Outstanding receivables write off or keep pursuing: a decision matrix

The decision should weigh legal strength, evidence, amount, age, credit risk, asset indicators, cost, limitation, security and strategic importance. An accounting write-off may coexist with continued legal pursuit; conversely, a strong claim may have little economic value where no attachable assets are likely to exist. Settlement offers need a documented minimum and approval. The matrix supports a reasoned case decision rather than replacing it blindly and should be updated when new information emerges. For the specific issue “a decision matrix”, this requirement should be recorded in the review note with its date and supporting evidence.

For the focus “a decision matrix”, a short review note should record the facts, the rule applied and the legal or data date on which the statement is based. The contract, invoice, evidence of performance and communications should be brought together in one case file. In “a decision matrix”, this control determines whether the standard workflow applies or an individual review is required.

Destatis reported 2,276 filed corporate insolvencies for April 2026, 7.1% more than in April 2025. From January through April 2026, 8,551 proceedings were recorded, an increase of 6.7%. The statistics are captured only after the first court decision, while the actual filing often occurred roughly three months earlier. The figures are therefore a warning signal for credit and receivables processes, not a prediction that a particular customer will default. For “a decision matrix”, the workflow should continue only after ownership, deadline and the exception route are clearly set in the system.

For recurring cases, use a checklist of mandatory fields and a four-eyes review. A green status should be assigned only when the required evidence is available; otherwise the case should be routed deliberately for clarification. For “a decision matrix”, quality control should reconcile the balance and underlying entries once more against the original evidence.

A simple score may weight age, amount, credit risk, dispute status, contactability, payment history, security and proximity to limitation. The score supports workload management; it should not make legal decisions on its own. High values may trigger early manual review, while low-risk cases may follow automated standard steps. The model should be documented, tested for misdirection and assessed under data protection law where personal data are used. Discriminatory or irrelevant characteristics must not influence the result. In “a decision matrix”, this control determines whether the standard workflow applies or an individual review is required.

The workflow should move standard cases quickly while automatically routing disputes, insolvency, data-protection or limitation risks out of the standard path. Human review remains necessary where the data or legal position is not clear. The outcome for “a decision matrix” should record the current balance, next date, reason for the decision and responsible person. For outstanding receivables, the next measure should follow directly from the documented status of the file.

Under section 195 BGB (German Civil Code), the regular limitation period is three years. Under section 199 BGB, it generally begins at the end of the year in which the claim arose and the creditor learned, or without gross negligence should have learned, the relevant circumstances and the debtor’s identity. Special claims may have different periods. Invoice date, due date and year-end alone do not always determine the answer. Each file should contain a documented limitation date and review note. For “a decision matrix”, quality control should reconcile the balance and underlying entries once more against the original evidence.

Before escalation, reconcile bank entries, credit notes, returns, partial payments, objections, insolvency signals and limitation dates. An item shown as open in accounting is not automatically due or undisputed; the decision must follow from the complete file. For the specific issue “a decision matrix”, this requirement should be recorded in the review note with its date and supporting evidence.

At the reporting date, subledger, general ledger, bank and open-item list should be reconciled. Disputed, overdue or insolvency-risk receivables are assessed using specific information; individual or general impairments follow the applicable accounting and tax rules. An accounting write-off does not automatically extinguish the civil-law claim. The decision, estimate, security, post-balance-sheet payments and further recovery steps should be documented. Accounting and tax treatment should be aligned with the tax adviser or auditor. The outcome for “a decision matrix” should record the current balance, next date, reason for the decision and responsible person.

The process ends with a documented decision stating the current balance, next deadline and responsible person. Fortis Inkasso GmbH & Co. KG can then handle suitable undisputed claims out of court, without implying a guarantee of recovery or legal outcome. For “a decision matrix”, the workflow should continue only after ownership, deadline and the exception route are clearly set in the system.