When a company is placed under safeguard or judicial recovery, its suppliers, service providers, and employees all wonder the same thing: will I be paid? Article L 622-17 of the commercial code partially answers this question. It creates a preferential regime for certain claims arising after the opening judgment, provided they meet specific criteria.
This mechanism, often referred to as “procedural privilege,” remains poorly understood by many creditors who discover too late that they do not benefit from it.
You may also like : Everything You Need to Know to Support Parenting and Baby Development Smoothly
Interaction between Article L 622-17 and Article L 641-13 in the event of conversion to liquidation
A rarely discussed point concerns what happens when a safeguard or recovery procedure shifts to judicial liquidation. Article L 622-17 governs post-judgment claims in safeguard and recovery. Article L 641-13 covers the same area in liquidation.
When both texts apply to the same claim, jurisprudence and tax doctrine uphold a protective rule: only the longest declaration period applies. The creditor cannot lose their privilege due to a procedural change that they do not control.
Read also : Everything You Need to Know About the International Driving Permit for Canada with CAA
In practice, a supplier who delivered goods during the observation period retains their privileged status even if the court subsequently pronounces liquidation. This coordination prevents the premature loss of the subsequent privilege, allowing for a better understanding of Article L 622-17 of the commercial code in its practical dimension, beyond just the legal text.
Privileged post-judgment claims: the three cumulative conditions
Article L 622-17 sets out three requirements. If one is missing, the claim falls back into the common pool of prior claims, subject to the plan and paid last.
Regular birth after the opening judgment
The claim must have arisen after the date of the opening judgment. The criterion considered is the cause of the claim, not the invoicing date. A service performed before the judgment but invoiced afterward does not benefit from the privilege.
The Court of Cassation rigorously checks this point. In a ruling dated May 6, 2026, it reiterated that the opening judgment prohibits the payment of any claim arising after that date, except for those mentioned in I of Article L 622-17.
Utility for the procedure or consideration for a service
The claim must correspond to one of these three scenarios:
- It arose for the needs of the procedure itself (fees of the judicial administrator, court fees, for example)
- It arose during the observation period in consideration for a service provided to the debtor (delivery of raw materials to maintain activity)
- It arose in consideration for a service provided to the debtor for their professional activity after the judgment
The mere fact that a claim is post-judgment is not enough. Without a direct link to the procedure or activity, there is no privilege.
Regularity of the birth
The claim must have arisen “regularly.” If the judicial administrator did not authorize the expense or if it exceeds the debtor’s powers during the observation period, the creditor loses the benefit of preferential treatment.
Payment ranking of privileged claims against employee claims
Obtaining the status of a privileged claim under Article L 622-17 does not guarantee being paid first. The order of payment remains a frequent source of confusion.
Employee claims benefit from a super privilege provided by the labor code (articles L 3253-8 and following). When distributing available funds, they take precedence over privileged post-judgment claims. The AGS (Association for the Management of the Employee Claims Guarantee Scheme) intervenes to advance unpaid wages, then seeks reimbursement from the procedure.
In practice, when the company’s assets are low, creditors benefiting from Article L 622-17 often recover little or nothing after employees have been satisfied. The procedural privilege improves the ranking but does not guarantee actual payment.
Claims arising after the adoption of a recovery plan: an exclusion to be aware of
Are you delivering to a client in judicial recovery after the adoption of their plan? The temptation is to think that Article L 622-17 protects this claim. Jurisprudence says otherwise.
Claims arising after the adoption of a recovery plan cannot be considered privileged claims under Article L 622-17. The text refers to the observation period, not the execution period of the plan. Once the plan is adopted, the preferential regime disappears.
This distinction regularly traps suppliers who continue to work with a company under a plan without checking their exposure. In the event of the plan’s resolution followed by liquidation, these claims are treated as ordinary claims.
How to protect yourself as a supplier
Before continuing to deliver to a company in collective proceedings, three reflexes help limit risks:
- Check the exact date of the opening judgment and that of the adoption of the plan to place your claim in the correct period
- Require cash payment or guarantees (surety, pledge) for deliveries made after the plan
- Request written confirmation from the judicial administrator that the order falls within the observation period
The judge-commissioner’s control over payments made during the observation period is strengthening. The ruling of the Court of Cassation on May 6, 2026, tightens the notion of privileged post-judgment claims and confirms that courts are increasingly strictly verifying the link between the claim and the real needs of the procedure. For a creditor, documenting this link from the birth of the claim remains the best protection against later reclassification.