Reorienting Bankruptcy Requirements for Limited Liability Companies Through a Simple-Proof Framework

The ambiguity surrounding the legal standards of simple proof in bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations proceedings may result in inconsistent judicial decisions, particularly in cases involving limited liability companies (LLCs) in which debts arise from court judgments or a second creditor emerges through the assignment of receivables (cessie). This study examines the normative boundaries of simple proof and develops legal indicators for assessing the validity and enforceability of debts, the fulfillment of the two-creditor requirement, and the good faith of the parties involved. Using a normative legal research methodology, this study adopts statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches, with the findings analyzed through prescriptive qualitative analysis. The findings demonstrate that a final and legally binding court judgment does not automatically establish all the legal elements of a debt. Likewise, an assignment of receivables (cessie) must satisfy the applicable formal requirements and be legally enforceable against the debtor. Accordingly, this study proposes four substantive indicators, complemented by the principle of proportionality, as a framework for evaluating whether the simple-proof requirement has been satisfied. This framework provides a viability test for judicial scrutiny, thereby strengthening legal certainty, promoting consistency in judicial decisions, and ensuring more balanced legal protection for all parties involved.