Th e provision of Art. 1163 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for the inclusion in the commercial company deed (articles) of an arbitration clause relating to corporate disputes. Pursuant to that provision the arbitration clause must be executed in writing (Art. 1162 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure) since the Commercial Companies Code requires that in order to be valid a company deed (article) should be executed in writing (general partnership and professional partnership) or in the form of a notarial deed (other commercial companies). Similarly, an arbitration clause included in the deed (articles) of a commercial company shall be legally binding – just like the company deed (articles) – not only for the shareholders signing the deed, but also future shareholders, and even the company itself, which is not a party to that deed. Th is is signifi cant especially in limited companies, whose shares are negotiable. On the other hand, the limitation of the content of that clause to meeting the statutory requirement under Art. 1163 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure by indicating that the clause concerns corporate disputes does not resolve many issues that are material for effi cient conduct of arbitration and passing a verdict which “will hold” in post-arbitration proceedings. Major problems arise with respect to20 limited companies. They arise form the diff erences in the arbitration law principles (equal treatment of the parties, ensuring the right of defence to a party before the arbitration bench) and the limited companies law (the rule of majority over the minority adjusted by the need to consider the legitimate interest of the minority). Moreover, corporate disputes are by nature multilateral, which in turn makes it diffi cult to select a common arbitrator for a given party. Th en, the eff ectiveness of court verdicts passed in so-called “resolution cases”, i.e. repealing a resolution of a general meeting of a limited company or fi nding it invalid is extended under the Commercial Companies Code. Because of this the contents of arbitration clauses in such disputes should be much more elaborate than in the case of other disputes. Th ey should indicate the principles of selection of a common arbitrator or defi ne the rules of notifying the shareholders that a corporate dispute has been brought to an arbitration court. Another question is whether with a view to their importance those issues should not be regulated by the arbitration law as yielding rules (ius dispositivum), or the above regulations should be deemed only as good practice. Th e following article provides an evaluation of how the said issues have been regulated in the current Polish arbitration law, and also provides de lege ferenda comments in this respect.21