Every procedure.
Under one roof.

For companies in difficulty, judicial restructuring is not an ending but a normal recovery course — a stage that many sound businesses pass through at some point in their life. The stigma attached to the notion of "insolvency" often masks a far more pragmatic reality: companies that approach restructuring early have a real chance of returning viable, profitable and competitive.

The key lies in timing. The earlier the diagnosis arrives — before liquidity has been wholly eroded, before suppliers cut off deliveries, before key personnel leave the company — the wider the range of solutions and the lower the cost of restructuring. Delay, by contrast, progressively narrows the options and turns what could have been an elegant reorganisation into a procedure imposed under creditor pressure.

Restructuring does not mean a single recipe. The instruments available are diverse and combine according to the specifics of each case — the structure of the debt, the nature of the assets, the position of senior creditors and the viability of the business model. Common instruments include debt haircuts (creditors waiving part of their claims), merger with a complementary entity, divestment to ring-fence viable units, debt-to-equity swap, disposal of non-core assets that do not contribute to the principal activity, or even a wholesale transfer of the business to a strategic investor.

Each of these instruments carries its own legal, tax and operational implications. Their selection and calibration require a deep understanding of the procedure, but also an accurate reading of commercial relations, creditor sensitivities and market opportunities. This is where specialised advice delivers real value.

Our specialists, together with the partners in the Tudor Advisory ecosystem — lawyers, valuers, accounting experts, investment funds — assist both the company and its creditors at every stage of the procedure. The objective is not merely compliance with the legal framework but a concrete result: maximisation of the recovery rate on claims and, where possible, preservation of the business as a viable entity in the long term.

The preventive composition procedure rests on a fundamental premise that sets it apart from insolvency: the debtor's difficulty is temporary, not structural. The company is passing through a period of financial pressure — often caused by an external shock, a poorly calibrated investment, the sudden loss of a major client, or a temporary cash-flow disruption — but its fundamental capacity to generate value remains intact.

This distinction looks subtle on paper, but it has profound consequences in practice. A company in temporary difficulty needs time and a protected framework to restructure its debt without losing its operations. A company that is insolvent needs a more radical procedure — either judicial reorganisation or liquidation. Confusing the two states can be catastrophic: opening a composition where, in fact, insolvency is required delays the solution and erodes the credit body. Conversely, opening insolvency where a composition would have sufficed needlessly destroys commercial credibility and the value of the business.

Accurate diagnosis is therefore the most important opening decision of the entire procedure. It calls for an in-depth analysis of cash flows over a 12- to 24-month horizon, a realistic assessment of the debt structure and its serviceability, identification of the real causes of difficulty, and a reasoned projection of recovery. Only a specialist with experience in both types of procedure can draw this distinction without ambiguity.

Aware of the importance of this assessment, the law expressly requires the composition administrator to prepare a report on the state of difficulty. That report is not a formality — it is the legal foundation of the entire procedure. In it, the administrator must demonstrate, concretely and pertinently, that the company is not in a state of insolvency but in a situation salvageable by out-of-court restructuring measures.

For us, drafting that report is not a bureaucratic formality but the starting point of a strategy. It is here that we build the arguments that will guide the entire negotiation with creditors and persuade the syndic judge to confirm the procedure. The quality of the initial diagnosis determines the quality of the final solution.

The restructuring agreement is, in essence, a negotiation mechanism between debtor and creditors by which the parties agree on a reset payment schedule. What sets it apart from a mere commercial renegotiation is the moment at which it acquires judicial force: once ratified by the syndic judge, the agreement ceases to be a contractual instrument between the parties and becomes a binding legal framework on all creditors, including those who did not consent to the terms.

That transformation — from negotiation to legal act — is the real power of the procedure. It gives the debtor what no private agreement can give: predictability, protection and effect erga omnes. Creditors may no longer act individually against the company, enforcement is suspended, and the agreed calendar becomes the single reporting framework for all parties involved.

The most pertinent practical application of the restructuring agreement arises in dealings with the tax authorities. By statute, the Romanian tax authority applies rigid criteria for granting rescheduling — maximum terms, mandatory guarantees, minimum repayment-capacity threshold, fiscal-history conditions. For many companies in real but recoverable difficulty, those criteria are impossible to meet in the short term, even where medium-term viability is clear.

For these situations, the restructuring agreement offers a pragmatic alternative. Unlike standard rescheduling, the agreement allows the construction of a payment calendar calibrated to the real capacity to generate cash — taking into account the seasonality of the business, collection cycles, the investment needed for operational relaunch and the natural time required for recovery. The calendar is no longer imposed by an administrative norm but negotiated on the basis of a rigorous financial analysis and formally agreed by all parties, including the tax authorities.

In this framework, both the debtor and the tax authority emerge from the zone of uncertainty: the debtor gains time and protection to restore its activity, while the State secures recovery of its claims through a predictable, monitored and judicially protected mechanism. The recovery rate on tax claims through a restructuring agreement is, in practice, materially higher than that obtained through an insolvency procedure opened too late.

Preparing a restructuring agreement nevertheless requires rigour: credible financial projections, an honest analysis of viability, a strategy for communicating with creditors, and a sound legal construction capable of withstanding the court's scrutiny. Our specialists assist the debtor throughout — from initial diagnosis to negotiation, ratification and implementation.

The decision to close a solvent company is, in our experience, one of the hardest decisions a shareholder takes. Not because the procedure is complicated — Companies Law no. 31/1990 sets it out clearly at articles 227 to 270 — but because closing a functioning business means, in the end, closing a chapter and being accountable for how it is done. Tax obligations, creditors, employees, contractual partners, the shareholders left behind — each with their own expectations.

Tudor Advisory assists shareholders and directors throughout the voluntary liquidation procedure of solvent companies, from the preparation of the General Meeting resolution through to the effective removal of the company from the Trade Register and the handover of the archive. It is not a template procedure. Every company has its own portfolio of receivables, its own set of disputes, its own tax exposure, its own shareholder relationships — and a successful liquidation is one that resolves them all, not only those that appear first on the balance sheet.