
Main Criteria for Choosing and Commencing French Pre-insolvency Versus Insolvency Proceedings
Synopsis
Selecting the appropriate proceedings and understand-ing their ins and outs is essential to avoid making ill-advised choices that may have irreversible conse-quences. In response to frequently asked questions, the authors have sought to illustrate the criteria and main
steps of the various proceedings in the form of a table, enabling readers to compare and assess their respective pros and cons and for foreign creditors and investors to consider their options and the right approach in these proceedings. The authors have also added a glossary of frequently used terms with their English translations to make this table an easy-to-use and practical tool.
| Pre-insolvency Arrangements (‘Amicable Proceedings’) |
Court-Ordered and Supervised Proceedings |
||||
|
Mandat ad hoc |
Conciliation |
Safeguard proceedings (« sauvegarde ») |
Administration proceedings
(« redressement judiciaire ») |
Liquidation proceedings (« liquidation judiciaire ») | |
| Purpose of the
proceedings |
1. Enabling the negotiation and conclusion of an agreement with the debtor’s main creditors / partners, to resolve difficulties of any kind under the supervision of a professional appointed by the Presiding Judge of the commercial or civil (see below) court.
2. And/or preparing the total or partial sale of the debtor’s business, with the possible implementation of a prepack sale.1 Advantages of mandat ad hoc: This procedure stands out for its high degree of flexibility, and minimal formal requirements. The mandat ad hoc is widely used by courts and well understood by institutional creditors. It can be used on its own as a negotiation tool or to prepare subsequent conciliation and/or safeguard or administration proceedings to renegotiate debt, revise key contracts, or arrange the sale of all or part of an underperforming business or subsidiary. Specific advantages of conciliation in the event of court approval of the agreement reached with the main creditors: |
Implementing a safeguard plan, with the rescheduling of debts over up to
10 years (15 years for ‘agro related businesses’). Creditors express their position on the proposed safeguard plan, (i) on an individual basis, or (ii) as applicable through a vote within the class of affected parties2 to which they have been allocated by the administrator (for more details on the criteria for forming classes of affected parties, the voting procedures, and the conditions for the court’s final approval of the |
1. Implementing an administration plan with the rescheduling of debts over up to 10 years (15 years for ‘agro related businesses’).
Creditors express their position on the proposed administration plan (i) on an individual basis, or (ii) as applicable through a vote within the class of affected parties to which they have been allocated by the administrator (for more details on the criteria for forming classes of affected parties, the voting procedures, and the conditions for the court’s final approval of the |
Terminating the business’ activity and selling the company’s assets to repay creditors.
Isolated assets are sold at public auctions or via negotiated sale, with the Supervising Judge’s authorization. Caution: purchasers should carefully assess and define the scope of the assets being acquired: while the acquisition of an isolated asset in liquidation proceedings does not, in principle, involve the transfer of employees, this may change if the asset qualifies as a standalone business |
|
| Pre-insolvency Arrangements (‘Amicable Proceedings’) |
Court-Ordered and Supervised Proceedings |
||||
|
Mandat ad hoc |
Conciliation |
Safeguard proceedings (« sauvegarde ») |
Administration proceedings
(« redressement judiciaire ») |
Liquidation proceedings (« liquidation judiciaire ») | |
| The conciliation agreement may either be
(i) recorded by the Presiding Judge of the relevant court, rendering it enforceable without publication (this is called the ‘constat présidentiel’), or (ii) approved by the court, provided that (a) the debtor company is not in cessation of payments, or the conciliation agreement puts an end to the debtor’s cessation of payments, (b) the agreement’s terms ensure that the debtor can continue operating, and (c) the conciliation agreement does not prejudice creditors who are not party to it (this court approval is called ‘homologation’). Homologation also allows a creditor who, during the conciliation, financed the company to ensure the continuation of its activity, to benefit from the ‘new money privilege’, giving said creditor a preferential ranking in future distributions in the event of any subsequent insolvency proceedings commenced against the debtor. In the event of any subsequent insolvency proceedings, homologation also has the advantage of preventing the retroactive extension of the debtor’s date of cessation of payments beyond the date of the homologation judgement, thereby securing the transactions provided for in the agreement, which cannot be challenged later as being null and void under the rules on the relation back period (‘période suspecte’)3 transactions. |
plan, please refer to footnote iii below).
New cash contributions provided to finance the safeguard plan benefit from the ‘post-money’ privilege: the resulting claims will not be subject to the deferrals or reductions provided for in the plan and will benefit from a priority ranking in the event of subsequent liquidation. The debtor cannot be forced by the court to sell all or a part of its business, as is the case in administration proceedings (where there is no serious continuation plan) or liquidation proceedings. |
plan, please refer to footnote iii below).
New cash contributions provided to finance the administration plan benefit from the ‘post-money’ privilege: the resulting claims will not be subject to the deferrals or reductions provided for in the plan and will benefit from priority ranking in the event of subsequent liquidation. 2. And/or to implement the total or partial sale of the debtor’s ongoing business with the transfer of certain employees and key contracts according to the scope defined by the bidder and approved by the court (this is commonly called the ‘sale plan’ – ‘plan de cession’). As soon as administration proceedings are opened, the company’s business and assets are for sale, and any interested party may submit a takeover bid with the administrator (except for (i) parties related to the directors, or (ii) creditors who have been appointed in |
unit (for example, a fully operational part of business, a production line, or software with its own customer base and related
contracts). In such cases, a court may recharacterize the transaction, leading to the forced transfer of the employees attached to the asset to the purchaser. The business may also be sold under a sale plan approved by the court. In this regard, the court may grant temporary authorization to continue business operations at the start of liquidation proceedings (see below). Liquidations proceedings may be initiated directly (‘immediate liquidation’) or result from the conversion of safeguard or administration proceedings where a plan is not feasible. Liquidation proceedings are also ordered following the sanction (‘adoption’ in French) of a sale plan, with a view to realizing the remaining assets not |
||
| Pre-insolvency Arrangements (‘Amicable Proceedings’) |
Court-Ordered and Supervised Proceedings |
||||
|
Mandat ad hoc |
Conciliation |
Safeguard proceedings (« sauvegarde ») |
Administration proceedings
(« redressement judiciaire ») |
Liquidation proceedings (« liquidation judiciaire ») | |
| the proceedings as monitors (‘contrôleurs’ – see below, court appointed bodies) by the Supervising Judge. | included in the sale plan. | ||||
| Court having jurisdiction to open the proceedings | The Presiding Judge of the commercial court where the debtor’s activity is of a commercial or artisanal nature, or the Presiding Judge of the civil court (‘Tribunal judiciaire’) in the other cases. | The commercial court where the debtor’s activity is of a commercial or artisanal nature, or the civil court (‘Tribunal judiciaire’) in the other cases. | |||
| Conditions for opening the proceedings | The debtor company must not be in cessation of
payments, or if so, for less than 45 days. Unlike conciliation, the opening of a mandat ad hoc does not suspend the 45-day legal deadline within which the company’s statutory management must file for the commencement of administration or liquidation proceedings, under penalty of incurring personal liability for mismanagement. It is therefore essential to obtain temporary moratoriums quickly with the support of the mandataire ad hoc to avoid or put an end to an existing state of cessation of payments. |
The debtor company must not be in cessation of
payments, or if so, for less than 45 days. In the event of cessation of payments, the directors of the debtor company must file, within 45 days thereof, for the opening of conciliation, administration, or liquidation proceedings, under penalty of incurring personal liability for mismanagement. |
The debtor company must not be in cessation of payments and
must face difficulties that it is unable to overcome. |
The debtor company must be in cessation of payments but there are prospects for recovery. | The debtor company must be in cessation of payments and there are no prospects for recovery.
Liquidation may be ordered directly, with immediate cessation of business and dismissal of employees, where there are insufficient cash reserves and no prospect of selling the business as a going concern. |
| Pre-insolvency Arrangements (‘Amicable Proceedings’) |
Court-Ordered and Supervised Proceedings |
||||
|
Mandat ad hoc |
Conciliation |
Safeguard proceedings (« sauvegarde ») |
Administration proceedings
(« redressement judiciaire ») |
Liquidation proceedings (« liquidation judiciaire ») | |
| Filing initiative | The debtor company (acting through its statutory directors/managers) only. This excludes any request to commence these proceedings in court from a third party (creditor, shareholder, the Presiding Judge of the court proprio motu…). | The debtor company (acting through its managers) only. This excludes any request from a
third party (creditor, shareholder, court proprio motu…). |
The debtor company (acting through its managers), one or several creditors or the public prosecutor only. | ||
| Confident-iality | Yes | Yes (unless the parties seek court approval –’homologation’
of the agreement reached with the main creditors, but its terms are not disclosed by law) |
No: publication of judgments and registration of the proceedings in the commercial register. | ||
| Court-appointed bodies | « Mandataire ad hoc » (court-appointed
ad hoc representative) The debtor can propose the name of the professional it wishes to be appointed by the Presiding Judge of the court. |
« Conciliateur » (court-appointed conciliator)
The debtor can propose the name of the professional it wishes to be appointed by the Presiding Judge of the court. But the latter retains discretion to appoint the relevant conciliator. The debtor may, however, challenge the appointment and recuse the conciliator, under very limited and specific conditions. Needless to state that this rarely happens and that this course of action must be taken only after careful consideration and for just cause. The limited conditions for recusation include, inter alia: |
1. « Administrateur judiciaire » (administrator): He supervises the management of the debtor company. However, the company’s director remains in charge and continues to run the business.
The administrator plays also a key role in supporting the preparation of the safeguard plan by the debtor and if applicable, organizing creditors into classes of affected parties and setting the terms for voting within those classes (for more details on the criteria for forming classes of affected parties, the voting procedures, and the conditions for the court’s final approval of the plan, please refer to footnote iii below). |
1. « Administrateur judiciaire » (administrator): He assists the director in managing the company.
The director nevertheless retains sole authority over day-to-day management decisions (unless the court decides otherwise). The administrator prepares the administration plan with the support of the debtor company and if applicable, he organizes creditors into classes of affected parties and establishes the voting procedures within those classes (for more details on the criteria for forming classes of affected parties, the voting procedures, and the conditions for the court’s final approval of the |
1. « Liquidateur Judiciaire » (liquidator): He invites known creditors to file their claims and verifies liabilities in consultation with the debtor, which are ultimately determined by the Supervising Judge. He also realizes the debtor’s assets and distributes payments to creditors in accordance with the legal rules governing allocation and their respective priority rankings.
2. In principle, no administrator is appointed. However, one may be designated if the court authorizes the temporary continuation of the business activity with a view to a sale of the business. |
| Pre-insolvency Arrangements (‘Amicable Proceedings’) |
Court-Ordered and Supervised Proceedings |
||||
|
Mandat ad hoc |
Conciliation |
Safeguard proceedings (« sauvegarde ») |
Administration proceedings
(« redressement judiciaire ») |
Liquidation proceedings (« liquidation judiciaire ») | |
| i) the conciliator having a personal interest in the proceedings,
ii) the conciliator having a direct or indirect relationship of whatever nature with a creditor or a manager of the latter, iii) there is cause for mistrust between the conciliator and the debtor. Recusation then needs to be sought in a motivated request within 15 days from the date on which the conciliator’s appointment is notified to the debtor. The recusation is then submitted to the Presiding Judge of the court, if the conciliator disagrees with the recusation. When the appointment goes as planned and a conciliation agreement is reached, the conciliator may be appointed as supervisor, overseeing its implementation and ensuring that the parties respect their commitments. |
The court has the final say in appointing the administrator,
however, the debtor company may propose the name of a candidate. 2. « Mandataire judiciaire » (acting as the court-appointed creditors’ representative): He invites known creditors to file their claims and verifies claims in consultation with the debtor, which are ultimately determined by the Supervising Judge. He also consults creditors on the settlement terms proposed by the debtor as part of a safeguard plan. 3. The Supervising Judge (‘juge-commissaire’) oversees the proper conduct of the proceedings and ensures the protection of all parties’ interests. He also rules on key issues such as the admission of claims and authorizes certain acts affecting the debtor’s assets or the course of the procedure. 4. Certain creditors may be appointed as monitors (‘contrôleurs’) by the Supervising |
plan, please refer to footnote iii below).
If an administration plan is not feasible, he conducts a bidding process to facilitate the sale of the business through a sale plan. The court has the final say in appointing the administrator, however, the debtor company may propose the name of a candidate. 2. « Mandataire judiciaire » (acting as the court-appointed creditors’ representative): He invites known creditors to file their claims and verifies claims in consultation with the debtor, which are ultimately determined by the Supervising Judge. He also consults creditors on settlement proposals as part of the preparation of an administration plan. 3. The Supervising Judge (‘juge-commissaire’) oversees the proper conduct of the proceedings and ensures the protection of all parties’ interests. He also rules on key issues such as the admission of claims and authorizes |
3. The Supervising Judge (‘juge-commissaire’) oversees the proper conduct of the proceedings and ensures the protection of all parties’ interests.
He also rules on key issues such as the admission of claims and authorizes certain acts affecting the debtor’s assets or the course of the procedure. 4. Creditors may be appointed as monitors (‘contrôleurs’) by the Supervising Judge at their request to monitor the proceedings on behalf of all creditors. Only 5 may be appointed per proceeding, and they are bound by strict confidentiality. |
||
| Pre-insolvency Arrangements (‘Amicable Proceedings’) |
Court-Ordered and Supervised Proceedings |
||||
|
Mandat ad hoc |
Conciliation |
Safeguard proceedings (« sauvegarde ») |
Administration proceedings
(« redressement judiciaire ») |
Liquidation proceedings (« liquidation judiciaire ») | |
| Judge at their request to monitor the proceedings
on behalf of all creditors. Only 5 may be appointed per proceeding, and they are bound by strict confidentiality. 5. When a safeguard plan is sanctioned by the court, the latter appoints a plan supervisor (‘commissaire à l’exécution du plan’), who is responsible for overseeing the proper implementation of the plan and ensuring that the debtor complies with its obligations under the plan, in particular, the payment of the plan dividends. This is generally the previously court-appointed administrator or creditors’ representative. |
certain acts affecting the debtor’s assets or the course of the procedure.
4. Creditors may be appointed as monitors (‘contrôleurs’) by the Supervising Judge at their request to monitor the proceedings on behalf of all creditors. Only 5 may be appointed per proceeding, and they are bound by strict confidentiality. 5. When an administration plan is adopted, the court appoints a plan supervisor (‘commissaire à l’exécution du plan’), who is responsible for overseeing the proper implementation of the plan and ensuring that the debtor complies with its obligations under the plan, in particular, the payment of the plan dividends. This is generally the previously court-appointed administrator or creditors’ representative. |
||||
| Pre-insolvency Arrangements (‘Amicable Proceedings’) |
Court-Ordered and Supervised Proceedings |
||||
|
Mandat ad hoc |
Conciliation |
Safeguard proceedings (« sauvegarde ») |
Administration proceedings
(« redressement judiciaire ») |
Liquidation proceedings (« liquidation judiciaire ») | |
| Duration | No time limit, subject to the constraints related to a cessation
of payments and the period during which the debtor company can finance its operating needs. |
Maximum 4 months, extendable once for up to 1 additional month. | Maximum 12 months by the end of which a safeguard plan must be presented by the debtor and sanctioned by the court. Otherwise, the proceedings will be converted into administration or liquidation proceedings, which may lead to an administration plan imposed by the court with debts payable over a period of up to
10 years, or to a sale plan or even liquidation, offering creditors much lower prospects of recovery (see adjacent columns). (4 months maximum for accelerated safeguard proceedings)4 |
Maximum 18 months by the end of which an administration plan or a sale plan must be approved by the court. Otherwise, the proceedings will be converted into liquidation proceedings (see adjacent column). | Often several years (until closure of proceedings due to discharge of liabilities or insufficiency of assets) |
| Continuation of business activity | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (if the company has sufficient financing capacity) | No (except temporarily, if a sale of the business as
a going concern is contemplated – in this case, continuation of the activity is authorized for a maximum of three months, extendable for three months only at the request of the public prosecutor). |
| Pre-insolvency Arrangements (‘Amicable Proceedings’) |
Court-Ordered and Supervised Proceedings |
||||
|
Mandat ad hoc |
Conciliation |
Safeguard proceedings (« sauvegarde ») |
Administration proceedings
(« redressement judiciaire ») |
Liquidation proceedings (« liquidation judiciaire ») | |
| Effects on the enforce-ability of debts | None, unless an agreement is reached. | None, unless an agreement is reached.
Possibility of obtaining from the Presiding Judge of the court a temporary suspension of enforceability against a specific creditor (up to 2 years). |
Debt freeze and statutory suspension of any litigation the purpose of which is to obtain the payment of a sum of money in respect of a claim that arose before the
commencement of the proceedings, or that arose thereafter but is not relevant to the proceedings or to the continuation of the debtor’s business. Creditors must file proof of their claims arising before the opening of the proceedings within two months from the publication of the opening judgment in the Official Bulletin (‘BODAAC’), extended by an additional two months for creditors located outside France. As regards claims arising after the commencement of the proceedings that are not necessary for the conduct of the proceedings or the continuation of the debtor’s business, the time limit for filing a proof of claim runs from their due date The proof of claim must specify the amount of the claim and any associated security, with the relevant supporting documents. It must be signed by the creditor’s legal representative or by any person properly and expressly authorized. If the claim is not filed within the legal deadline, it will be unenforceable, and the creditor will not be allowed to participate in future distributions under the proceedings. A creditor who fails to file its claim within the prescribed time limit may make request to the Supervising Judge for relief from foreclosure of its rights (‘relevé de forclusion’) provided the delay was not due to the creditor’s fault or resulted from the debtor’s omission when listing the claims. The time limit to do so is 6 months from the publication of the opening judgment. For creditors who could not have known of the existence of their claim, the 6-months period runs only from the date on which they should reasonably have become aware of it. Once the proof of claim has been filed, the claim is subject to a verification procedure aimed at assessing its existence, amount, and ranking. The claim is reviewed by the mandataire judiciaire (in safeguard and administration proceedings) or the liquidator (in liquidation proceedings) together with the debtor, and in the event of a dispute, the Supervising Judge ultimately decides whether the claim should be admitted, partially admitted, on a preferential basis or as an unsecured claim, or rejected. If the dispute requires a substantive review, the Supervising Judge first refers the parties to a judge with jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case. If the claim results from an agreement governed by foreign law/containing a jurisdiction clause in favor of foreign courts, the dispute resolution process may take years as it may have to be referred to a foreign court for decision. The foreign court must only determine the validity and amount of the claim and cannot order payment of any kind. This is due to the statutory suspension of legal proceedings brought by creditors whose claims were incurred prior to the commencement of proceedings and |
||
| Pre-insolvency Arrangements (‘Amicable Proceedings’) |
Court-Ordered and Supervised Proceedings |
||||
|
Mandat ad hoc |
Conciliation |
Safeguard proceedings (« sauvegarde ») |
Administration proceedings
(« redressement judiciaire ») |
Liquidation proceedings (« liquidation judiciaire ») | |
| seeking an order for the payment of a sum of money. The claim is eventually submitted to the Supervising Judge for confirmation of the amount of the claim which may be included on the list of claims admitted in the proceedings.
The proceeds from a sale plan or from the sale of isolated assets in liquidation proceedings are applied to satisfy creditors in the following order, for reference only and in broad terms: 1. super-preferential wage claims 2. legal costs (fees of the court-appointed bodies and procedural expenses) 3. agricultural producers’ claims 4. claims benefiting from the privilege of conciliation (new money – see above) 5. mortgage loans 6. other employees’ claims 7. claims benefiting from the post money privilege (financing of the proceedings or of the plans – see above) 8. other preferential claims arising after the opening judgment 9. secured claims of social security contributions (URSSAF), tax authorities, landlords 10. unsecured creditors: suppliers, service providers and other contractors without special privileges. |
|||||
| Specific personal sanctions incurred by directors5 in the context of the proceedings | N/A (possible sanctions only under the general provisions of corporate, civil or criminal law). | N/A (possible sanctions only under the general provisions of corporate, civil or criminal law). | N/A (possible sanctions only under the general provisions of corporate, civil or criminal law). | Ban from management: Directors can be prohibited by the court from managing,
administering, or controlling any company or one or several companies for a fixed period (up to 15 years) in case of serious breaches of legal or managerial duties, notably: • misappropriation of assets, • continuation of an unprofitable operation, • payment to a creditor after |
Liability for mismanagement contributing to insufficiency of assets:
Directors may be ordered by the court to personally bear all or part of the company’s shortfall of assets if their faulty management has contributed to such shortfall of assets, notably: • failure to file for insolvency within the legal 45-day period, thereby worsening the company’s financial situation, |
| Pre-insolvency Arrangements (‘Amicable Proceedings’) |
Court-Ordered and Supervised Proceedings |
||||
|
Mandat ad hoc |
Conciliation |
Safeguard proceedings (« sauvegarde ») |
Administration proceedings
(« redressement judiciaire ») |
Liquidation proceedings (« liquidation judiciaire ») | |
| • cessation of payments, with full knowledge, to the detriment of other creditors,
• failure to cooperate with the bodies of the proceedings, • maintenance of fictitious, manifestly incomplete, or irregular accounting, • knowingly failing to file for insolvency within the legal 45-day period, without having otherwise requested the opening of conciliation proceedings. This action may be initiated by the administrator, the creditors’ representative, or by a majority of monitors if they (the administrator or the creditors’ representative) fail to act, or by the public prosecutor. Criminal bankruptcy (‘banqueroute’): Directors may be sentenced to imprisonment (up to 5 years) and fined (up to € 375,000) for having: • made purchases for resale below market value or used ruinous |
• wrongful continuation of a loss-making business with no reasonable prospect of recovery,
• failure to keep proper accounting records, or fictitious, incomplete, or irregular accounts, • misuse or misappropriation of the company’s assets, • making abnormal or preferential payments to certain creditors, particularly after the company has become insolvent, • taking excessive or reckless business risks disproportionate to the company’s financial position, etc. The action may be initiated by the liquidator or by a majority of monitors if the liquidator fails to act, or by the public prosecutor. Ban from management (see previous column). Criminal bankruptcy (‘banqueroute’): (see previous column). |
||||
| Pre-insolvency Arrangements (‘Amicable Proceedings’) |
Court-Ordered and Supervised Proceedings |
||||
|
Mandat ad hoc |
Conciliation |
Safeguard proceedings (« sauvegarde ») |
Administration proceedings
(« redressement judiciaire ») |
Liquidation proceedings (« liquidation judiciaire ») | |
| means to obtain funds to avoid or delay the opening
• of administration or liquidation proceedings, • diverted or concealed part or all of the assets, • fraudulently increased the liabilities, • kept ficti-tious accounts, destroyed accounting documents, or refrained from keeping any accounts when legally required to do so, or main-tained accounts that were mani-festly incomplete or irregular. The criminal court may be seized by the public prosecutor or through a civil action brought by the administrator, the creditors’ representative, the employee representative, the plan supervisor or, in the event of inaction by the competent bodies, by a majority of monitors. |
|||||
Conclusion
Considering the wide range of French pre-insolvency and insolvency proceedings described above, each de-signed for specific purposes and governed by distinct features, strict eligibility criteria, and procedural con-straints, navigating this framework requires particular care.
As a result, the support of experienced professionals is essential to ensure proper handling and to anticipate and secure legal and operational risks. Specialist guid-ance is therefore key for all parties involved, including debtor companies, directors, shareholders, creditors, investors and potential bidders.
Endnotes
- The prepack sale involves organizing, during confi-dential amicable proceedings (mandat ad hoc or con-ciliation proceedings), the necessary steps to enable a partial or full transfer of the business activity, to one or more identified buyers, to be implemented subsequently under a sale plan (i.e via a transfer of the ongoing business and its key personnel) within expedited court proceedings. The transfer can also be made via a share deal, with the risks associated therewith in a distressed scenario compared to an asset
The ‘flip side of the coin’ in a prepack sale process is that it is very difficult and risky for other potential bidders, not approached during the mandat ad hoc or conciliation proceedings and not given sufficient time to review the information and documents available in the data room, to file a bid.
- When the debtor company meets specific legal crite-ria (i.e. (i) 250 employees or more and net turnover of €20 million or more, or (ii) net turnover of €40 million, or debtor is subject to accelerated safeguard proceedings – see below), or upon authorization by the Supervising Judge, its creditors are grouped by the administrator into classes of affected parties (‘classes de parties affectées’), according to shared economic interests, to vote on the proposed safe-guard or administration plan (2/3 majority vote, based on the amount of claims held by the creditors allowed to vote). This mechanism allows for a more targeted
The administrator defines the composition of the classes of creditors and their voting rights, in com-pliance with the structure of the debtor’s liabilities and legal criteria. At minimum, the following class-es must be formed: (i) creditors holding security interests over the debtor’s assets, (ii) other creditors (possibly divided into multiple classes), (iii), share-holders affected by the plan.
The administrator has discretion over the number and composition of classes, while ensuring their homogeneity (‘sufficient economic common interest’) and respecting existing subordination agreements. The composition of classes is strategic to secure plan approval and prevent rejection.
Allocation and voting procedures must be notified to the affected parties, the debtor, the creditors’ rep-resentative, and the public prosecutor. In case of dis-pute, decisions can be appealed to the Supervising
Judge, with very short deadlines to avoid delaying plan approval. The first rulings issued in disputes concerning the composition of classes of affected parties (for example, in the context of the restruc-turing of the French group Orpea) have progressive-ly clarified the scope of the administrator’s powers and limits thereto in allocating creditors, the court being required to carry out an in concreto review of the required ‘objective and verifiable criteria’ used for that allocation within the classes.
The court may impose the adoption of the plan even in the presence of a dissenting class (‘cross-class cramdown’), provided that three protections are satisfied: (i) a class ranking senior to the dissent-ing class must have approved the plan; (ii) junior creditors’ classes must not be repaid before senior creditors’ classes (the ‘absolute priority rule’); and
(iii) the dissenting class must not receive less under the plan than it would in a liquidation scenario (the ‘best interests of creditors’ test).
- The relation back period (‘période suspecte’) is the period, which may last up to 18 months (and 24 months for transfers of movable or immovable property without consideration), between the debt-or’s cessation of payments and the opening of its administration or liquidation proceedings. Certain transactions entered into during this time may be challenged and voided by the court if they unfairly favor some creditors or reduce the debtor’s
- The accelerated safeguard proceedings are prepared within the framework of prior conciliation proceed-ings and are intended to lead, within a very short timeframe (up to 4 months), to the adoption of a plan which may concern only certain categories of creditors (semi-collective proceedings). Accelerated safeguard proceedings also allow a pre-negotiated safeguard plan to be imposed on a recalcitrant mi-nority of creditors through the specific mechanism of voting by classes of affected parties (see above, iii).
- These sanctions apply to both de jure directors (for-mally appointed managers) and de facto directors. A de facto director may include individuals such as shareholders, CFOs or any third party who, without official appointment, effectively exercise manage-ment powers. They are characterized by making strategic decisions and acting independently as if they were a director, thereby exercising real control over the








