We work on both fronts. On the debtor company’s side, we handle judicial and extrajudicial reorganization proceedings, focused on restructuring liabilities and preserving business continuity. On the creditor and investor side, we work to secure recognition of amounts owed and pursue strategies to negotiate better payment terms within reorganization plans. This dual perspective lets us understand the motivations and constraints of each party, which strengthens our ability to build balanced, workable solutions for everyone involved.

The rationale behind this dual practice is expertise in complex negotiation. By understanding the strategies debtors use to delay payment, we’re more effective in defending creditors. By understanding creditors’ demands, we’re able to structure reorganization plans for debtor companies that are more likely to be approved at the creditors’ meeting, avoiding the shutdown of the business.

Our work goes beyond formal legal support. We actively participate in negotiations with creditors, working side by side with the company to build the reorganization plan. This involves mapping creditors, classifying claims, structuring payment proposals, holding negotiation meetings, and mediating disagreements. Legal work and negotiation work are handled together, since we understand that a successful reorganization depends both on the technical soundness of the plan and on the ability to build consensus with creditors. We’re involved at every stage of the process, from preparation through court approval and plan implementation.

Failing to negotiate in advance with major creditors (especially banks and key suppliers) can lead to the plan being rejected and immediate bankruptcy. The consequence of a passive negotiating stance is that the court or creditors impose conditions that can make the plan unworkable.

The logic applied here is economic viability. A reorganization plan isn’t just a legal document — it’s a new business model. Our involvement in negotiations aims to ensure the legal clauses reflect the company’s real cash-flow situation, building an environment of trust where creditors see they’ll recover more through reorganization than they would in a bankruptcy.

Yes, and that assessment is a fundamental step in the process. Before recommending any course of action, we conduct a full diagnosis of the company’s financial and economic situation, the profile of its liabilities, the makeup of its creditor base, and the specific risks of the route being considered. That assessment factors in, among other things, the viability of continuing the business, the likelihood of the plan being approved, any pre-existing litigation, and the impact on ongoing contracts. Only after this analysis do we recommend the most appropriate strategy — whether judicial reorganization, extrajudicial reorganization, or even an alternative restructuring solution.

The rationale behind this prior analysis is avoiding the “stigma of bankruptcy” for companies that may still be able to solve their problems through renegotiation. Our risk assessment protects the partners’ assets and ensures that, if the judicial route is chosen, the company enters the process with a real chance of success.