en

Chambers Europe 2016

In the current edition of the 2016 Chambers Europe ranking, the “recommended lawyer” title was awarded to attorney Wacław Knopkiewicz, who was once again placed in the top three of recommended TMT lawyers (Clients appreciate his “knowledge and experience and, at the same time, business-like approach to the advice“).

GWW was also singled out as a “recommended firm” in four areas of law:

  • TMT  |  “The lawyers are distinguished by vast knowledge, experience, accuracy and reliability. A committed, experienced and honest team.”;
  • Litigation and arbitration disputes – continuously since 2010  |  “The firms litigation strategy has been well thought through and perfectly executed.“;
  • Energy and natural resources – continuously since 2012  |  (1) “GWW’s lawyers specialise in energy law, have long-running experience and are highly qualified. The lawyers have been irreplaceable partners throughout our co-opertion, especially because of their profound knowledge of the fuel industry.” (2) “I liked the teams proactiveness, its business-oriented approach and its responsiveness regarding the needs of the client.”;
  • Construction – continuously since 2011  |  “The team demonstrates good judgement concerning the risks we encounter, as well as adaptability, flexibility and communication skills.“.

Like last year, our tax practice was featured in the “Recognised Practitioner listing, which means that respondents regarded GWW as an important and active firm in the area of taxes.

The Chambers Europe listing is prepared by an independent firm analysing the legal services market worldwide – Chambers and Partners. Titles are granted on the basis of recommendations obtained directly from clients and other lawyers.

LEGAL 500 EMEA 2016 recommends GWW

We are particularly honoured about the annual recommendations for the Law Firm and individual GWW lawyers in areas of law connected with regulated sectors: TMT as well as energy law and natural resources. In this year’s Ranking:

  • 1st place and the title of leader went to our TMT Team;
  • the title of “recommended lawyer” was awarded to attorney Rafał Duczek (TMT) and attorney Wacław Knopkiewicz (Energy and Natural Resources Law) / who has held this title since 2012;
  • the title of “recommended firm” in the Energy and Natural Resources Law category, which we have held continuously since 2011.

Legal 500 EMEA also awarded recommendations to GWW in the following areas:

  • Taxes – 2nd place in the listing of recommended firms, consistently since 2012;
  • Real Estate and the Construction Industry;
  • Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions | in “Other recommended firms”.

The following GWW team members were listed as recommended individual lawyers:

TMT
•    Rafał Duczek
Energy and Natural Resources
•    Wacław Knopkiewicz
Tax
•    Artur Cmoch
•    Andrzej Ladziński
•    Andrzej Próchnicki
•    Leszek Białoń
Real Estate & Construction
•    Jacek Wilczewski
•    Stanisław Grynhoff

Complete ranking results are available on the website of Legalease.

The Legal 500 - The Clients Guide to Law Firms The Legal 500 - The Clients Guide to Law Firms The Legal 500 - The Clients Guide to Law Firms

Posted in Uncategorised

GWW succeeds in a dispute involving the division of assets of partners in a partnership

On 14 April 2016, the Supreme Court granted the last-resort appeal lodged by GWW on behalf of a group of producers. Consequently, proceedings in this case, after a year-long dispute, were successfully resolved by the Supreme Court, who ruled in favour of GWW’s Clients (case ref.: IV CSK 593/15).

The Clients now have the green light for the court of second instance to take into account the value of the blueberry bushes planted on the properties of the other party as a shared asset subject to division. Furthermore, in hearing the case again, in allocating the shared assets, the court of second instance will have to take into account and award to GWW’s Clients a share in the proceeds from blueberry sales, which were generated after the opposing party had dissolved the partnership.
 
The case concerned the division of shared assets of partners in a partnership, who, until 2006, operated a blueberry farm on properties owned by some of them. As a result of dissolving the partnership, it became necessary to divide the assets of the partnership. This gave rise to a dispute, which was then referred to the court.

Posted in Uncategorised