Par Laura NGOUNE & Didier BRUERE-DAWSON <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Published on Mergers & Acquisitions<\/strong> \u2013 October 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n If a company is subject to collective proceedings (in this case, accelerated safeguard, safeguard or receivership), it may propose a safeguard or restructuring plan in order to continue as a going concern. This plan must be voted by the stakeholders (creditors and shareholders) and approved by the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The law provides two ways for stakeholders to give their opinion on the safeguard or receivership plan:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 individual or collective consultation with the parties; or<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2013 since the end of 2021, through a vote within the framework of what the law refers to as affected parties classes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A quick reminder about the concept of affected parties: the law provides for two main categories of classes of affected parties: creditors and shareholders\/partners of the company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Voting in affected parties classes certainly offers an advantage for stakeholders today, but it also carries a risk. Indeed, this type of voting creates a new system that allows the opposition of certain stakeholders to be overridden through the forced cross-class application of the plan, or cross-class cram down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article addresses the specific case of partners\/shareholders and holders of securities that may give access to capital, classified within the categories of affected parties as “capital holders”.Our analysis has led to a key question for these capital holders: \u2018Are they, in light of the reform, in an ejector seat when the company has to restructure itself under collective proceedings?<\/em>\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n