Case Reference: #2024-US-0129
Client profile: German precision instruments manufacturer. Annual revenue €65 million. US customer base across manufacturing, aerospace, and pharmaceutical sectors.
Portfolio: 8 receivables across 5 US states (New York, Texas, California, Illinois, Florida). Total exposure: $890,000. Age range: 90-210 days past due. Claim range: $45,000 to $220,000.
The challenge
The USA presents international creditors with a unique enforcement landscape. There is no single federal commercial enforcement procedure equivalent to Europe's payment order systems. Each state has its own court rules, filing requirements, and enforcement mechanisms. An international creditor pursuing debtors across multiple states must navigate multiple legal systems simultaneously — each with different procedural requirements, fee structures, and timelines.
The German manufacturer had attempted internal follow-up for months. The US debtors had been responsive initially — American business culture is generally direct about payment obligations — but four of the eight debtors had stopped communicating, and two had raised disputes that the manufacturer's export team didn't know how to evaluate.
The triage
New York (3 claims, $380,000): Two large claims against a Manhattan-based distributor ($220,000) and a Brooklyn manufacturer ($110,000), plus a smaller claim against a Long Island supplier ($50,000). New York's commercial court system is efficient for well-documented claims, and New York allows prejudgment attachment under CPLR Article 62 — one of the most powerful pre-judgment instruments available in the US.
Texas (2 claims, $195,000): Two claims against Houston-area industrial companies. Texas allows prejudgment writs of attachment and has a strong UCC lien system for secured claims.
California (1 claim, $165,000): One claim against a San Jose technology company. California's court system is slower than New York's, but post-judgment enforcement tools — particularly judgment debtor examinations under CCP § 708.110 — are exceptionally powerful.
Illinois (1 claim, $85,000): One claim against a Chicago manufacturing company. Illinois provides efficient wage and bank garnishment under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.
Florida (1 claim, $65,000): One claim against a Miami trading company. Florida offers bank account garnishment and the ability to pursue fraudulent transfer claims.
Execution
Amicable phase (weeks 1-3): All 8 debtors contacted simultaneously by US-based specialists. Results: 3 claims resolved amicably ($195,000). The debtors who paid in this phase were responsive to professional engagement — they had simply deprioritised the German manufacturer's invoices behind domestic creditors. Professional US-based contact restored priority.
Legal escalation (weeks 3-8): Filed in New York Supreme Court (Commercial Division) on the Manhattan distributor claim. Obtained prejudgment attachment on the distributor's bank accounts under CPLR § 6201, demonstrating that the debtor was likely to remove assets from the jurisdiction. Filed UCC liens against the two Texas debtors' equipment, effectively encumbering the equipment the German manufacturer had supplied. Recovery: $380,000 across 3 claims.
Enforcement (weeks 8-14): Obtained default judgment against the California debtor. Conducted judgment debtor examination under CCP § 708.110, compelling the debtor's CFO to disclose all corporate assets under oath. Identified previously undisclosed bank accounts and initiated garnishment. Recovery: $165,000. The Illinois claim settled during pre-trial mediation for $85,000 (full amount). The Florida claim resolved through bank account garnishment for $65,000.
Results
Total recovered: $890,000 — 100% of the portfolio. Recovery rate: 100%. Timeline: 94 days from mandate to final payment. Amicable resolution: $195,000 (22%). Legal resolution: $695,000 (78%).
The 100% recovery rate reflects the quality of the underlying claims: all 8 debtors were solvent, the documentation was strong, and the enforcement instruments available in each state were well-suited to the claim characteristics. Not every portfolio achieves 100% — but well-documented claims against solvent US debtors have high recovery probability when the enforcement instruments are deployed correctly.
The US intelligence note
International creditors pursuing US debtors should understand that the US enforcement system, while fragmented, is powerful. Prejudgment attachment (available in most states), UCC liens (for equipment and goods), bank garnishment, and judgment debtor examinations provide a comprehensive enforcement toolkit. The key is knowing which instruments are available in each state and deploying them efficiently.
If you're holding receivables against US entities, the state-by-state enforcement system is more accessible than most international creditors realise. Brief our US team with your claim details for a state-specific enforcement assessment.
