International creditors approaching the US market for the first time tend to make one of two assumptions: either the American legal system is so litigious that the mere threat of a lawsuit will produce payment, or the system is so complex and expensive that enforcement isn't worth the cost.
Both assumptions are wrong, but in instructive ways.
The US is not one jurisdiction. It's 50 state courts, 94 federal district courts, and a patchwork of limitation periods that range from three years (some states) to ten years (others). The enforcement tools available in Texas are different from those in New York, which are different from those in California. A strategy optimised for one state may be procedurally impossible in another.
The international creditors who recover money in the US are the ones who understand this fragmentation and use it strategically. The ones who don't recover are the ones who hire a New York lawyer and hope for the best.
The three things that determine US recovery outcomes
1. State selection. Where you file matters more than what you file. Some states offer powerful pre-judgment remedies (California's attachment statute, New York's order of attachment). Others have streamlined small claims or summary judgment procedures. Some have aggressive garnishment and levy mechanisms. The state where the debtor's assets are located — not necessarily the state where the debtor is incorporated — determines your enforcement options.
We had a case where a European creditor obtained a judgment in Delaware (the debtor's state of incorporation) only to discover that the debtor's assets — real property, bank accounts, and equipment — were all in Georgia. The Delaware judgment needed to be domesticated in Georgia before enforcement could begin. The process added three months and $15,000 in legal costs. Had we filed in Georgia initially, the judgment would have been immediately enforceable.
2. The Uniform Commercial Code framework. The UCC, adopted in some form by all 50 states, provides powerful tools for commercial creditors — particularly Article 9 on secured transactions. A creditor who holds a properly perfected security interest in the debtor's assets has priority over unsecured creditors and can pursue self-help remedies (repossession) without court involvement in many states.
For international creditors who supply goods on credit, filing a UCC-1 financing statement before or at the time of delivery creates a security interest that fundamentally changes the recovery dynamic. The filing costs under $100 in most states and takes minutes. The difference it makes in an enforcement scenario can be measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars.
3. The FDCPA boundary. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to third-party debt collectors pursuing consumer debts. It does not apply to commercial (B2B) debt collection. This distinction matters because many international creditors assume that the FDCPA's restrictions — limits on calling frequency, disclosure requirements, validation notices — apply to their commercial claims. They don't.
However, some states (notably California's RFDCPA and New York's consumer protection statutes) extend FDCPA-like protections to certain commercial contexts. Understanding the boundary between federal and state regulation is essential. Getting it wrong doesn't just delay recovery — it can create liability for the creditor.
What international creditors routinely get wrong
The most common mistake we see is timing. International creditors, accustomed to European limitation periods of five to ten years, assume they have similar runway in the US. They don't. Limitation periods for commercial contracts range from three years in some states to six years in others. The clock typically starts when payment was due, not when you decided to pursue collection.
The second most common mistake is underestimating the cost-effectiveness of US enforcement. A prejudgment attachment in New York or California can freeze the debtor's assets before trial. A properly executed garnishment can redirect the debtor's revenue to satisfy your claim. A judgment lien on California real estate creates pressure that a thousand demand letters cannot replicate. These tools are powerful, accessible, and — relative to the amounts at stake in most B2B disputes — cost-effective.
The third mistake is engaging a single lawyer when the debtor has assets in multiple states. US commercial recovery often requires coordinated enforcement across jurisdictions — domesticating judgments, filing liens, and executing garnishments in different states simultaneously. This isn't a job for one attorney. It's a job for a team with nationwide enforcement capability.
The enforcement playbook
For international creditors with receivables over $100,000 against US-based entities, our approach follows a consistent sequence: asset intelligence first (where are the debtor's assets, and in which states?), followed by jurisdictional analysis (which state offers the fastest and most powerful enforcement tools?), followed by filing in the optimal jurisdiction with simultaneous prejudgment remedies where available.
This sequence produces results because it eliminates the delays that benefit the debtor: the months spent negotiating while the debtor restructures, the wasted cost of filing in the wrong jurisdiction, the surprise of discovering that the debtor's assets have moved since you started proceedings.
The US legal system is not hostile to creditors. It's indifferent to creditors who don't understand its structure, and surprisingly accommodating to those who do.
If you're holding a commercial receivable against a US-based entity, the question isn't whether to pursue it. It's which state to pursue it in, and which tools to deploy. Brief our US team for a multi-state enforcement assessment.
