Jan Ciećwierz | In Principle

According to analysts, only 10% of startups are successful. Almost 90% of them fail—20% in their first year. On the record, such failures are often attributed to the founders’ failure to identify the customers’ needs, i.e. a real gap in the market, or blamed on competition and the uniqueness of the service or product. In less guarded moments, e.g. in online forums, much heavier accusations have been levelled against founders, such as the claim that most startups are designed to defraud investors or launder money.

It is worthwhile for creditors to take part in litigation even if the outcome could go against them. This way, they can help prevent the court from issuing rulings sought by colluding debtors and their allies.

Dishonest debtors are increasingly daring to use court proceedings to fictitiously dispose of funds to pay their debts. They believe that if they obtain a final judgment that orders them, for example, to pay an amount to a third party, the creditor will not be able to contest the payment. But is the creditor completely defenceless? With this article, we are kicking off a series on what to pay attention to and how to react when a debtor initiates court proceedings that may render the debtor insolvent.

A year has passed since a counterparty entered into an agreement with a third party preventing actual performance of a contract previously entered into with the counterparty. Thus the one-year time limit under Art. 59 of the Polish Civil Code has already expired. Is there still any chance to eliminate from legal circulation a fraudulent transaction that harms the creditor?

An investor and a contractor sign a construction contract. Before the contractor begins work, the investor disposes of valuable assets, from which the contractor could satisfy its claim for the fee, but the fee will not be due until completion of the work. In that situation, can the contractor take advantage of the broad protection of a fraudulent transfer claim against a third party?

With creditors in mind, we have launched a new special-interest service on our website, Creditor Protection, devoted entirely to what creditors can do when debtors unlawfully evade payment of their debts or performance of other obligations.

One problem that can affect a creditor is the debtor’s death. Then a creditor seeking to recover a claim must in some way determine as soon as possible the value of the estate left by the deceased debtor, whether the claim is included in the estate, and who, from the group of potential heirs, and to what extent, will be responsible for the debtor’s obligations.

After conclusion of a preliminary agreement for sale or long-term tenancy of real estate, the owner refuses to conclude the final agreement, instead selling the property to another buyer or delivering the property to another tenant. Or imagine a contract for future delivery of rare, hard-to-find components essential for manufacturing, where the seller then enters into another contract promising to supply a direct competitor, preventing the supply to the original buyer. In such situations, does the original buyer have a claim other than for monetary damages for breach of contract, or can it enforce performance of the original contract?

The deepening crisis of debtor honesty means that today, more than ever, creditors face the risk that debtors will not only fail to pay their debts voluntarily, but will hinder enforcement by transferring assets to third parties. In such situations, a fraudulent transfer claim against the third party (sometimes called a “Pauline action”), known and applied in legal systems of many countries around the world, comes to the creditor’s rescue.

Often, debtors’ shares in companies are subject to seizure in security or enforcement proceedings. But the debtor does not lose its status as a shareholder in the company after the shares are seized, and the creditor still remains a third party with respect to the company. Thus the debtor may continue to exercise the corporate rights attached to the seized shares, making it difficult for the creditor to satisfy its rights. So it is worth remembering the possibility of challenging corporate resolutions, and appointing a receiver for shares seized in enforcement or security proceedings.

Dishonest debtors display great ingenuity in evading their obligations. They may also turn to advisers who, for a hefty fee, provide “sophisticated” ideas to lead creditors astray. Often such ideas involve the creation of legal entities (sometimes a whole group or “chain”) to hide components of the debtor’s business from creditors. Such actions constitute abuse of legal personality for the purpose of harming creditors. Can dishonest debtors and their supporters (including advisers) who knowingly use such methods really rest easy?

How should a spouse consent to incurring a debt encumbering the marital community property so that the creditor can obtain security against marital property or execute against marital property? And what should a creditor do if there is no written consent?