Gi Group Holding statement about Gi Group Poland (former Work Service)
Milan, 28 of November 2022
Regarding some disputes involving Mr. Tomasz Misiak and covered by different medias in which, directly or not, Gi Group Holding has been mentioned, Gi Group Holding states as follows:
- The facts mentioned in the interview given by Mr. Misiak on Puls Biznesu the 18th of November for which Mr. Misiak, with other managers of Work Service, has been accused of defrauding PFRON of PLN 42 million in subsidies, happened before the entering of Gi Group Holding as shareholder; as a consequence of that Gi Group Holding has nothing to do with these topics. Nevertheless, Gi Group Holding is ready to take all necessary steps to fully cooperate with Polish authorities and to take all the needed actions to preserve the reputation and honorability of its subsidiary Gi Group Poland (former Work Service).
- Regarding the part of the above mentioned interview in which Mr. Misiak claims that “…she (his former wife) played a significant role in my conflict with the company that took over Work Service, as I was threatened with her testimony in order to force a lower share sale price. And this happened, and Eva remains to this day in cooperation with my opponents.” Gi Group Holding totally rejects to be in any kind of cooperation with Eva Mantziou, former wife of Mr. Misiak and former employee of Work Service. Gi Group has instead 3 court proceedings with Eva Mantziou, for topics referred to the period in which she was an employee of Work Service before the entering of Gi Group Holding.
- Gi Group Holding denies that the purchasing of Work Service was made in connection with any threats made against Tomasz Misiak. This has been confirmed by the final judgment of the ICC Arbitration Court which found that T. Misiak had freely entered into the contract without any threats, and condemned Mr. Misiak to pay 5.9 m PLN to Gi Group Holding for not complying with his commitment to sell his shares. The same conclusion – namely that there is no evidence suggesting the alleged threat – was reached by all (three) panels of the Regional Court of Warsaw, which ruled in second-instance injunction proceedings on the claims of T. Misiak. These claims relating to the alleged threats have already been subject of rulings of five different bodies (3 panels of state courts, the prosecutor and an arbitration tribunal), none of which gave credence to them.
- Despite the final ICC Arbitral Award, Gi Group Holding has not received any payment by Mr. Misiak who declared that he does not own any assets nor properties. For this reason, Gi Group Holding has opened a civil proceeding against T. Misiak including proceedings to declare the enforceability of the award of the arbitration. At the same time the court has come to doubt for Mr. Misiak’s assertions of his financial situation and is conducting an investigation about that.
- Regarding the article published by Radio Zet on 25.11.2022, GI Group Holding notes that there are no legal grounds allowing to set aside the Arbitral Award issued by the ICC Tribunal. This Award was issued by three of the most respected arbitrators, in accordance with the ICC procedural rules, international standards and after an in-depth examination of the case by the ICC Tribunal. In particular, all the arbitrators were selected in a standard procedure in which both parties had the opportunity to challenge each arbitrator. Mr. Misiak began challenging one of the arbitrators only after the ruling unfavorable to him was issued. Regarding the same article published by Radio Zet, GI Group Holding has no knowledge of any criminal proceedings initiated by T. Misiak relating to the notification of GI International S.R.L. of a crime, which was allegedly not committed. In any case, Gi Group Holding notes that all the proceedings started by Gi Group have been based on true facts and legal merits.
- Determination of guilt and possible conviction of all the individuals involved is in the hands of the Polish courts. Gi Group Holding will use all possible ways, legal actions included, in the respect of the law as well as of the internal corporate regulations, to protect its business and reputation.