Insolvency filing deadline – the 30-day rule

A Warsaw-based trading company posts three consecutive quarterly losses. The management board debates options, seeks new financing, and delays. Six months pass. By the time the board files for insolvency, the 30-day window has long since closed – and every director faces personal liability for the company's unpaid debts.

Polish insolvency law imposes a strict 30-day deadline on board members to file a petition for insolvency once the company becomes insolvent. Missing this deadline triggers personal liability of directors for the full amount of the company's unsatisfied obligations to creditors. The petition is filed with the district court (sąd rejonowy) competent for the company's registered office.

This guide explains how the 30-day rule works in practice. It covers when the clock starts, what the filing requires, how courts assess compliance, and what alternatives exist. Three business scenarios illustrate the most common failure points. A checklist and FAQ close the guide for quick reference.

When does the insolvency filing obligation arise?

Polish insolvency law defines two independent grounds for insolvency. The first is the inability to pay debts as they fall due – a liquidity test. The second is a balance-sheet test: liabilities exceed assets for more than 24 months. Either ground, standing alone, triggers the filing obligation. The 30-day clock starts on the date the ground first materialises, not the date the board acknowledges it.

The liquidity test is the one that catches boards off guard. A company is presumed insolvent once it fails to pay two or more monetary obligations. Courts interpret "failure to pay" broadly. Deferred invoices, rolled-over loans, and unpaid salaries all count. The presumption is rebuttable, but the burden of proof falls on the board members seeking to escape liability.

Three indicators that the clock may already be running:

Overdue trade payables exceeding 30 days
A blocked bank account or enforcement proceedings commenced
Inability to meet payroll from operating cash flow

The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) records corporate filings, but it plays no role in starting the clock. The trigger is economic reality, not administrative registration. Courts – including the Supreme Court of Poland (Sąd Najwyższy) – have consistently held that a board cannot delay filing simply because it is pursuing restructuring negotiations or awaiting a capital injection.

One practical complication: the date of insolvency is often contested in hindsight. Forensic accountants appointed by the court reconstruct the balance sheet month by month to pinpoint when the threshold was crossed. That reconstruction is then used to assess whether the board filed within 30 days. Getting the date wrong – even by a week – can mean the difference between full personal liability and a complete defence.

What does the filing procedure require?

The insolvency petition must be filed with the district court (sąd rejonowy) – specifically its commercial division (wydział gospodarczy) – competent for the company's registered seat. The court fee is PLN 1,000 for a standard petition. Filing through the National Debt Register portal (Krajowy Rejestr Zadłużonych, KRZ) is now mandatory for most corporate debtors. Paper filings are no longer accepted for entities required to use KRZ.

The petition itself must include a current list of creditors with amounts owed, a list of assets with estimated values, a financial statement no older than 30 days, and a statement from the board on the grounds for insolvency. Incomplete petitions are returned by the court with a call to supplement within 7 days. A returned petition does not stop the 30-day clock.

What to prepare before filing:

Balance sheet and profit-and-loss statement dated within 30 days of filing
Full creditor list with due dates and amounts
Asset inventory with market value estimates
Board resolution authorising the filing
Proof of payment of the PLN 1,000 court fee

The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF) is notified separately when the debtor is a regulated entity – a bank, insurer, or investment firm. For ordinary commercial companies, no regulatory notification is required before filing. The court appoints a temporary supervisor (tymczasowy nadzorca sądowy) within days of receiving a complete petition.

We obtained interim asset-protection measures for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region whose creditors had commenced enforcement while the insolvency petition was pending (autumn 2025). Acting within 48 hours of the filing, we secured a court order suspending all enforcement actions. Speed of execution at the filing stage determined the outcome.

How do courts assess board liability for late filing?

A creditor suing a board member for late filing must prove three things: the company was insolvent, the board member knew or should have known, and the filing was late or never made. Once those three elements are established, liability is presumed. The board member must then prove either that the filing was timely, that no damage resulted from the delay, or that a restructuring proceeding was opened within the 30-day window.

The "no damage" defence is narrow. Courts assess whether the creditor's position would have been any better had the petition been filed on time. In practice, if the estate shrank during the delay period – through payments to preferred creditors, asset transfers, or continued trading losses – the defence rarely succeeds. Personal liability can reach the full face value of unsatisfied claims, with no cap under Polish corporate legislation.

The white-collar dimension is equally serious. Late filing can constitute the criminal offence of acting to the detriment of creditors (działanie na szkodę wierzycieli). The Public Prosecutor's Office (Prokuratura) investigates such cases in parallel with civil proceedings. A board member facing both a civil damages claim and a criminal investigation has no good options once the deadline has passed. That consequence is irreversible.

A micro-case from our practice: we successfully defended a board member of a logistics company in Lower Silesia (spring 2025) by demonstrating that the insolvency date reconstructed by the court-appointed expert was incorrect by 38 days. The corrected date placed the filing squarely within the 30-day window. The civil claim was dismissed in full. Expert evidence on the insolvency date is often the decisive battleground.

What alternatives exist within the 30-day window?

Filing an insolvency petition is not the only way to stop the clock. Polish restructuring law offers four restructuring procedures. Opening any of them within the 30-day window satisfies the filing obligation and shields board members from personal liability. The fastest is the approval proceedings (postępowanie o zatwierdzenie układu), which can be opened by a restructuring adviser within days and does not require a court hearing to commence.

The pre-pack sale (przygotowana likwidacja, also called "pre-pack") is a hybrid tool. It combines an insolvency filing with a pre-arranged sale of the business to a prepared buyer at a price determined by a court-appointed expert. Pre-pack is attractive when the business has a viable core but the legal entity is insolvent. The court approves the sale at the first hearing, often within 2 to 4 weeks of filing. Assets transfer free of encumbrances, and employees may be transferred under agreed terms.

Decision matrix for the 30-day window:

Business viable, creditor cooperation likely → approval proceedings or arrangement with accelerated procedure
Business viable, creditor cooperation unlikely → sanation proceedings (postępowanie sanacyjne)
Business not viable, buyer identified → pre-pack insolvency
Business not viable, no buyer → standard liquidation insolvency

For foreign-owned companies, the choice of procedure has cross-border implications. The EU Insolvency Regulation determines which member state's courts have jurisdiction based on the debtor's centre of main interests (COMI). A German-owned Polish subsidiary whose COMI is in Poland will have its insolvency administered by Polish courts under Polish law. Cross-border coordination with the parent's advisers is essential – for context on Poland-Germany scenarios, see our analysis of cross-border insolvency involving Poland and the Czech Republic.

EU-funded projects add a further layer of complexity. A company in insolvency that holds KPO or RRF grants faces clawback obligations under programme rules. Restructuring – rather than liquidation – may preserve grant compliance. For the regulatory framework governing those obligations, see our guide on EU funds compliance: KPO and RRF requirements in Poland.

Three business scenarios: where the 30-day rule breaks down

Scenario one: manufacturing company. A Silesian metal fabricator loses its largest customer in January. Revenue drops by 60% overnight. The board cuts costs, defers supplier payments, and pursues a replacement contract for four months. By May, the company owes PLN 3.2 million to suppliers and cannot meet payroll. The insolvency date is reconstructed to February – three months before the board acts. All three directors face personal liability for the full PLN 3.2 million.

Scenario two: IT services company. A Warsaw-based software firm raises a bridge loan in March, giving management confidence that a Series A round will close by June. The round falls through in July. The board files for insolvency in August. The loan itself, drawn when the company was already balance-sheet insolvent, is later identified as a transaction to the detriment of creditors. The investor who provided the bridge loan faces clawback. The board faces both civil and criminal exposure.

Scenario three: foreign investor subsidiary. A Dutch holding company owns a Polish distribution subsidiary. The subsidiary's local management identifies insolvency in October but waits for group approval before filing. Group approval arrives in December – 62 days after the trigger date. Polish law does not recognise "group approval" as a defence. The local board members bear personal liability regardless of the parent's internal governance timeline. For companies with Ukrainian group structures, the cross-border dimension is analysed in our guide on cross-border insolvency involving Poland and Ukraine.

All three scenarios share one feature: the board had information suggesting insolvency but treated the 30-day clock as a last resort rather than a first response. That framing is the most common and most costly mistake in Polish insolvency practice.

For a tailored assessment of your company's position, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com. Our restructuring team can reconstruct the insolvency date, evaluate the available procedures, and prepare the filing or restructuring application within the statutory window.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does the 30-day deadline apply to every board member, or only the CEO?

A: The obligation applies to every member of the management board (zarząd), regardless of their individual area of responsibility. A board member responsible solely for sales or HR cannot avoid liability by arguing they had no financial oversight. Polish corporate legislation imposes the duty on each member individually. The only effective defence is to prove that the filing was made on time, that no damage resulted, or that a restructuring proceeding was opened within the window.

Q: How much does it cost to file an insolvency petition, and how long does the process take?

A: The court fee for filing an insolvency petition is PLN 1,000. Legal preparation of a complete petition – creditor lists, asset inventory, financial statements, board resolution – typically takes 3 to 7 working days if the company's records are in order. Courts in Warsaw and Kraków generally issue a first hearing date within 2 to 6 weeks of a complete filing. The full liquidation process runs 12 to 36 months depending on asset complexity and creditor disputes.

Q: Is it true that opening restructuring proceedings automatically protects board members from personal liability?

A: This is a common misconception. Restructuring proceedings protect board members only if they are opened within the 30-day window that begins when insolvency arises. Opening restructuring proceedings after the window has closed does not retroactively cure the missed deadline. Courts assess the date the proceedings were opened, not the date the board decided to pursue restructuring. Early action – ideally before the insolvency ground materialises – is the only reliable protection.

For a tailored strategy on insolvency filing and restructuring options, contact info@kordeckipartners.com. Our team will assess the insolvency date, identify the optimal procedure, and manage the filing from preparation through court hearing.

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 white-collar defence. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.