1. It is hard to get rid of this preconceived idea that unlike other systems, the French insolvency system (excessively) favours debtors at the expense of their creditors.

Some recent decisions make it possible to question this idea.

These decisions deal with the conditions required for the approval of a safeguard plan and are warnings to debtors that might be tempted to force their plan through.

Safeguard proceedings end with the court-approval of a restructuring plan when there are serious chances of rescuing the business (French Commercial Code, Art. L.626-1).

The Court of Appeal has helpfully confirmed that a judgment creditor can seek an order appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution where:

• the debtor holds a legal or equitable interest in property; and
• execution against the property is not available at law by one of the usual methods, for instance via the sheriff or by a garnishee order.

There was previously doubt as to whether such a receiver could be appointed where the debtor held a legal, as opposed to an equitable interest, in property.

The High Court has recently expressed concern that distressed borrowers are being duped into paying money to the anonymous promoters of schemes, which purport to protect them from enforcement by lenders but are actually ‘utterly misguided and spurious’.

There are a number of schemes being promoted at the moment that supposedly protect borrowers in arrears from enforcement by their lender.

Introduction

The Sapin II Act of November 8 2016 amended the regime governing directors' liability in an insolvency scenario in order to encourage the recovery of honest directors of failed businesses.

Introduction

The Sapin II Act of November 8 2016 amended the regime governing directors' liability in an insolvency scenario in order to encourage the recovery of honest directors of failed businesses.

Introduction

On November 8 2016 Parliament adopted the Sapin II Act to promote:

• transparency;
• the fight against corruption; and
• the modernisation of the economy.

The act authorises the government to make decisions regarding legislative matters, including with regard to clarifying and modernising the status of security agents and their role in restructurings.

Introduction

Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.

The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]

Proceeds of sale clauses

The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.

In McCarthy v Murphy,^[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.

Background

Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers: