Is there a provision stipulating that, after a certain number of extensions of deadlines in connection with bankruptcy proceedings, a new (final) extension can only be granted with the consent of the public prosecutor?
Bankruptcy proceedings are governed by precise rules designed to ensure their efficiency and speed. Article L. 643-9 of the Commercial Code provides that the court sets a deadline for assessing the conclusion of the proceedings, with the possibility of extending this deadline if necessary. The question concerns the number of possible extensions and the specific conditions for a final extension requiring the consent of the public prosecutor.
According to Article L. 643-9, paragraph 2, of the Commercial Code, a bankruptcy is concluded when there are no longer any due obligations, or when the trustee has sufficient funds to cover the creditors, or when the continuation of the bankruptcy proceedings becomes impossible due to insufficient assets.
Article L. 643-9, paragraph 1, of the Commercial Code states that “the judgment opening or pronouncing the bankruptcy (…) sets the deadline within which the conclusion of the proceedings must be assessed. If the conclusion cannot be pronounced before the expiry of this deadline, the court may extend the deadline by a reasoned decision.”
Although this provision aims to ensure speed, it does not specify a precise deadline by which the bankruptcy proceedings must be concluded. It therefore appears that the provision primarily aims to delimit the conduct of the proceedings by allowing the court to impose a deadline on the trustee for performing their duties; the extension of such a deadline is considered an administrative judicial measure and cannot be challenged in court.
Legal framework
Article L. 643-9 of the Commercial Code begins with a paragraph that almost reads as a principle: “In the judgment opening or pronouncing the bankruptcy, the court sets the deadline within which the conclusion of the proceedings must be assessed. If the conclusion cannot be pronounced before the expiry of this deadline, the court may extend the deadline by a reasoned decision.”
This provision, introduced by the rescue law to ensure speed, does not specify a maximum deadline for the conclusion of the proceedings. (“Clôture de la procédure,” Jocelyne Vallansan, professor extraordinary service at the Court of Cassation, Center for Private Law Research, University of Caen-Normandie).
It only requires the court to anticipate the conclusion by giving the trustee a deadline to perform their task, and the extension has been classified as an administrative judicial measure and therefore cannot be challenged in court (Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, July 9, 2013, No. 12 13.193).
Simplified bankruptcy procedure
Article L. 644-5 – simplified bankruptcy procedure – is a separate procedure: “The court shall conclude the bankruptcy no later than six months from the decision imposing or deciding the application of the simplified procedure, after the debtor has been heard or properly summoned. This deadline is extended to one year when the number of the debtor’s employees and their turnover excluding VAT exceeds thresholds set by decree.”
The court may, by a specially reasoned judgment, extend the procedure for a period not exceeding three months. Case law confirms the application of Article L. 643-9 regarding extensions of deadlines.
Case law
For example, in a case dealt with by the Court of Cassation on July 9, 2013, the court had originally set a deadline for assessing the conclusion of the proceedings for October 7, 2010, before it was extended to October 7, 2012, by a reasoned decision. This extension decision was considered an administrative judicial measure and cannot be challenged in court.
Similarly, the Court of Cassation clarified in a judgment of November 7, 2018, that the extension of the deadline for assessing the conclusion, made under paragraph 1 of Article L. 643-9, is an administrative judicial measure that cannot be challenged in court. By contrast, decisions rejecting a request for conclusion based on the other paragraphs of Article L. 643-9 may be appealed.
Analysis of the judgment of 05/12/2025 (Commercial Court of Aix-en-Provence)
The bankruptcy proceedings for DL GROUP (SAS) were opened by the Commercial Court of Aix-en-Provence on September 7, 2023.
As of December 5, 2025, the liquidation work had not yet been completed, and the court found that the conclusion could not be pronounced. It therefore decided to extend the deadline for assessing the conclusion of the proceedings and set a new court date for December 4, 2026. The same date was set for the submission of the creditors’ claims list to ensure that all affected parties were taken into account.
This extension is based on Article L. 643-9 of the Commercial Code, which allows the court to extend the assessment deadline when the conclusion cannot take place within the originally set deadline.
Each extension must be reasoned and constitutes an administrative judicial measure, which cannot be challenged in court.
The duration of the extension of almost one year indicates that this is an ordinary bankruptcy, not a simplified procedure, where the deadlines are significantly shorter.
Conclusion
Under Article L. 643-9 of the Commercial Code, the court has the authority to extend the deadline for assessing the conclusion of a bankruptcy procedure by a reasoned decision when the conclusion cannot take place by the expiry of the originally set deadline.
This extension constitutes an administrative judicial measure and cannot be challenged in court. The duration of the extension is not legally limited but must be justified by specific circumstances, such as:
- the presence of pending lawsuits that may affect the company’s obligations;
- insufficient assets to cover creditors;
- or other difficulties preventing an immediate conclusion of the proceedings.
Case law confirms these principles and provides concrete examples of their application. Neither Article L. 643-9 nor case law sets a maximum number of extensions. The law only requires that each extension be justified, meaning that the trustee must document the necessity of extending the proceedings.
Kind regards
Cabinet Nicolas BRAHIN
Advokatfirma i NICE, Lawyers in NIC
Camilla Nissen MICHELIS
Assistante – Traductrice
1, Rue Louis Gassin – 06300 NICE (FRANCE)
Tel : +33 493 830 876 / Fax : +33 493 181 437
Camilla.nissen.michelis@brahin-avocats.com
www.brahin-avocats.com
