The Commercial Division of the Supreme Court has clarified how an assignment of business receivables, known as a 'Dailly assignment', operates. Through this decision, the Supreme Court has reinforced the effectiveness of the Dailly assignment mechanism by giving full effect to the assigned debtor's actual knowledge of the assignment and by giving no effect to contractual provisions that restrict assignment.
The new law on the duty of vigilance for parent companies and principal contractors aims to improve the accountability of multinational companies, prevent serious incidents in France and abroad and allow parties to obtain compensation for losses which they suffer as a consequence of non-compliance. To achieve these aims, the law requires companies to draft an awareness plan and implement a monitoring and whistleblowing system. It also introduces penalties for non-compliance.
The Sapin II Law aims to support transparency, modernise business activity and combat corruption. It introduces measures to regulate executive pay in listed companies, simplify company law and modernise bond issues. Among other things, it has simplified the procedure for contributions of goodwill, abolished the prior authorisation requirement for certain transactions and simplified the procedure for issuing bonds.
The concept of de facto management makes it possible to hold a parent company liable for its subsidiary by requiring that it make up any shortfall in its assets if the subsidiary is insolvent. This ultimately leads to a piercing of the corporate veil. A recent Supreme Court ruling points to a shift in case law towards a more restrictive interpretation of de facto management, thereby reinforcing the corporate veil.
A recent landmark European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling calls into question the type of liability incurred when an established commercial relationship is suddenly terminated. According to the ECJ, the liability is contractual, whereas for the French Supreme Court, tortious liability arises. The practical consequences of this ruling are significant in that EU law on jurisdiction differs substantially, depending on whether the liability in question is tortious or contractual.