Recovery of a Commercial Claim from an Individual lacking Apparent Assets

Critical Points:

The case involved a dispute between a real estate development anonymous company (client) and an individual operating a sole proprietorship (opponent). Among them, a private professional lease agreement was formed, by which our client leased to the latter a ground floor space – office, for professional use. However, for at least two years, the opposing lessee failed to pay the rent, resulting in his debt amounting to an exceptionally large sum. Until the settlement of the case below, nothing had been paid to our client company, and due to the absence of apparent assets of his, our client company was unable to collect the due rents through the issued payment order and satisfy its claim.

The correct legal handling of the case led to the immediate and swift collection of the due claim through the following actions: a) searching and locating the company (IKE) with which the opponent was directly connected, as he founded it and operated business through it, abusing it (i.e., violating the principle of separation that applies to legal entities), aiming to frustrate the satisfaction of our client's claim, b) thorough investigation and collection of decisive evidence that proved the direct connection of the opponent with the above IKE, c) filing for precautionary measures against the said company behind which the opponent "hid" and through which he earned large amounts of money, requesting the imposition of a conservatory seizure on all its movable and immovable property, d) ultimately reaching a settlement with the opposing lessee, who then paid the total amount due.

Strategy:

The pivotal points for the successful outcome of the case in favor of our client, the leasing company, were:

• The immediate imposition of conservatory seizure on the banking institutions against the opponent – individual and the initiation against him of a compulsory execution process.

• The accurate and effective research and location of the company with which the opponent was connected and operated through, in order to "protect" his incomes and frustrate the satisfaction of claims against him individually.

• The immediate filing of precautionary measures against the above IKE, requesting the imposition of a conservatory seizure on all its movable and immovable property.

Result:

All the above preemptively planned actions led the initial debtor – operating the sole proprietorship, to avoid the risk of imposing a conservatory seizure and further, execution against the Private Company (IKE), through which he was actually operating, to proceed with the payment of the total amount due. It should be noted, moreover, that the initial goal was the immediate collection of money and not the involvement with costly and time-consuming compulsory execution processes against both the initial debtor - lessee and the later identified and directly connected IKE. Our client, by waiving the said application for precautionary measures, collected immediately and without time-consuming legal battles the total of the due claim.

Conclusion:

It is common, especially in the field of claim collection, even if the debtor manages to issue an executable title (payment order, as in this case, or a final court decision) in practice, to not be able to satisfy his claim from the property of a natural or legal person, because, among other reasons, no apparent assets are found. This often happens as debtors choose to operate through companies, which, in principle, are not responsible for their individual debts. However, our experience from this specific case teaches us that the correct procedural choices can create liability for legal entities (reverse lifting of the legal personality) where, apparently, it is impossible. The exercise of appropriate and always legally legitimate pressure leads to the compliance of even the most difficult debtors