A Dubai-registered trading company held significant receivables from three Polish counterparties. When the Polish debtors entered financial distress simultaneously, the UAE parent faced a stark choice: pursue parallel insolvency proceedings across two jurisdictions, or coordinate a single strategy that preserved value while meeting competing legal deadlines. The window for effective action was narrow – and missing it would have forfeited recovery entirely.
Cross-border insolvency involving Poland and the UAE requires simultaneous management of Polish restructuring law and UAE federal insolvency frameworks, with no bilateral treaty bridging the two systems. Polish proceedings are governed by the Prawo restrukturyzacyjne (Restructuring Law, PR) and the Prawo upadłościowe (Insolvency Law, PU), while UAE proceedings follow Federal Decree-Law No. 9 of 2016 on Bankruptcy. Recognition of foreign judgments in either direction depends entirely on domestic private international law rules, not on a shared convention. Creditors who act within the first 30 days of a debtor's insolvency filing preserve the broadest range of remedies.
This case study traces an anonymised matter handled by our restructuring team. It covers the background, the dual-jurisdiction strategy we built, the process we followed, and the lessons that transfer to any UAE-Poland insolvency scenario. Each section identifies at least one concrete action that creditors and boards can replicate.
What was the background to this cross-border matter?
The UAE client was a commodity trading company registered in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). It had supplied goods on deferred payment terms to three Polish limited liability companies, each registered in the National Court Register (KRS) and operating in the Silesia region. Total receivables exceeded EUR 4m. When commodity prices fell sharply in late 2024, all three Polish entities suspended payments within the same quarter.
The DIFC entity had no Polish branch and no assets in Poland. Its only Polish foothold was the receivables themselves – and the contractual choice-of-law clauses pointing to Polish law. That combination created a genuine jurisdictional puzzle. Filing in Poland as a foreign creditor required the client to appoint a Polish legal representative and to register its claim within the statutory deadline set by the insolvency court. Missing that deadline would have reduced the client's claim to a lower priority class.
Meanwhile, two of the three Polish debtors had already filed for postępowanie sanacyjne (sanation proceedings) before the District Court in Katowice. Sanation is the most intensive of Poland's four restructuring tracks and gives the court-appointed administrator broad powers to challenge pre-insolvency transactions. That raised an immediate board liability question: had any of the Polish directors delayed filing beyond the 30-day statutory window? If so, personal liability exposure could complicate settlement negotiations.
How did the dual-jurisdiction strategy address the gap between Polish and UAE law?
Our team built a two-track strategy within the first two weeks of instruction. On the Polish side, we filed creditor claims in the KRS-registered sanation proceedings and requested recognition of the DIFC entity's standing before the District Court. On the UAE side, we coordinated with a DIFC-qualified counsel to map the client's exposure under the Federal Bankruptcy Law and to assess whether a pre-pack arrangement – a pre-negotiated restructuring plan agreed before formal proceedings open – was viable for the third debtor, which had not yet filed.
The absence of a Poland-UAE bilateral recognition treaty meant that any Polish judgment would need to be enforced in the UAE through the DIFC Courts' common law recognition route, or through onshore UAE courts under domestic rules. We advised the client to obtain a Polish court order rather than rely on an arbitral award, because DIFC Courts have a clearer track record of recognising judgments from EU-origin civil law systems than from ad hoc arbitration in non-signatory states.
We also identified a pre-pack opportunity. The third Polish debtor held a distribution licence with genuine going-concern value. A pre-pack arrangement – agreed with the majority of creditors before the formal postępowanie układowe (arrangement proceedings) opened – allowed the licence to be transferred to a new vehicle without triggering automatic termination clauses. That preserved roughly PLN 1.8m in licence value that would otherwise have been lost in liquidation. For a detailed comparison of Polish restructuring tracks available to foreign creditors, see our restructuring practice page.
We secured a reversal of a disputed priority classification for the DIFC creditor, protecting receivables exceeding EUR 1.2m, for the Silesia matter in winter 2025.
What does the process reveal about managing parallel proceedings?
The procedural timeline exposed three friction points that appear in most Poland-UAE insolvency matters. First, Polish insolvency courts require filings in Polish, with certified translations of all foreign corporate documents. The DIFC entity's certificate of incorporation and board resolutions needed apostille certification and sworn translation – a process that takes 10 to 14 days under normal conditions. Starting that process on day one of instruction, not day ten, proved decisive.
Parallel proceedings also create white-collar defence exposure for directors on both sides. Under Polish corporate legislation, board members who fail to file for insolvency within 30 days of the company becoming insolvent face personal liability for unsatisfied creditor claims. Two of the three Polish debtors had directors who were borderline on timing. We prepared a formal legal opinion documenting the precise moment of insolvency – a step that insulated those directors from personal liability claims and removed a negotiating obstacle that the debtor's counsel had tried to exploit.
The third friction point was asset tracing. Polish insolvency law empowers the administrator to challenge transactions made within 12 months before the filing date if they were made at an undervalue. The DIFC client had received a partial payment of EUR 280,000 six months before the filing. We advised proactively disclosing the payment and demonstrating it was made at arm's length – avoiding a later challenge that would have clawed back funds already repatriated to Dubai. For cross-border IP and technology matters involving UAE entities in Poland, see our related insight on IP protection strategy for UAE tech companies in Poland.
Our team obtained recognition of the DIFC creditor's standing in the Katowice sanation proceedings, securing a first-priority claim position for receivables exceeding EUR 900,000 for a trading client in Silesia in autumn 2025.
What are the transferable lessons for UAE creditors and Polish boards?
Four lessons emerge from this matter. They apply whether the UAE entity is a creditor, a debtor, or a shareholder of a distressed Polish company.
- Act within 30 days. Polish insolvency law sets a hard 30-day deadline for board members to file. Creditors who register claims early secure better priority treatment.
- Apostille and translate on day one. Document legalisation takes up to 14 days. Delaying it delays every subsequent step.
- Map recognition routes before filing. Poland and the UAE share no bilateral treaty. Choose between DIFC Courts recognition and onshore UAE enforcement before committing to a litigation strategy.
- Consider a pre-pack for going-concern assets. Licences, contracts, and brand value can be preserved through a pre-negotiated arrangement – but only if creditors act before formal proceedings freeze the asset.
Board liability is a recurring theme in cross-border matters. A Polish director who misses the 30-day filing deadline does not merely face a regulatory sanction – the liability is personal, unlimited, and attaches to the director's private assets. UAE shareholders who control Polish boards through nominee arrangements should audit filing timelines immediately when a Polish subsidiary shows signs of distress. For a parallel analysis of how these dynamics play out in another dual-jurisdiction matter, see our case study on cross-border insolvency involving Poland and Lithuania.
The restructuring Poland framework also offers a sanation track that gives distressed companies up to 12 months to implement a restructuring plan while shielding assets from enforcement. UAE-based investors who hold equity in Polish companies should treat that window as an asset, not a liability – provided they engage counsel early enough to shape the plan before the administrator does.
Specific situations require tailored analysis. If your company faces a cross-border insolvency scenario involving Poland and the UAE – whether as creditor, debtor, or shareholder – the correct strategy depends on asset location, filing timing, and the recognition route available in each jurisdiction.
To discuss how insolvency law applies to your specific situation, including board liability exposure and pre-pack options, email info@kordeckipartners.com.
KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to restructuring, insolvency, and cross-border enforcement. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. KORDECKI & Partners assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@kordeckipartners.com.