1 min
The Case for Out-of-Court Winddowns
Boards of directors facing insolvency should consider an out-of-court winddown as a viable alternative to bankruptcy or court-appointed receivership. This approach offers greater discretion and control, helping to safeguard their reputation and maintain constructive relationships with lenders and sponsors. A recent article by J.S. Held's Michael Jacoby, titled "The Case for Out-of-Court Winddowns," provides step-by-step guidance on the out-of-court winddown process and explains why it’s gaining popularity by comparing the pros and cons to more traditional business closure paths. Michael Jacoby, Senior Managing Director and Strategic Advisory Practice Lead of J.S. Held, is a skilled executive with extensive operating, turnaround, restructuring, and M&A experience. Michael has served in advisory capacities as well as an independent director, Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO), investment banker, and interim manager for more than 400 clients in various industries. View his profile here. Why this matters: As financial pressures mount — rising interest rates, tighter credit, private-equity portfolio stress — the flexibility and control of out-of-court winddowns make them a timely alternative. Boards, lenders, and private equity sponsors who recognize this can act faster, protect reputation, and maximize value for stakeholders. Looking to know more? Connect with Michael Jacoby today by clicking on his icon below.
