Bankruptcy Law

Since 2008 , the action for extension of the receivership procedure has been an action reserved to certain parties. Initially reserved for the receiver, the legal representative , the public prosecutor or the court, which had the power to initiate it ex officio , it has also been opened to the debtor since the Ordinance of 12 March 2014  came into force . The ex officio seizure has been abolished, …

Status of plaintiff

Since 2008 , the action for extension of the receivership procedure has been an action reserved to certain parties. Initially reserved for the receiver, the legal representative , the public prosecutor or the court, which had the power to initiate it ex officio , it has also been opened to the debtor since the Ordinance of 12 March 2014  came into force . The ex officio seizure has been abolished, and the action for extension remains in principle closed to creditors .

The legal representative of a company may act to extend the procedure to another company, even if it has in the meantime set up a private practice company, provided that it is nonetheless registered on the list maintained by the registry of the court of appeal . However, when the legal representative, who alone has standing to act on behalf of and in the collective interest of creditors, fails to act, Article L. 622-20 of the Commercial Code, applicable to the receivership procedure on the basis of Article L. 631-14, confers on the creditor appointed as controller, standing to act in extension on behalf of and in the collective interest of creditors . Article R. 622-18 of the Commercial Code, applicable by reference to Article R. 631-20, specifies that, in this case, the controller's action is admissible only after formal notice to act has been adressed to the legal representative by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, which has remained unsuccessful for two months from receipt .

Ordinance No 2008-1345 of 18 December 2008 concerning the reform of the law governing distressed companies.

CA Paris, 2 July 2003, LawLex202100004514JBJ (LJ) holding that the legal representative of one company has standing to act for the extension of the procedure to another, even if he has in the meantime set up a liberal practice company, provided that he is nonetheless registered on the list maintained by the registry of the court of appeal.

CA Versailles, 7 October 2010, LawLex202100006029JBJ (S).

Ordinance No 2014-326 of 12 March 2014 concerning reform of the prevention of business difficulties and collective procedures.

Cass. com. 26 January 2016, LawLex202100002106JBJ (RJ). See also Cass. com., 11 February 2004, LawLex202100002107JBJ (LJ), considering that the wife of a trader in court-supervised liquidation, registered in the company and trade register as a collaborating spouse and not as a trader, cannot ask to be admitted to the procedure.

Cass. com., 15 May 2001, LawLex202100002104JBJ (LJ).

CA Paris, 2 July 2003, LawLex202100004514JBJ (LJ).

Cass. avis, 3 June 2013, LawLex202100002105JBJ (LJ).

See in particular CA Paris, 1 March 2011, LawLex202100004054JBJ (LJ).

Bankruptcy Law

301. Status of plaintiff

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

301. Status of plaintiff

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise