Romanian insolvency: filing claims, challenging the table of claims & reorganization strategy (creditor vs debtor, group cases)

This page is for companies and professionals facing insolvency risk or already in proceedings in Romania, whether you are a creditor protecting recovery or a debtor trying to regain procedural control. We start with the timeline and the documents, map the deadlines published in the Insolvency Proceedings Bulletin (BPI), and turn that into an action plan: opening steps, claim filing, objections, voting and (where viable) a reorganization path, including coordination across group entities.

Informațiile sunt generale și nu înlocuiesc consultanța juridică. Contează faptele, actele și cronologia.

When you need this

You have unpaid invoices and the debtor appears unable (or unwilling) to pay, with a real insolvency risk.
You need a creditor filing to open proceedings and want the file to be coherent and evidentiary.
You are the debtor and must decide between filing yourself vs defending a creditor petition.
You must file a claim to be included in the table of claims (masa credală) and want to avoid rejection or misclassification.
You received the preliminary/final table and need to object (amount, priority, maturity, security, conditions).
You need to track BPI publications and procedural deadlines without missing critical dates.
A reorganization plan is proposed (or must be proposed) and you need a voting and feasibility analysis.
There are parallel disputes (avoidance actions, liability, contract disputes) affecting recovery.
Multiple group entities are involved and steps must be aligned to avoid contradictions.

What we do in practice

We build the procedural map: parties, BPI deadlines, key hearings, practitioner communications and immediate risks.
We confirm the opening route (creditor vs debtor) and align it with enforcement and recovery realities.
We prepare the claim package: legal basis, amount, maturity, interest/penalties, priority and evidence exhibits.
We draft and file objections and targeted requests (table objections, measures, practitioner acts), with concrete grounds and proof.
We plan the creditor-side leverage: classification, committee/meetings, voting strategy and negotiation posture.
We stress-test the reorganization plan: treatment by class, feasibility, cash-flow logic and downside scenarios.
For debtors, we structure a procedural control plan: documentation discipline, communication and viable restructuring options.
In group cases, we coordinate parallel files (intercompany claims, guarantees, voting alignment and cash-flow links).

Documents/information useful for a first review

Document	Why it matters	Notes
Contracts, purchase orders, acceptance/hand-over records	Shows the legal basis and delivery/acceptance mechanics	Include annexes, SLA/acceptance clauses, notices
Invoices, statements, payment history, confirmations	Supports amount, maturity and payment track	Note offsets, discounts, partial payments
Notices, demand letters, emails	Fixes the timeline, default notices and disputed issues	Keep proof of sending/receipt where available
BPI publications and court orders	Defines deadlines for claim filing and objections	Provide links/PDFs of relevant publications
Security documents (mortgage/pledge/guarantees) and registrations	Impacts priority ranking and practical recovery	Land registry extracts, registrations, bank docs
Group structure and intercompany relations	Needed for coordinated strategy and intercompany claims	Org chart, shareholding, intercompany contracts
Financial info (if accessible)	Supports feasibility analysis for reorganization vs liquidation	Balance sheet, cash-flow, budgets

Risks and common mistakes

Missing BPI deadlines (claim filing, objections, voting, appeals).
Incomplete claim package: missing basis, missing exhibits, weak calculations for interest/penalties.
Overlooking classification and priority (secured vs unsecured, ranking, security proof).
Objecting “in general” without a concrete target (amount, priority, condition, maturity) and proof.
Running litigation steps disconnected from recovery strategy (enforcement vs insolvency logic).
Ignoring the impact on ongoing contracts and notice requirements.
In group cases, inconsistent positions across parallel files that undermine credibility and leverage.

FAQ

What is the practical difference between a creditor strategy and a debtor strategy in Romanian insolvency?

Creditors typically focus on proof, ranking, objections and voting leverage, while debtors focus on procedural control, cash protection and a viable restructuring plan. In both cases, deadlines and evidence quality decide outcomes.

How do I file a claim into the table of claims (masa credală)?

You file a written claim with supporting documents within the deadline set by the insolvency court and published in the BPI. The structure and exhibits matter because later objections often turn on classification and proof.

Can I challenge another creditor’s claim or priority ranking?

Yes, where the law allows objections to the table of claims. A workable objection is built on a specific ground (existence, amount, maturity, priority, security) and evidence, not suspicion.

Does insolvency stop enforcement actions in Romania?

Insolvency shifts recovery into the collective procedure logic (table of claims, distributions, plan), and enforcement effects depend on the procedural stage and the type of claim. We assess your case to choose the correct next step.

What should I look for in a reorganization plan as a creditor?

Focus on class treatment, feasibility, cash-flow assumptions, security treatment and downside risk if the plan fails. Voting strategy and objections should be aligned with the realistic recovery scenario.

How do group insolvencies change the strategy?

Group situations can involve parallel files with intercompany flows, guarantees and coordinated voting. The key is a consistent evidence and position map across entities to avoid self-inflicted conflicts.

Contact

Email: alexandru@maglas.ro | Tel: +40 756 248 777