This study addresses a topic that has not been addressed in Polish legal science so far, concerning the issue of redistribution of payments received by participants in a financial pyramid in the form of alleged profit (benefits), which, however, does not come from the investment activity of the organizer of the financial pyramid but from the contributions of new members. This problem is noticed and widely commented on in the world. The pursuit of such redistribution claims from “victims” of the financial pyramid by the bankruptcy trustee of the organizer of the bankrupt financial pyramid raises a number of controversies. For this reason, it seems justified to regulate this issue in Polish bankruptcy law. This article presents a draft amendment to the bankruptcy law in this respect, as well as the justification for the presented legal structure.

The study analyzes a problem arising in the practice of business transactions in connection with a franchise agreement. Sometimes there is a situation in which the franchisee is unable to continue the franchise business, especially after the termination of the legal relationship by the organizer of the franchise network. He then remains with the enterprise within the objective meaning (Article 551 of the Civil Code), which is of no use to him due to the lack of a franchise. In such cases, such an enterprise is sometimes purchased – directly or indirectly – by the network organizer at a lower value. The franchise chain organizer then takes over the former franchisee's market without incurring adequate costs of developing it. The network organizer benefits economically in this market. In the context of such events, certain monetary claims arise that can be raised under various legal regimes. These claims focus on various aspects of the facts described. Sometimes they can alternatively protect the interests of the former franchisee.

In this study, the following issues are the subject of research. First, the assumptions concerning the axiology of legal interpretation are presented. Second, a methodology for drawing up an inventory of receivables in restructuring proceedings was recommended in the context of a possible prescription. Third, the statute of limitations is presented in the plane of the content of the settlement. Fourth, the problem of interruption of the limitation period in the restructuring proceedings of civil law claims not previously confirmed by a court judgment within the meaning of Art. 125 of the Civil Code and confirmed by a court decision within the meaning of Art. 125 of the Civil Code. Fifth, the effects of including the receivables in the list of receivables in the restructuring proceedings in the scope of limitation, as well as the effects of submitting an application for an enforcement clause arising in the restructuring proceedings were considered. Sixth, attention was paid to the effects of the repeal of the arrangement for the restitution of claims and for the running of the limitation period. Finally, the problem of the statute of limitations on claims subject to the Tax Ordinance Act was raised.