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 court-appointed administrator's assistant showed us into a small room with a table, three chairs, and a stack of files higher than I'd expected. "The administrator will see you to review the liabilities. You'll go through the declarations one by one." Marc had no idea how much energy that word, "review," would cost him that morning.
We begin, methodically. A claim, an amount, the supporting document. Marc nods, signs, moves on to the next one. It could be an almost mechanical exercise. It isn't for long.
“That amount there—the leasing company on the truck. It’s… it’s three times what I thought I owed.” He reread the figure, as if it were about to change. The leasing company hadn’t declared what the contract actually stipulated in the event of termination—they had declared the vehicle’s replacement value as if it were a new car, as if it had to be bought out tomorrow morning. That’s not what the termination indemnity clause says. We’re going to contest that amount.
Then came the landlord of the workshop. There, seemingly, was good news: he was demanding almost nothing, far less than the three months' rent I'd feared in this case. Marc broke into a smile, the first of the morning. I immediately took note. It was a false sense of security. Upon closer examination of the statement, the landlord had, in fact, paid himself: he had offset the unpaid rent with the security deposit he'd held since the lease was signed six years earlier. The problem was that the lease hadn't been terminated—it continued, as is the rule during the observation period—and nothing in the contract authorized him to unilaterally draw on a deposit that was supposed to remain intact as long as the lease continued. If he ever considered the deposit to have been reduced and demanded its replacement, it would be a new debt, incurred after the judgment, to be paid immediately and without delay. Therefore, it is not the debt itself that should be accepted simply because it appears low. It is the compensation itself that should be challenged.
Another, further down the pile, isn't a matter of calculation or a misread contract. A materials supplier is demanding full payment—but the delivery in question arrived damaged, part of it not conforming to the order, which Marc reported in writing at the time, without ever receiving a credit note. This one isn't being disputed on a single figure. It's being disputed on principle: this invoice is simply not due, or not in its entirety.
Then came the URSSAF (French social security agency). That one hurts, in a different way. The declared amount is almost double what the accountant calculates based on the actual payroll. "How can they be so wrong?" asks Marc, almost annoyed. Actually, there was no mistake—the latest social security declarations weren't up to date at the time of the judgment, so the URSSAF made a flat-rate assessment based on industry averages, lacking the actual figures. Once the payslips and actual declarations are produced, this amount will have to be adjusted to what it should truly be.
Seeing our repeated observations, the trustee finally intervened, almost as a safeguard: “You know, not all claims are contestable. The court doesn't appreciate systematic disputes made without serious grounds.” He's not wrong, and I readily concede that. But I won't let him discourage Marc from what, in this case, is based on specific elements: a poorly applied clause, an unjustified set-off, genuinely non-compliant merchandise. This isn't contesting indiscriminately. It's contesting precisely what needs to be contested, item by item, and nothing more.
As we were leaving, I reminded Marc of something he should never forget: he remains personally liable for the loan on the premises. Artificially inflated liabilities make a plan harder to maintain—and therefore increase the risk of liquidation. And liquidation, as we've already discussed, is precisely when his guarantee becomes fully exposed again. So it's not just a matter of accounting accuracy for the company. His own personal assets are at stake in each of these disputes.
Marc puts away his papers, less dejected than when he arrived. "So we didn't lose this morning." "No. We've only just started defending ourselves."
—
*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 9/17: " Spending to Get By "
Morgan Jamet,
founding partner of Arst Avocats, advises business leaders on commercial law, insolvency law, restructuring, and business litigation.
View his profile
