A company came to us that had spent years accumulating debts and loans - owed to banks, suppliers, contractors and former employees. Claims kept pouring in, lawsuits multiplied, and management put them out one by one, losing money and time. We ran more than 200 court hearings on a range of matters and lifted the business out of its debt burden - to the point where no outstanding loans or court-confirmed debts remained. Below is exactly how the strategy was built. The case is composite, with no names.
The situation: a business drowning in claims
The company was operational but overloaded with obligations. Its debt load was being serviced with new borrowing, some suppliers had already gone to court, banks were preparing enforcement, and separate disputes dragged on with former employees and counterparties. Every claim lived its own life, with no overall picture.
The main problem was not the amount of debt but the absence of a system. Lawyers were brought in piecemeal, for a specific lawsuit; lost episodes pulled new ones along behind them; and cash gaps were closed with loans that themselves became the subject of the next disputes. The business worked for its creditors, not for its owner.
Where people usually lose. When there are many lawsuits, they are handled "as they come" - reactively. Each proceeding is treated in isolation, with no unified line of defence and no calculation of how the outcome of one case affects the others. As a result the company pays twice: in money on the losses and in time on a chaotic defence.
Why "many lawsuits" is not chaos but strategy
The first thing we did was stop looking at the disputes separately. Two hundred-plus hearings are not two hundred problems but a single campaign, in which every episode has a role and a place in the queue. We pulled all the claims into one register and saw that many of them were connected: the same contract, the same counterparty, recurring grounds.
The register immediately revealed the priorities: which claims were indisputable and cheaper to settle, which were inflated and worth challenging, and which could be stretched out over time to ease the pressure on cash. This turned a pile of lawsuits into a manageable queue.
Strategy: sequence instead of dispersion
We did not try to win everything at once. Resources are finite, and defending on all fronts simultaneously is precisely the way to lose. So the proceedings were arranged into a sequence in which every next step built on the result of the previous one.
We brought all debts, lawsuits and loans into one register: amount, grounds, stage, deadline, prospects. We immediately cut off claims with lapsed limitation periods and duplicated demands.
Where claims were inflated or unfounded, we went on the challenge - objections, counter-calculations, counterclaims. The goal was not to stall but to reduce the final amount recoverable.
What had to be paid anyway was moved into instalments and settlement agreements. This removed interest, penalties and the threat of a lump-sum recovery, stretching the load to match the real cash flow.
As the queues were paid down, cash flow was freed up and went toward early repayment of loans. The debt burden fell with each block closed.
How we ran the proceedings across different fronts
The disputes were varied, and each type called for its own tactic. One thing united them: every episode was judged not on "win or not" but on "how this outcome moves the company toward a balance sheet free of debt".
| Type of dispute | Objective | Tactic |
|---|---|---|
| Banks and loans | Relieve pressure, restructure | Challenging penalties and fees, instalments, repayment schedule |
| Suppliers and contractors | Reduce the amount, settle | Counter-calculations, checking delivery and quality, set-offs |
| Former employees | Keep claims within the bounds of the law | Checking calculations and filing deadlines, drafting settlements |
| Inflated claims | Cut the amount recoverable | Objections, expert review, counterclaims, limitation periods |
The principle that held it all together. A hearing is not an end in itself or a win for the sake of statistics. Every proceeding was measured by one thing: how much it cut the overall debt burden and freed up cash flow. Cases where the dispute was not worth the cost were settled without ambition.
The result: a business with no debts and no loans
In total, more than 200 court hearings on various grounds passed through our work. Some we won, some we closed with settlements and schedules, and on others we secured a reduction of the amount or the dismissal of proceedings. The debt burden disappeared not in a single leap but in blocks - as the queues were closed out.
At the finish the company had neither court-confirmed debts nor serviced loans left. The business stopped working for its creditors and started working for itself: the cash flow that used to go on interest, penalties and fees stayed inside. Most importantly, predictability appeared: it was clear who was owed, how much and when, with no surprises from the courts.
Two hundred hearings are not about a love of litigation. They are about discipline: one register, clear priorities and a cool-headed calculation on every episode. Then a flood of lawsuits turns into a managed campaign with a clear finish line.- The G-Invest approach to debt burden
What to take from this case. A lot of debt and lawsuits is not a verdict but a question of management. When claims are gathered into one register, arranged into a queue and each is measured by its impact on the overall balance sheet, a business can be steadily freed of both debts and loans - even if there are hundreds of proceedings.
Frequently asked questions
Why take it all the way to hundreds of hearings - isn't it simpler to settle right away?
You do need to negotiate, but from a position of strength, not weakness. Some claims are inflated or unfounded - if you agree to everything at once, the company overpays. Active defence on contested episodes lowers the final amounts, and only after that do settlements become favourable.
What does "sequence instead of dispersion" mean?
It means refusing to try to win everything at the same time. Claims are gathered into a register and closed in queues: first the indisputable and urgent, then the contested ones where there is a prospect of reducing the amount. Each closed block frees up cash flow for the next step.
Can you really get to zero on debts and loans, rather than just postponing them?
Yes, if you manage cash flow alongside the defence. Reducing amounts on disputes and moving the indisputable onto a schedule frees up money that goes toward early repayment. The burden disappears in blocks rather than lingering as an endless instalment plan.
How is this different from an ordinary lawyer handling a single lawsuit?
A lawyer on a single lawsuit runs one case. Here the task is broader - to manage the whole portfolio of disputes and debts as a single campaign, calculating how the outcome of one episode affects the others and the company's overall balance sheet.
We will lift your business out of its debt burden
G-Invest will gather all your debts, loans and lawsuits into a single strategy, build a queue of proceedings and drive them toward one goal - a clean balance sheet with no debts and no loans, not a flattering record of wins.