How to choose between BSA and other law firms for litigation and debt recovery in construction

If you operate in construction, contractual deadlocks are not the exception: payment delays, disputed works, penalties, terminations and disputes along the developer - general contractor - subcontractor chain. And in this sector, cash flow matters immediately - which is why choosing a law firm is a business decision, not just a legal one.

This guide gives you verifiable criteria to compare a firm such as Buju, Stanciu and Asociații (BSA) with other options on the market: genuine specialisation in construction, the ability to turn a theoretical right into effective recovery, competence in court and arbitration - plus the risk context that makes the selection more important in 2026 than ever.

Why speed matters: the sector is rated "very high risk"

Coface's analyses place construction among the sectors most exposed to insolvencies in Central and Eastern Europe, and for Romania the sector is rated as very high risk. In practical terms: time lost between the due date and legal action quickly translates into liquidity pressure - and into the risk that the debtor enters insolvency before you obtain an enforceable title.

Interactive: due diligence on the law firm - 8 checks before engagement

Apply this list to any firm you compare - including BSA. Tick what you can confirm with evidence (service pages, described mandates, the intake discussion):

The criteria that separate "we can also take on such cases" from genuine specialisation

• Works effectively with execution contracts: work statements, acceptance reports, variation orders, performance guarantees
• Can handle both debt recovery and the dispute over the cause of non-payment (defects, quantities, extra works)
• Has genuine competence in arbitration too, not only before the ordinary courts
• Understands the impact on cash flow and project continuity, not just the procedure
• Also offers contractual prevention (reviewing clauses before conflict arises), not only reaction
• Proposes a procedural strategy (notice → payment order → enforcement), not just standard notices
• Understands technical and site documentation: minutes, logs, correspondence, approvals
• Objectively recommends the right forum for you (court vs. arbitration), not just what the firm does more often

From theoretical right to money collected: the legal framework working for you

Legea nr. 72/2013 (Law no. 72/2013) · Directiva 2011/7/UE (Directive 2011/7/EU)

The rules on late payments - concrete leverage

The Romanian framework for payment delays (Legea nr. 72/2013 (Law no. 72/2013), in line with European rules) starts from the principle that payment is, as a rule, made within 30 days; longer terms must be justified and must not be unfair, and terms beyond 60 days may only be agreed under conditions that are not unfair. The EU framework on late payments gives the creditor the right to penalty interest and to a fixed minimum compensation of EUR 40 for recovery costs.

What this means in practice: the response to non-payment is not merely defensive - it is backed by clear rules on the cost of delay. A good firm turns these into legitimate legal pressure: correct calculation of accessories, a firm notice with precise grounds, and choosing the right moment for the accelerated procedure.

Effective recovery, however, depends on more than the legal basis. The right firm must know: when a firm notice works and when to go straight to court; when it is worth pursuing a payment order or other accelerated mechanisms; how to structure the evidentiary file so as to avoid the classic defence of "the works were not performed to specification"; and how the claim correlates with the debtor's insolvency risk.

Quick test: which strategy fits?

Four frequent types of mandate. Choose the approach you consider correct:

Case 1: Works certified through accepted work statements and signed minutes, invoices sent - but the beneficiary simply does not pay.

Payment order. A certain, liquid and due claim, provable by documents - exactly the profile for the accelerated procedure. The typical outcome: full or partial recovery within a few months, or a staged settlement. "It will sort itself out commercially" without legal pressure is, statistically, the strategy that hands the advantage to the debtor.

Case 2: The subcontractor claims amounts for additional works - but the extra works have no written variation orders, only discussions and a few emails.

Evidentiary reconstruction + negotiation, or ordinary proceedings. Without sufficient documentation, a payment order is vulnerable - the strategy pursues existing variation orders, site approvals and technical correspondence. The realistic outcome: a negotiated addendum or clarification of the value in court/arbitration, where expert evidence can be administered.

Case 3: The execution contract includes an arbitration clause (e.g. the Court of Arbitration attached to CCIR). The dispute is technical and the parties want confidentiality.

Arbitration, in accordance with the clause. The arbitration clause must be respected - ignoring it means lost time and extra costs. For technical disputes, arbitration brings confidentiality, a flexible framework and a more technical analysis. That is why the selection criterion is a firm that masters both forums and recommends objectively, not just what it practises more often.

Case 4: The debtor shows signs of financial difficulty: payments stopped to several suppliers, rumours of restructuring, enforcement proceedings started by other creditors.

Immediate action + insolvency monitoring. In a sector rated "very high risk", it's a race against the clock: the faster you react, the higher your chances of recovery before the debtor enters insolvency proceedings. If insolvency proceedings open, the deadlines for filing claims against the insolvency estate are short and strict - waiting is the most expensive option.

Mechanism study: how to correctly activate a pact comisoriu

Termination by pact comisoriu - the clause under which a contract may be terminated for non-performance, under the conditions set out contractually and legally - is one of the most delicate moments in a construction contract. Incorrect activation turns the "innocent" party into the party at fault:

The 5 steps of activation - order matters

Frequent typologies of mandates - and realistic outcomes

Without disclosing any confidential client data, such mandates frequently take four forms:

Certified but unpaid works

After centralising the situations of works, minutes of acceptance and invoices, the dispute moves towards a firm notice, a payment order or negotiation. Typical outcome: full or partial recovery within a few months, or a staged settlement.

Disputed additional works

When extra works are not sufficiently documented, the strategy focuses on variation orders, site approvals and technical correspondence. Possible outcome: a negotiated addendum or clarification of value in arbitration.

Disputed termination by pact comisoriu

The analysis turns to the exact wording of the clause, to notices and to remedy periods. Possible outcome: confirmation of the termination, suspension of its effects or a negotiated exit from the contract.

Payment blocked on grounds of non-conformities

The file relies on acceptance records, remedial works, site notes and expert reports. Typical outcome: release of part of the sum or separation of defect-related claims from the payment obligation already due.

"A good firm is not just one that wins in court. It is one that reduces the chances of deadlock and structures the file so that the client's position is strong from the notice stage onwards."

- The real evaluation criterion in a sector where time means liquidity

Comparison grid: what to check with any firm - and what BSA's positioning shows

Note of balance

The column about BSA reflects the firm's public positioning, verifiable on the cited service pages - not an independent assessment. Apply the same criteria, with the same evidence required, to any firm you compare: concrete mandates, documented deliverables and a reasoned forum recommendation for your case.

BSA's working model: litigation and prevention run in parallel

For a construction company, the two tracks are not mutually exclusive - you recover the blocked sums and while simultaneously reducing your exposure on upcoming contracts:

Week 1 - the active dispute file

Analysis of claims and the contract, preservation of evidence (minutes, logs, correspondence), calculation of ancillary amounts and dispatch of firm notices with precise grounds.

Week 2 - the prevention track

Review of contract templates and site annexes: payment milestones and acceptance triggers, interest and penalties, guarantees and retentions with clear release conditions, the change order procedure and dispute escalation.

Weeks 3 - 4 - execution on both fronts

The procedural steps of the file (payment order, statement of claim or arbitration request, depending on the clause and evidence) and the implementation of the new clauses on active projects - the same problem does not recur on other sites.

Frequently asked questions

Blocked contract, overdue invoice or dispute threatening to halt the project?

The next useful step is an early legal assessment, based on documents - before the issue escalates into more costly litigation. See BSA's services for entrepreneurs in the construction sector or, if the case involves an arbitration clause, the resources on commercial arbitration.

Contact us

Sources and references

Legea nr. 72/2013 (Law no. 72/2013) on measures to combat late payment in commercial transactions: legislatie.just.ro · Directive 2011/7/EU and the European Commission's page on late payments (Late Payment Directive): single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu · CMS Expert Guide - payment terms in Romania: cms.law · Coface - Romania insolvency study 2025 (+3.84%); Romania country risk dashboard; CEE insolvency analysis: coface.ro / coface.com · ING Think - the Romanian construction sector (INS data, 9 months 2025): think.ing.com · The International Commercial Arbitration Court attached to the CCIR: arbitration.ccir.ro · Buju, Stanciu & Asociații (BSA): Commercial legal services for entrepreneurs in the construction sector · Commercial arbitration

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The case typologies and outcomes mentioned are illustrative, not guarantees of results; solutions depend on the clauses and evidence of each case. Information regarding BSA's positioning is drawn from the firm's public pages.