuring the debtor's obligations (Article 155 sec. 3 R.L.). The ratio of the debtor's liabilities to the value of the debtor's assets, the fact whether the arrangement is partial, the duration of the arrangement, the credibility of the debtor, etc. may be of significant importance.
The limit of the number of restructuring proposals is basically open. In practice, pragmatic considerations are a barrier to multiplying the number of proposals, because the more complex the system is in legal terms, the greater the legal risk involved.
3. The subject of arrangement proposals
The arrangement proposals, within the framework of a restructuring arrangement, may relate to the following issues. First, the method of restructuring the debtor's obligations (including the currency of fulfillment of obligations); it is an obligatory element of arrangement proposals. Secondly, to the method of satisfying re-
8 Machnikowski, Swoboda umów, Swoboda umów wedtug art. 3531 k.c. Konstrukcja prawna, Warszawa 2005, p. 364.
structured liabilities (eg repayment of debts from the profit of the debtor's enterprise); this is an optional element of arrangement proposals. This category also includes a proposal to establish a compulsory management board for the duration of the arrangement (Article 169 sec. 2 R.L.). Thirdly, the division of creditors into categories of interest; this is an optional element of arrangement proposals. Fourthly, pursuant to art. 171 sec. 1 R.L. arrangement proposals may exclude the possibility of establishing a circuit overseer. It should be remembered that according to art. 163 sec. 2 R.A. restructuring should equally apply to monetary and non-monetary liabilities. The arrangement proposals should therefore refer to the restructuring of pecuniary obligations and non-pecuniary obligations (unless all are converted into cash)
In the case of a liquidation arrangement, the arrangement proposals are, firstly, the manner of liquidation of the debtor's assets, secondly, the method of satisfying the arrangement debts, thirdly, as necessary, additional payments and repayments between crediting creditors.
4. Legal character of the arrangement
In the literature of the subject, many comments were made on the legal character of the arrangement included in the bankruptcy, composition and rehabilitation proceedings. Generally speaking, one can point to four leading concepts9.
In the first place, one should point out the concept that treats the arrangement as a special type of court order issued after meeting certain normative conditions10. For its effectiveness, the arrangement requires court approval.
Many supporters have the concept of arrangement as a kind of contract concluded between the debtor and the majority of creditors11. In some statements, arrangement proposals are treated as an offer. The arrangement is compared to the institution of renewal (novation).
Yet another concept combines the structure of the arrangement with the concept of activities performed in court proceedings.12 The arrangement is treated as a settlement made before the court by the debtor and his creditors. An arrangement according to the assumptions of this concept would be a special kind of act in court proceedings (a procedural act) similar to a court settlement, subject to judicial approval (or an activity similar to an administrative settlement).
Finally, one should point to the concept that treats the arrangement as a sui generis institution, combining both certain constructional features of the contract and the concept of a court ruling13.
9 S. Gurgul, Uktad w postepowaniu upadtosciowym, Monitor Prawniczy 2007, no 2, p. 74; M. Kuznik, Charakter prawny uktadu w postepowaniu uktadowym [in :] Umowy gospodarcze, red. J. Gospodarek, Warszawa 2010
10 J. Korzonek, Prawo upadtosciowe i Prawo o postepowaniu uktadowem. Komentarz, Wroctaw 1992, p. 613-614
11 A. Witosz, Spotka w upadtosci uktadowej, Warszawa 2008, p. 86, O. Buber, Polskie prawo upadtosciowe, Warszawa 1936, p. 146, W. Gawlas, W. Jonsik, Prawo upadtosciowe. Prawo o postepowaniu uktadowem, Poznan 1936, p. 184
12 E. Till, Zasady materialnego prawa konkursowego, Lwow 1907, p. 215 -216, J. Minkus, [in :] D. Zienkiewicz, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, Warszawa 2006, I. Dukiel, J. Patys, Postepowanie naprawcze w razie zagrozenia niewyptacalnosciq, Art. 492 - 521 PrUpadNapr. Komentarz, Warszawa 2004, p. 156.
13 Sz. Arnold, Prawo o postepowaniu uktadowem wraz z przepisami zwi^z-
kowemi, Krakow 1936, p. 5-6, K. Piasecki, Prawo upadtosciowe i prawo o
postepowaniu uktadowym. Komentarz, Bydgoszcz 1992, p. 143, P. Naza-
rewicz, uktad w postepowaniu upadtosciowym, Przegl^d Prawa Handlowego
1994, no 1, p. 1, P. Zimmerman, Prawo..., p. 1032, B. Jochemczyk, Zawarcie i zatwierdzenie uktadu w postepowaniu upadtosciowym, Warszawa 2011, p.
This concept seems to be the most accurate. The arrangement is a phenomenon of both material and procedural nature. Proponents of this view do not give an advantage or resolution to the collection of creditors made in connection with complex arrangement proposals or a court ruling, treating all these elements as equivalent conditions sine qua non of the design of the arrangement. The concept presented here has been repeatedly expressed in court jurisprudence.
5. Arrangement proposals limiting management of the debtor's assets
5.1. General thoughts
In the Bankruptcy and Reorganization Law of 2003 (hereinafter "B.R.A."), the legislator provided for the following types of arrangement proposals limiting management of the debtor's assets. First, the granting of an irrevocable power of attorney covering the conduct of all or part of the enterprise's affairs (Article 284 sec. 2 B.R.A.)14. Secondly, granting an irrevocable power of attorney to dispose of the property of the bankrupt in the event of nonperformance of the arrangement (Article 284 sec. 2 B.R.A.). Thirdly, entrusting the management of the enterprise to the persons indicated in the agreement (Article 284 sec. 2 B.R.A). The literature basically did not comment on these types of proposals. At the same time, they had marginal practical significance. On the other hand, prof. A. Witosz pointed out that the proposals may also include authorization to run a separated part of the bankrupt enterprise; the power of attorney may take the form of a proxy; the agreement may contain data regarding the competences of the proxy, although such a limitation would not have any effects on third parties15. Currently - in connection with the entry into force of the Restructuring Law - the provision of art. 284 sec. 2 B.R.A was repealed. However, in the face of an open catalog of layout proposals, the proposals listed in art. 284 sec. 2 B.R.A they may constitute - on the basis of the current legal status - an inspiration for persons equipped with the initiative to submit layout proposals.
Because the competence to submit arrangement proposals is vested not only to the debtor but also to other persons (Article 155 sec. 2 R.L.), and their vote is the right of the majority of creditors the instrument of limiting the debtor's power over its assets should take place with respect to the principle of proportionality. However, this does not mean total freedom in creating arrangement proposals limiting the debtor on the management of his assets.
Reorganization law directly points to the possibility of limiting the debtor's right to manage his property by way of an arrangement of law. According to art. 169 sec. 2 R.L. if the arrangement provides for the establishment of a compulsory management board for the duration of the arrangement, a copy of the valid order approving the arrangement is enforceable by the executory title to introduce the administrator to the possession of the debtor's assets. This provision applies to the restructuring type and liquidation type arrangements. Its use in a partial arrangement is not excluded. In
173 i n., F. Zedler, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze w zarysie, Warszawa 2004, p. 143.
14 S. Gurgul, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, Warszawa 2010, p. 871, F. Zedler, [in:] A. Jakubecki, F. Zedler, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, Warszawa 2010, p. 611, P. Zimmerman, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, Warszawa 2010, p. 679, D. Zienkiewicz, [in:] Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, D.Zienkiewicz, Warszawa 2010, p. 633, Z. Swieboda, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, Warszawa 2003, p. 350-351, R. Adamus, Prawo naprawcze przedsiebiorcy, Warszawa 2009, p. 462
15 A. Witosz, [in:] Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, A.Witosz, A. J. Witosz, Warszawa 2012, p. 612
turn, according to art. 329 sec. 1 R.L. on the day the restructuring procedure is completed, the debtor regains the right to manage the property unless the arrangement provides otherwise. Regulation of art. 169 sec. 2 R.L. requires closer comment.
5.2. Compulsory board as an arrangement proposal
5.2.1. The essence of the compulsory administration
The compulsory management for the duration of the arrangement referred to in art. 169 sec. 2 R.L, can be described as a "named" arrangement proposal. The long statement of the legal language "compulsory management for the duration of the arrangement" can be replaced by the formula of "arrangement manager" or "compulsory manager".
The regulation relating to the compulsory administration for the duration of the arrangement is very short. The literature claims that "due to the laxity of the regulations, it should be recognized that the system must independently determine all issues related to forced management."16 To the arrangement manager, in addition to art. 169 sec. 2 R.L. also applies. art. 118 sec. 2 R.L. (on the manager's consent to take up this function) and art. 173 sec. 1 R.L. (on the manager's competence to apply for a change of layout). In addition, the aforementioned art. 329 sec. 1 R.L. applies as well.
The compulsory management for the duration of the agreement is undoubtedly a separate institution from the coercive manager as an out-of-court body for restructuring proceedings (art. 51 R.L.). Consequently, the person (persons) performing the functions of the compulsory management board for the duration of the arrangement is not required to have a restructuring advisor license (see Article 24 sec. 1 R.L.) or to have compulsory third party liability insurance (see Article 25 sec. 2 R.L.). The legislator does not comment on the remuneration of the compulsory manager. However, the most important provisions on the restructuring advisor's competence in the restructuring proceedings do not apply to the compulsory manager.
The compulsory manager (governing body of the arrangement) can therefore be any legal entity: a natural person, a legal person, or a statutory person.
In principle, it should be assumed that the compulsory administration has the effect of excluding the debtor's competences from the management of his property for the duration of that board. The debtor does not therefore have parallel competences with the forced manager. The compulsory management excludes competences - both statutory and contractual (statutory) - of the management body (management board), control body (supervisory board, audit committee) and the owners of the debtor (shareholders' meeting). Therefore, there are no corporate relations between the compulsory manager and the supervisory board or the shareholders' meeting, such as between the management board and other statutory authorities.
In the literature, B. Groele treats this institution as a representative of the debtor established by creditors in an arrangement that "performs legal acts on behalf and for the benefit of the debtor." Thus, in the sphere of the debtor's relationship pro foro externo, the manager of the arrangement (compulsory manager) is the debtor's representative. According to this approach, this is direct replacement17.
The compulsory management does not consist in appointing the person holding that management board as the debtor's managing body. The compulsory administration is not subordinate to the
16 B. Groele, w: Prawo restrukturyzacyjne..., s. 620
17 B. Groele, [in:] Prawo restrukturyzacyjne., p. 620
organ theory based on art. 38 Civil Code18. However, it is possible to present other arrangement proposals - which are not a proposal of the compulsory management board - which assume the right of the creditors to elect the member (members) of the board or the supervisory board of the debtor. Such competence may result from a change in the articles of association or from the proxies of the debtor's creditors for voting or from the accompanying agreement regarding the manner of voting in the debtor's bodies, etc.
At the same time, B. Groele aptly assumes that there are no legal grounds to assume that the debtor's legal acts regarding his assets are invalid or ineffective. Representation of the debtor by the arrangement manager is not, however, subject to disclosure in the register. According to art. 324 sec. 1 R.L. restructuring proceedings are terminated, among others as of the date of the decision on the approval of the arrangement. At the end of the restructuring, the debtor no longer uses an obligatory supplement to the company "in restructuring". The rules of the board by the manager of the arrangement do not result from the law. The approval of the arrangement is announced in the registers (Article 169 sec. 1 R.L.). In other words, in the case of the establishment of a compulsory administration, a situation arises in which the representative who is not registered in the register has the right to represent in place of the disclosed representative. The forced management - in its current form - therefore poses a serious threat to legal transactions.
According to B. Groele, the arrangement manager has the title to file an application for the debtor's bankruptcy19. In the opinion of B. Groele, the compulsory manager carries out debtor's affairs and takes all management actions20. The forced board therefore also operates pro foro interno. Competence to make exclusive management decisions unambiguously distinguishes the manager from a proxy or attorney who acts only in the sphere of representation of the entrepreneur. The compulsory management board does not participate in corporate relations - it is not subject to control by the supervisory board or the debtor's audit committee, it is not subject to the resolutions of the constituting authorities. Further, B. Groele expresses the view that "the legitimacy of the compulsory manager also includes representation of the debtor in court or administrative proceedings, and the debtor is always a party to these proceedings." Such a position is not however guaranteed by any procedural norm. The compulsory manager remains under the control of the court supervisor of the implementation of the arrangement (Article 171 sec. 1 R.L.).
As a result of establishing in the a of arrangement compulsory manager, the debtor's property after final validation of the arrangement should be issued by the manager or debtor of the compulsory manager, and the copy of the order is the enforcement title authorizing the administrator to take possession of this property. Removing the formula of the compulsory management would require a formal change of the arrangement.
So far, no studies related to practical experience from the use of the forced board structure for the duration of the arrangement have been published.
5.2.2. Critique of statutory regulation
18 S. Grzybowski [in:] System prawa cywilnego, Ossolineum 1974, vol. 1, p. 373, M. Pazdan, Niektóre konsekwencje teorii organów osoby prawnej. Prace Prawnicze Uniwersytetu Sl^skiego, Katowice, 1969, vol. I, p. 205-206, A. Klein, Charakter prawny organów osób prawnych, [in:] Rozprawy z prawa cywilnego, Warszawa 1985, p. 122 - 123
19 B. Groele, [in:] Prawo restrukturyzacyjne., p. 620
20 B. Groele, [in:] Prawo restrukturyzacyjne., p. 620
In the first place, there is a doubt as to the compliance of art. 169 sec. 2 R.L. with art. 21 sec. 1 of the Polish Constitution. The Constitution guarantees consistent protection of property rights. The right of ownership involves several attributes: ius possidendi (attribute of possession), ius utendi (attribute of use), ius disponendi (attribute of disposition), ius fruendi (attribute of downloading benefits). The compulsory management for the duration of the arrangement from the perspective of the debtor involves limiting all of them. Does the Reorganization Law allow for the limitation of the property rights of the debtor for the duration of the arrangement introduces appropriate protective instruments? The answer is definitely not.
The court administrator, as the body of restructuring proceedings, operates under the state coercion determined by the act of law. The Act on the one hand introduces state coercion but on the other hand also introduces certain guarantees: as to the relevant substantive requirements of the person holding the board, precise determination of competences (which also clearly defines the boundaries in which the person holding the board can move), control over the person management, liability for damage, etc. Finally, the legislator introduces instruments for the protection of third parties - participants of legal transactions in connection with the activities of the administrator. It is similar, for example, in the case of enforcement by the compulsory administration in a civil execution proceedings (article 1064 [1] Civil Proceedings Code), the compulsory administration in the proceedings for declaration of bankruptcy (Article 40 Bankruptcy Law), the trustee (Article 173 Bankruptcy Law). The legal system also allows property management by a third party - in various legal forms - but with the consent of the rightholder (volenti non fit iniuria). In turn, the management board for the duration of the arrangement results from the will of the majority of the creditors and may also be established against the debtor's will (which is clearly indicated by the phrase "compulsory management" in the text of Article 169 sec. 2 R.L). The restructuring court only approves the agreement or refuses to approve it and does not interfere with its content. Reorganization Law does not specify the framework of such compulsory management, which would constitute statutory guarantees for the protection of the debtor's property rights. It is also not entirely clear to what extent the management refers to the duration of the arrangement: whether to property for running the business or to other property belonging to the debtor? The law does not specify the relationship between the compulsory manager or the debtor or third parties. The management board is not dependent on any conditions relating to the debtor for the duration of the arrangement: for example, lack of credibility, violation of the law by the debtor, etc.
If the court administrator as the authority of the restructuring proceedings is supervised by the judge-commissioner (Article 19 sec. 1 R.L), the creditors' council (Article 128 sec. 1 R.L), the Ministry of Justice the compulsory manager is not subject to any supervision for the duration of the arrangement, because the court supervisor of the implementation of the arrangement referred to in art. 171 sec. 1 R.L., is equipped - on the principle -with the competence of the supervision of the execution of the arrangement. De lege lata the debtor has no statutory guarantee of protection against a compulsory management acting to the detriment of the debtor.
It should be emphasized that the compulsory manager in the enforcement proceedings on the sale of real estate, movable property or debtor's rights must obtain the consent of the court subject to
the instance control (Article 1064 [11] Civil Proceedings Code). The same applies to the manager's disposal of the assets of the sanation mass in the course of the rehabilitation proceedings (Article 323 R.L). Meanwhile, the legislator in the scope of the compulsory management for the time of the implementation of the arrangement does not provide any reliable means of guaranteeing the protection of property for the debtor
To sum up this passage of reasoning, a substantiated objection as to the content of art. 169 sec. 2 R.L. is that this legal provision allows - against the will of the owner of the property - for compulsory management of this property, on unspecified norms, a "private" compulsory manager without the Constitution's required standards of protection of the debtor's property rights.
Next, the thesis that the construction stipulated in art. 169 sec. 2 R.L. is so general that there is a doubt whether it is possible to detail it in the content of the arrangement, in particular due to the relationship between the power of the arrangement and the need to regulate the relationship not only in the internal relationship (debtor- compulsory manager) but also in the external relationship (compulsory manager - third parties, debtor - third parties). In addition, the debtor representatives - in connection with the management of assets - have certain public-law obligations. Their transfer under the agreement - despite its public-law element, which is the approval of the arrangement by the court (Article 164 sec. 1 R.L.) - may raise justified doubts. Therefore, the Act did not regulate such issues, which in turn cannot be duly regulated in the arrangement: consequences of the debtor's actions towards assets for which the debtor lost the right to the board, effects of performance to the debtor who lost the right to manage.
The use of such a structure in practice may involve very serious risks to business transactions. Representation by the compulsory manager may arouse misunderstanding in practice, and thus may stigmatize the debtor in business due to the lack of good reputation.
In case of defining the compulsory management board for the duration of the arrangement in the arrangement proposals or in the event of defining it in a defective manner, the arrangement will violate the law, which should result in the refusal to approve it (Article 165 sec.1 R.L.).
5.3. Other arrangement proposals
If the legislator authorizes the compulsory management for the duration of the arrangement referred to in art. 169 sec. 2 R.L., while applying a maiori ad minus, less far-reaching restrictions for the debtor are permissible, eg the requirement to consult with creditors of investment plans, the debtor's temporary commitment not to commit specific assets until the arrangement or part thereof is completed, etc.
Final remarks
In the light of the provisions of the Reorganization Law regarding the so-called for the duration of the arrangement theoretically it is legally possible to introduce into the arrangement provisions completely excluding the management of the property by the debtor, even taking into account the long time of the arrangement and the possibility of further extension of the arrangement by the creditors in the mode of change of the arrangement. However, firstly, there are serious constitutional doubts as to the statutory regulation of the compulsory administration for the duration of the arrangement, in particular due to the lack of normative guarantees as to the proper protection of the normative right of the debtor. In addition - secondly, there are serious doubts as to whether it is permissible to regulate the rules governing the exercise of compulsory
management in relation to third parties. In the case of - thirdly - if the arrangement providing for the compulsory management did not specify its principles or did it unlawfully, it should not be approved by the restructuring court. As a consequence, the formulation of arrangement proposals consisting in the establishment of a compulsory management for the duration of the arrangement entails a high legal risk as to their effectiveness.
Список литературы:
1. R. Adamus, Prawo naprawcze przedsiebiorcy, Warszawa 2009
2. R. Adamus, Prawo restrukturyzacyjne. Komentarz, Warszawa 2015
3. M. Allerhand, Prawo upadtosciowe. Prawo uktadowe, Bielsko - Biata
1998
4. Sz. Arnold, Prawo o postepowaniu uktadowem wraz z przepisami zwi^zkowemi, Krakow 1936
5. S. Baudouin de Courtenay, Prawo o postepowaniu uktadowem. Komentarz do nowych ogolno polskich przepisow o zapobieganiu upadtosci, Warszawa 1935
6. O. Buber, Polskie prawo upadtosciowe, Warszawa 1936
7. D. Czajka, Przedsiebiorstwo w kryzysie. Upadtosc czy uktad. Warszawa
1999
8. D. Czajka, Uktad w postepowaniu uktadowym i upadtosciowym, Gazeta S^dowa 2002, No 3
9. D. Czajka, Uktad w prawie uktadowym, Warszawa 2002
10. D. Czajka, Prawo naprawcze - analiza systemu, Gazeta S^dowa 2003, no 9 - 10
11. D. Czajka, Postepowanie naprawcze, Warszawa 2004
12. I. Dukiel, J. Patys, Postepowanie naprawcze w razie zagrozenia niewyptacalnosci^, Art. 492 - 521 PrUpadNapr. Komentarz, Warszawa 2004
13. A. Gawlas, W. Jonsik, Prawo upadtosciowe i Prawo o postepowaniu uktadowem, Poznan 1935
14. B. Groele, [in]: Prawo restrukturyzacyjne. Komentarz, A. Hrycaj, P. Fil-ipiak, Warszawa 2017
15. S. Grzybowski [in:] System prawa cywilnego, Ossolineum 1974
16. S. Gurgul, Otwarcie postepowania uktadowego, Monitor Prawniczy 2001, No 24
17. S. Gurgul, Uktad w postepowaniu upadtosciowym, Monitor Prawniczy 2007, no 2
18. S. Gurgul, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, Warszawa 2010
19. S. Gurgul, Prawo upadtosciowe. Prawo restrukturyzacyjne. Komentarz, Warszawa 2016
20. B. Jochemczyk, Zawarcie i zatwierdzenie uktadu w postepowaniu upadtosciowym, Warszawa 2011
21. A. Klein, Charakter prawny organow osob prawnych, [in:] Rozprawy z prawa cywilnego, Warszawa 1985,
22. T. Kohorewicz, Postepowanie uktadowe jako instrument naprawczy (w^tpliwosci na tle stosowania), Prawo Spotek 2000, No 3
23. M. Kuznik, Charakter prawny uktadu w postepowaniu uktadowym [in:] Umowy gospodarcze, red. J. Gospodarek, Warszawa 2010
24. J. Korzonek, Prawo upadtosciowe i Prawo o postepowaniu uktadowem, Wroctaw 1992
25. G. Lauter, Prawo upadtosciowe. Prawo o postepowaniu uktadowem. Komentarz, Warszawa 1935
26. R. Lewandowski, P. Wotowski, Transformacja spotek prawa hand-lowego jako propozycja uktadowa, Prawo Spotek, 2009, no 1
27. A. Lubicz-Posochowska, M. Kuznik, Swoboda ksztattowania propozycji uktadowych w postepowaniu upadtosciowym z mozliwosci^ zawarcia uktadu, [in]: Ustawowe ograniczenia swobody umow. Zagadnienia wybrane, B. Gnela, Warszawa 2010
28. P. Machnikowski, Swoboda umow wedtug art. 3531 k.c. Konstrukcja prawna, Warszawa 2005
29. J. Minkus, [in :] D. Zienkiewicz, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, Warszawa 2006
30. P. Nazarewicz, uktad w postepowaniu upadtosciowym, Przegl^d Prawa Handlowego 1994, no 1
31. M. Pazdan, Niektore konsekwencje teorii organow osoby prawnej. Prace Prawnicze Uniwersytetu Sl^skiego, Katowice, 1969
32. t. Szuster, Sposoby restrukturyzacji zobowi^zan upadtego okreslane w propozycjach uktadowych, Prawo Spotek 2007, no 12
33. Z. Swieboda, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, Warszawa 2003
34. E. Till, Zasady materialnego prawa konkursowego, Lwow 1907
35. K. Piasecki, Ustawa Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, Warszawa 2004
36. A. Witosz, Restrukturyzacja spotek handlowych jako propozycje uktadowe w upadtosci z mozliwosci^ zawarcia uktadu spotek handlowych, Prawo Spotek z 2003, No 11
37. A. Witosz, Wykonanie uktadu obejmuj^cego konwersje wierzytelnosci na akcje, gdy wierzytelnosci okazaty sie nieistniej^ce, Przegl^d Prawa Handlowego 2007, no 6
38. A. Witosz, Zatwierdzony uktad z konwersje wierzytelnosci na udziaty lub akcje a podwyzszenie kapitatu zaktadowego, Przegl^d Prawa Hand-lowego 2005, No 3
39. A. Witosz, Konwersja wierzytelnosci na udziaty lub akcje w upadtosci z mozliwosci^ zawarcia uktadu a chwila podwyzszenia kapitatu zaktadowego upadtej spotki, Przegl^d Prawa Handlowego 2007, No 5
40. A. Witosz, Spotka w upadtosci uktadowej, Warszawa 2009
41. A. J. Witosz, [in]: Prawo restrukturyzacyjne. Komentarz, A. Torbus, A. Witosz, A. J. Witosz, Warszawa 2016
42. F. Zedler, Prawo upadtosciowe i uktadowe, Torun 1997
43. F. Zedler, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze w zarysie, Warszawa 2004
44. F. Zedler, [in:] A. Jakubecki, F. Zedler, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, Warszawa 2010
45. P. Zimmerman, Prawo upadtosciowe i naprawcze. Komentarz, War-szawa 2010
46. P. Zimmerman, Prawo upadtosciowe. Prawo restrukturyzacyjne. Komentarz, Warszawa 2016
