{"id":5347,"date":"2020-09-13T20:59:26","date_gmt":"2020-09-13T20:59:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ck-legal.pl\/sn-wyznacza-standardy-informacyjne-ofert-obligacji\/"},"modified":"2022-01-12T15:16:23","modified_gmt":"2022-01-12T15:16:23","slug":"disclosure-standards-for-bond-offerings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ck-legal.pl\/en\/disclosure-standards-for-bond-offerings\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court sets disclosure standards for bond offerings"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Obviously, the issuer did not redeem the bonds, so the money had to be sought elsewhere. It fell to the Management Board[ii]<\/a>. After being dismissed by courts of two instances, the case went to the Supreme Court, which issued \u2013 in my opinion \u2013 a very sound and well-founded ruling. Moreover, this judgment is very important as it sets the standard for the application of the provisions governing the information and data to be provided in offerings of securities without a prospectus. In this sense, the ruling goes beyond the scope of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment was made based on the provisions of the previous Act on Bonds, but it is fully up-to-date and it may be directly applied to the current regulations. This will be even easier due to the provisions of the current Act that are directly quoted in the grounds for the judgment[iii]<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, and not only in this case, the courts have been interpreting the statutory requirements regarding the information to be provided when offering bonds in a very specific way. The problem was obviously not with offerings based on a prospectus or information memorandum. This is because the content of these offering documents and the scope of the information contained therein are defined in detail by the applicable regulations. The problem was and still is with offerings that do not require preparation of a document with its contents precisely defined by the provisions. It is clear and obvious that whenever lawyers do not have a detailed instruction manual, the poor souls get lost. If the provisions contain a list of the necessary elements, they can make a list and tick off the completed points one by one. Sometimes, however, there is no such list, and the scope of information to be provided is specified only in general terms, together with (the scariest part) a reference to the purpose. And then the uphill struggle of the helpless lawyers begins. This is how it was and still is with bond offerings without a prospectus. We have the following provisions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The purchase proposal shall include the terms and conditions of the issue and <\/em>information that makes it possible to assess the financial situation of the issuer<\/em><\/strong>. The issuer is obliged to provide, <\/em>in particular,<\/u><\/em> information concerning: \u2026<\/em> [an enumeration follows \u2013 W.C.]”<\/p>\n\n\n\n “The purchase proposal (\u2026) shall include <\/em>data which, according to the type of issuer and bond, make it possible to assess the financial situation of the issuer<\/em><\/strong>. The issuer is obliged to provide, <\/em>in particular,<\/u><\/em> information concerning: \u2026<\/em> [an enumeration follows \u2013 W.C.]”<\/p>\n\n\n\n The principle thus remains unchanged. The issuer is to provide the investor with information that makes it possible to assess the issuer’s financial situation. However, the issuing practice and the courts’ interpretation of the provisions were different, because they allowed for a narrow understanding of these disclosure obligations and for only providing the data indicated in the enumeration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the analysed judgment, the Supreme Court presented a convincing interpretation of the provisions, identifying the following issues:<\/p>\n\n\n\n When analysing the case, the court also identified interesting issues concerning the pursuit of claims related to the improper performance of disclosure obligations in securities offerings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n It has been a long time since I read such good grounds for a court ruling in a capital market-related case. I hope that this judgment will set a good standard for operating on the market for offerings without a prospectus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [i]<\/a> judgment of the Supreme Court of 23 June 2020, V CSK 506\/18<\/p>\n\n\n\n [ii]<\/a> Once again, we have confirmation of the legal grounds for claiming such damages directly from members of the Management Board under Art. 484 of the Code of Commercial Companies (liability for information related to issues of securities), both for intentional and unintentional acts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [iii]<\/a> Art. 10 of the Act on Bonds of 2015 compared to Art. 35 of the Act on Bonds<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n