Situation: €680,000 outstanding. A Dutch industrial equipment manufacturer had supplied production line machinery to a French multinational's subsidiary in Lyon. The equipment was delivered, installed, commissioned, and operating. The subsidiary acknowledged the debt. Then the parent company announced a "strategic restructuring" and informed all creditors that payments would be "temporarily suspended pending reorganisation."

Three collection agencies had attempted recovery over 14 months. Each had been deflected by the same response from the parent company's legal department: "We are in discussions with our banking syndicate regarding a restructuring arrangement. All creditor claims are being consolidated." The agencies had accepted this at face value and recommended patience. The Dutch manufacturer was preparing to write off the receivable.

The intelligence assessment

We conducted a forensic assessment of the multinational group before engaging. The findings contradicted the restructuring narrative:

The parent company was publicly listed with a market capitalisation of approximately €1.2 billion. The most recent annual report showed consolidated revenue of €3.8 billion and positive operating cash flow. The "restructuring" involved a single underperforming division — not the subsidiary that had purchased our client's equipment. The Lyon subsidiary itself was profitable, with €180 million in revenue and an operating margin of 7%.

The restructuring was real — but it was being used as a shield to delay payments to trade creditors while the parent company preserved cash for the restructuring of a completely different division. The Lyon subsidiary had the cash to pay. The parent company had instructed it not to.

What we deployed

Direct engagement with the subsidiary. Rather than engaging with the parent company's legal department (which was designed to deflect creditor communications), we engaged directly with the Lyon subsidiary's management. Under French law, the subsidiary was a separate legal entity with its own obligations. The parent company's restructuring did not extinguish the subsidiary's trade debts.

Injonction de payer at the Tribunal de Commerce de Lyon. We filed an injonction de payer (payment order) at the Lyon commercial court, specifically against the subsidiary. The French injonction de payer is a powerful instrument: the court issues the order without a hearing based on documentary evidence alone. If the debtor does not oppose within one month, the order becomes enforceable.

Saisie conservatoire on the subsidiary's bank accounts. Simultaneously, we applied for a saisie conservatoire (precautionary seizure) under Article L. 511-1 of the Code des procédures civiles d'exécution. The French saisie conservatoire is remarkable: it can be obtained ex parte (without notifying the debtor) from the juge de l'exécution if the creditor demonstrates a claim that appears well-founded and a threat to recovery. We demonstrated both: the claim was documented, and the parent company's instruction to suspend payments constituted a threat to recovery.

The saisie conservatoire froze €680,000 in the subsidiary's operating account at BNP Paribas within 72 hours of the court order.

The resolution

The parent company's group treasurer contacted us within 48 hours of the saisie conservatoire. The frozen operating account was disrupting the subsidiary's supplier payments and payroll processing. The parent company's legal department — the same department that had deflected three agencies for 14 months — authorised immediate payment of the full €680,000 plus statutory interest.

Timeline: 18 days from mandate to full payment. The three previous agencies had spent a combined 14 months achieving nothing.

The intelligence note

The "restructuring defence" is increasingly common among multinational groups. Parent companies announce restructuring processes and instruct subsidiaries to suspend trade creditor payments, using the restructuring as a shield. The counter-strategy is to engage with the subsidiary directly (which has its own legal obligations), use the local enforcement instruments (which are designed for trade creditor claims), and create operational disruption that forces the parent company to authorise payment.

If you're holding receivables against a subsidiary whose parent company is using restructuring or reorganisation as a payment delay mechanism, the legal structure may provide a direct enforcement path. Brief our team with the claim details for a structural analysis.