Summary

This briefing sets out the key French corporate income tax issues in respect of debt restructurings. In summary, debtors and creditors may be faced with material tax consequences in case of a debt waiver, debt transfer, conversion of debt into equity or debt buy-back, so that such operations may require an appropriate structuring in order to mitigate potential tax issues.

Introduction  

This briefing summarises key French tax points relating to restructuring of indebtedness.  

The recent restructuring of Autodis, a French car parts company, is a perfect illustration of the positive consequences of the reform of the French bankruptcy code in effect since February 15, 2009. The combined use of the French conciliation procedure for the operating company and the French safeguard procedures for the holding companies were agreed upon between the debtor and its creditors pursuant to the first pre-pack agreement executed in France.

Background

Article L 611-4 to L 611-15 of the French Commerce Code.

Act n° 2005-845 of 26 July 2005, as completed and amended, has created a new out-of-court settlement process known under French law as “Conciliation,” replacing the former amicable settlement or “règlement amiable.”

Use the Lexology Navigator tool to compare the answers in this article with those from other jurisdictions. 

Liquidation procedures

Eligibility

What are the eligibility criteria for initiating liquidation procedures? Are any entities explicitly barred from initiating such procedures?

Liquidators are not limited to the procedure set out in section 295 of the Companies Act to recover a debt once an insolvent transaction has been set aside. 

“The peak indebtedness rule is not part of the law in New Zealand”, according to the Court of Appeal, in a decision dismissing two appeals on an issue “significant for both liquidators and creditors generally”.

In Strategic Finance Limited (in receivership & in liquidation) and Strategic Nominees Limited (in receivership) v Bridgman and Sanson CA 553/2011 [2013] NZCA 357 the Court of Appeal has, for the moment, settled what constitutes an "account receivable", and this provides certainty regarding the scope of the assets available to meet preferential creditor claims ahead of secured creditors with general security agreements.

Three times in the last 12 months, liquidators have been told by the High Court that they cannot choose the “point of peak indebtedness” as the start of the “continuing business relationship” in an insolvent transaction claim. 

Of course, the three decisions are all from the High Court, and will not be binding in future cases.  The law will not be settled until the appellate courts hear the issue, and they may yet come to a different conclusion.

Confirmation by the Court of Appeal that “accounts receivable” are more than just book debts and include other legally enforceable monetary obligations owed to a company will provide welcome certainty to receivers and liquidators.

The issue is significant because it determines the assets available to pay preferential claims.

Like many legal tests, the test for insolvency is easy to state, but hard to apply in practice.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC)¹ has recently issued an important clarification, which confirms that an element of forwards projection must be applied – extending in extreme cases to assessments of balance-sheet as well as cash-flow solvency.

This liberal approach is likely to be followed in New Zealand, despite differences in statutory wording.