Arst Avocats designed this mini-series to give you an inside look at a judicial reorganization procedure.
By Morgan Jamet, Partner Attorney — Insolvency Law
Published on August 22, 2026
The letter arrived on a Thursday, forwarded by the clerk's office: a request for appointment as an inspector. I skimmed it once, before stopping short on the applicant's name. It was him. The materials supplier. The one whose invoice for non-compliant goods had been disputed for months.
I'll call Marc right away, before he stumbles across it on his own when he opens his mail. "What's he asking to become?" A creditor monitor. A creditor that the supervising judge can appoint, at the creditor's request, to assist the trustee in their duties and monitor the proceedings. The law allows for theappointment of up to five, chosen from among the creditors who request it.
“But he’s the guy we’re in litigation with! What exactly will he have access to?” A great deal, if the supervising judge grants his request: the documents sent to the trustee, the progress of the case, and oversight of certain key stages—the submission of the administrator’s report, the development of the plan, and the compensation of those involved in the proceedings. Marc only understands one thing: that the person he’s disputing a bill with is going to take his place, in the position of a privileged observer of everything that’s being done.
“Can we object to it?” We can certainly say so. The supervising judge cannot appoint a creditor monitor without having heard from, or duly summoned, the debtor. That is precisely the reason for this. It will be necessary to argue at the hearing that this particular creditor, in open and unresolved litigation with the company, is not in the most neutral position to oversee the proper conduct of a procedure on which the outcome of their own dispute directly depends. It's not a foregone conclusion. The law does not, in principle, exclude a disputed creditor from the role of creditor monitor.
The hearing before the supervising judge was brief, almost expedited compared to the hearings in chambers. I argued the conflict of interest, the ambiguous position of a creditor who has every interest in seeing their own claim validated and might be tempted to use what they see for purposes other than simply monitoring the proceedings. The supplier, who was present, calmly replied that they were a creditor, that the law recognized this right, and that their demands had never wavered.
The supervising judge ruled without unnecessary digression: nothing in the law allows a creditor to be excluded solely because they are in dispute with the debtor over the amount owed. He designated the creditor. But he added, looking directly at them: “You are bound by an obligation of confidentiality regarding everything you see in this file. A breach of this obligation may justify your dismissal and render you liable.” A warning, not just a formality.
In the hallway, Marc struggles to see the glass as half full. "So he won." No—he obtained a right of review, subject to a strict confidentiality agreement, under threat of revocation if he abuses it. That safeguard is significant. And it changes absolutely nothing about what really matters: the fate of his disputed claim, which will be decided before the same bankruptcy judge, based on the same documents, whether he is the creditor or not.
Marc remained silent for a moment, then said, "That means he's going to watch me construct my rescue plan, knowing that he disputes my version of events regarding his own bill." That's exactly it. Uncomfortable, no doubt. But not decisive, if the case remains solid on its merits.
—
*Marc and the situations described in this series are fictional, composites of cases encountered in practice. Any resemblance to a real situation is purely coincidental.*
Next episode — Season 1, Episode 12/17: " Planning Begins "
Morgan Jamet,
founding partner of Arst Avocats, advises business leaders on commercial law, insolvency law, restructuring, and business litigation.
View his profile
