July 2022
The Partner Exclusion in the Private Equity Company (PC)
Daphne Sfyri, LL.M
Critical Points:
The case concerned a dispute between a limited liability real estate holding company (principal) and a natural person - operating a sole proprietorship (opposing party). Between them, a private professional lease agreement had been drawn up, under which the client leased the latter's ground floor space - office space - for professional use. However, for at least two years, the opposing tenant did not pay the rent, with the result that the debt amounted to an extremely large amount. Until the settlement of the case below, he had not paid anything to the principal company and, in the absence of any apparent assets, the principal company was unable to collect the rent due under a payment order and satisfy its claim.
The correct legal handling of the case led to the immediate and rapid collection of the outstanding debt through the following actions: (a) the search and identification of the company (IKE), with which the opposing party was directly connected, as he founded it and was doing business through it, abusively using its legal form, in order to frustrate the satisfaction of our client's claim; (b) the thorough investigation and collection of decisive evidence, which proved the direct connection between the opposing party and the above private limited company, c) the filing of an application for injunctive relief against the said company behind which the opposing party was "hiding" and through which it was generating large sums of money, requesting the imposition of a conservative seizure on all its movable and immovable property; d) the reaching of a final settlement with the opposing party - tenant, who finally paid the entire amount due.
The correct legal handling of the case led to the immediate and rapid collection of the outstanding debt through the following actions: a) the search and identification of the company (PC), with which the opposing party was directly connected, as he founded it and was doing business through it, abusively using its legal form, in order to frustrate the satisfaction of our client's claim, b) the thorough investigation and collection of decisive evidence, which proved the direct connection between the opposing party and the above private limited company, c) the filing of an application for injunctive relief against the said company behind which the opposing party was "hiding" and through which it was generating large sums of money, requesting the imposition of a conservative seizure on all its movable and immovable property d) the reaching of a final settlement with the opposing party - tenant, who finally paid the entire amount due.
Strategy:
The key points for the successful outcome of the case in favour of our client lessor were:
Result:
All of the above actions planned from the outset led the original debtor - operating the sole proprietorship, in order to avoid the risk of conservative seizure and further execution against the private limited company, through which it was actually operating, to pay the total amount due. It should be noted, moreover, that from the outset the aim was the immediate collection of money and not the involvement in costly and time-consuming enforcement proceedings against movable and immovable property of both the original debtor-tenant and the subsequently identified and directly linked private capital company. Our client, having waived the said application for interim measures, collected the entire amount of the outstanding debt immediately and without lengthy court proceedings.
