skip to Main Content
Spector & Bennett Header Background Image

Asian Statutes Of Limitations – A Guide For Credit Professionals For Use In Commercial Debt Collection Matters

Country: Taiwan
Commercial Debt Collections Limitation Period: Generally 2 years for both oral and written debts, 1 year for freight claims and 3 years for monies owed under a promissory note.
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Debtor’s acknowledgment of debt generally resets Statute of Limitations
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: Generally 5 years

Country: Hong Kong
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: 6 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Generally does not reset
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: Generally 12 years

Country: People’s Republic of China
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: Generally 2 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Upon creditor making formal demand or debtor’s acknowledgment of debt
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: Generally 2 years

Country: India
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: Generally 3 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Upon partial payment or acknowledgment of debt
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: 12 years

Country: Pakistan
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: 3 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Upon acknowledgment of debt
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: 6 years

Country: Indonesia
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: Generally 30 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Generally upon acknowledgment of debt, although the law is somewhat unclear as to the mechanism and/or time frames regarding resetting
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: No specific time frame

Country: Malaysia
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: Generally 6 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Upon acknowledgment of debt
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: 12 years

Country: Singapore
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: 6 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Upon acknowledgment of debt
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: 12 years

Country: Philippines
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: Generally 10 years for written contracts and 6 years for oral contracts
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Upon creditor making formal written demand or debtor’s written acknowledgment of debt
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: Generally 5 years

Country: Japan
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: Generally 5 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Upon debtor’s acknowledgment of debt
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: 10 years

Country: South Korea
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: Generally 5 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Upon debtor’s acknowledgment of debt
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: Generally no limitation

Country: Thailand
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: 2 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Upon debtor’s written acknowledgment of debt or the making of a partial payment
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: Generally 10 years

Country: Vietnam
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: Generally 2 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Upon debtor’s acknowledgment of debt
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: Generally 5 years

Country: Russia (Russia will also appear in the upcoming European edition of this guide – Approximately 75% of Russia’s land mass is in Asia, while approximately 75% of Russia’s population is in Europe)
Commercial Debt Limitation Period: Generally 3 years
Resetting of Statutes of Limitations: Upon debtor’s written acknowledgment of debt
Time Limits on Judgment Enforcement: None, per se, while an enforcement order must be renewed every 3 years

*This content does not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. This content should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice regarding debt collection or other types of matters from an attorney licensed or authorized to practice in the relevant jurisdiction. You should always consult a suitably qualified lawyer regarding any specific legal problem or matter. The content herein is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not legal advice. Neither the transmission of the information contained herein nor the use of the information creates an attorney-client relationship between an individual or entity and the law firm Spector & Bennett, A Professional Corporation (50 California Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111; 1800 Century Park East, Suite 600, Los Angeles, CA 90067), or any attorney or employee affiliated therewith. The foregoing information is of a general survey nature, and may not be applicable to or accurate concerning any particular matter or situation.

Spector & Bennett Header Background Image

The Seldom To Never Discussed Relationship Between Contingency Fee Rates And Money In The Client’s Door: 75% Of $100,000 Is Better Than 85% Of $25,000

Several times per week we receive calls and emails from potential new clients asking about the contingency fee rates we charge in commercial debt collection matters. It is not uncommon for the inquirer to propose an objectively low rate combined with a phase-down, i.e. as the amount of the recovery rises the fee rate declines. Quite often the low rate/phase-down accounts sought to be placed are of poor quality, whether because of age, sustainable defenses or collectability issues.

Not surprisingly, the clients with which we maintain our best and long-standing relationships forward good quality claims and pay a reasonable contingent fee for the high degree of recovery we usually obtain. Of course, the caliber of the referrals to a lawyer has much to do with the due diligence undertaken prior to the credit granting. Clients want us to spend our time hunting down actual cash rather than chasing rainbows. By its nature a successful contingency fee arrangement requires mutual respect and understanding between attorney and client, with each consistently keeping in mind the full range of concerns of the other, and openly communicating about them.

Regardless of the size of the law firm involved and the related economies of scale, the handling of too many poor quality claims will spell a lack of profitability for the law firm and lower rates of recovery for the clients which actually place good quality accounts, given the reduced attention their matters will receive.

Human nature dictates that an attorney handling matters on a contingency fee basis will devote more of his or her time to recoverable accounts tendered by clients willing to pay reasonable and appropriate fee rates.

It is counterintuitive to an aggressive attorney to receive comparatively less compensation the more successful the outcome of a matter. The often proffered argument that it takes the same amount of time and other resources to recover $250,000 as it does to recover $25,000 is largely not sustainable. As a general rule, the greater the amount at issue the harder a debtor will fight, the more the debtor will employ maneuvers to deny ultimate recovery, and the higher the likelihood that there will be a Chapter 11 filing. Besides, as is the case with our firm, as part-and-parcel of a reasonable contingency fee arrangement the better commercial debt collection law firms continue the aggressive pursuit of a recovery in bankruptcy court at no extra cost, an endeavor usually requiring sizeable time expenditures.

Following the theory that better contingent compensation will incentivize superior performance, several of our clients pay us a higher fee rate for more recovery, as well as a lessor fee rate for less recovery. For example, we represent an international company with sizeable referrals that pays us 20% for a recovery constituting less than 25% of the principal amount at issue, 25% for a recovery constituting 25-74% of the principal amount, and 30% for a recovery constituting 75% or greater of the principal amount placed. We welcome this type of arrangement, which compensates the client if a recovery is on the low side and rewards the firm if the recovery is on the high end.

Back To Top