Since October1, 2017, French law has provided members of a banking pool with a security agent comparable to the “security trustee ” in the Anglo-Saxon system.
The security officer can now manage all types of security interests and guarantees (personal, real, French, or foreign).
As a special trustee, he holds the security interests and acts without any additional mandate to protect the interests of the creditors.
The security agent manages trust assets that are separate from his or her own assets.
A change in one of the pool’s creditors has no effect on the security agent and does not require any additional formalities.
The replacement of the security agent automatically results in the transfer of the assigned assets to the new agent, without any formalities.
In syndicated loan transactions involving a banking syndicate, the consistent and efficient administration and management of the collateral securing the loan for the benefit of all creditors by the collateral agent is of paramount importance.
However, the “French-style security agent,” hastily introduced into French law in 2007 by Law No. 2007-211 of February 19, 2007, establishing the fiduciary arrangement, has disappointed legal practitioners, who quickly abandoned this mechanism.
Threatened by foreign legal systems, particularly since the recognition established by the Belvédère decision of September 13, 2011[1] of the enforceability in France of the “security trustee ” and “parallel debt” mechanisms[2], the security agent mechanism was primarily criticized for its imprecise legal framework (uncertainties regarding whether it constituted a mandate, a trust, or a sui generis institution), the limitations on the agent’s powers, and the lack of flexibility in the procedure.
Unlike the Anglo-Saxon “security trustee,” the powers of the security agent under French law were limited to a simple mandate to administer the security interests on behalf of the banking syndicate.
To address these shortcomings, Ordinance No. 2017-748 of May 4, 2017, issued pursuant to the Sapin II Act[3] radically amended the existing regime governing security agents (Articles 2488-6 through 2488-12 of the Civil Code).
With the reform of the status of security officers, in effect since October 1, 2017[4], French law is finally equipping itself to compete with the systems in place in Anglo-Saxon countries and offers a modern and attractive tool for banking pools.
I. Expanded Powers of the Security Officer in Support of Banking Consortia
The security agent may be an individual[5] or a legal entity, a lender from the banking syndicate, or a third party. In practice, since the collateral agent is most often appointed from among the lending institutions, it would be possible in the context of structured financing involving so-called “senior” ” and “mezzanine” lenders, to appoint a collateral agent for the so-called “senior” debt as well as another agent for the so-called “junior” debt.
Furthermore, one of the significant contributions of the reform was to expand the scope of the security officer’s authority—which had previously been limited exclusively to security interests—to “all security interests and guarantees.” The security agent can now manage and enforce security interests and personal guarantees, as well as guarantees under French law and all security interests and guarantees under foreign law, which is particularly useful in the context of international financing.
II. Effective Implementation of the “Security Trustee” System
In order to achieve the same level of flexibility and effectiveness as the “security agent”—which is based on the Anglo-Saxon trust framework—French law has relied on an innovative dual principle: title and designated assets.
1. The agent holds the security interests
The new Article 2488-6 of the Civil Code modernizes the status of the agent, providing that the new security agent “acts in its own name for the benefit of the creditors of the secured obligation ” and that it is “the holder of the security interests and guarantees.” The procedure thus becomes much more flexible: a change in one of the creditors in the pool has no impact on the security agent and does not require any additional formalities.
In addition, the security agent may, “without having to provide proof of a special mandate, take any action to defend the interests of the creditors of the secured obligation and file any claim[6].” Prior to the reform of the security agent’s status, the security agent was unable to take legal action to defend the interests of the secured creditors or to enforce the security interests, unless authorized by a special mandate from each creditor. This requirement was burdensome for syndicated creditors, whose interest lies in being able to continue to transfer interests in the financing, even during pending legal proceedings.
The security agent transitions from the role of a mere agent to that of a fiduciary holding the security interests. Thus, credit institutions reluctant to become holders of certain security interests and guarantees—such as, for example, pledges with dispossession—will be “relieved” of the responsibility for managing such security interests and guarantees by the agent.
2. The security agent manages assets held in trust that are separate from its own assets
Furthermore, Article 2488-6 of the Civil Code[7] provides that the rights and assets acquired by the security agent in the course of performing his duties constitute a trust estate separate from his personal estate.
The existence of a trust fund, in which the collateral held by the agent is segregated from the agent’s personal assets, protects the syndicated creditors in the event of insolvency proceedings against the agent. On the one hand, the agent’s personal creditors are not permitted to seize the collateral securing the loans granted by the pool. On the other hand, creditors arising from the management of the collateral cannot seize the agent’s personal assets. [8]
This is a major innovation in French law. Indeed, the “parallel debt” mechanism does not create an estate separate from the agent’s own estate.
Even though the powers of a security agent are similar to those of a true fiduciary[9], the formal requirements[10] required for the agreement between the security agent and the creditor is much faster and more flexible than a trust agreement[11]. The agent must nevertheless ensure that they “expressly state their capacity ” whenever “they act for the benefit of the creditors of the secured obligation ”[12]. The agent’s prerogatives, however, depend on the powers granted to him by the creditors in the appointment agreement.
III. Replacement of the Security Officer—Liability
Unlike the provisions of many foreign legal systems, the previous regime did not specify the conditions for replacing the security agent; this has now been addressed. First, such a replacement may be provided for by contract. In such cases, any creditor in the pool may petition the court to appoint a provisional security agent or to replace the agent if it is found that the agent is failing to fulfill his or her duties, is jeopardizing the interests entrusted to him or her, or is subject to insolvency proceedings[13].
Furthermore, because of the collateral agent’s dedicated assets, the replacement of the collateral agent automatically results in the transfer of those dedicated assets to the new agent, without the need for any formalities[14]. This represents a real saving in time and legal certainty. Indeed, it is the security interests granted to the original agent that are transferred to the new agent, without any increased risk of potential invalidity arising from the “suspicious period.”
Finally, in the event that the security agent commits a breach of duty in the performance of his or her duties, Article 2488-12 of the Civil Code provides that he or she is liable with his or her own assets. Since the security agent is subject to general liability, in practice it is to be expected that he or she will include clauses limiting or excluding liability, which are common in this area.
Thanks to the reform, the French-style security agent has become an effective and modern tool that meets the needs of practitioners. It is now an attractive and practical mechanism for credit institutions, particularly in the context of syndicated loans, and its use in the future can only be encouraged.
Anja Droege Gagnier and Amélie Dorst
[1] Commercial Court of Cassation, September 13, 2011, Nos. 10-25.731, 10-25.533, and 10-25.908
[2]“Parallel debt” exists in English, American, German, and Dutch law. It is a mechanism used in cases where practitioners are unsure whether the trust will be recognized locally. It is a parallel debt, having the same characteristics as the principal debt, incurred by the debtor to the “security agent.”
[3] Law No. 2016-1691 of December 9, 2016, on transparency, the fight against corruption, and the modernization of economic life.
[4] In accordance with the principle that the old law continues to apply in contractual matters, the new law applies only to security agents appointed after its entry into force.
[5]Report to the President of the Republic Regarding Order No. 2017-748 of May 4, 2017
[6] Article 2488-9 of the Civil Code.
[7] The rights and assets acquired by the security agent in the performance of his duties constitute a separate estate dedicated to those duties, distinct from his personal estate.
[8] Article 2488-10 of the Civil Code.
[9] As mentioned in the report to the President of the Republic regarding Ordinance No. 2017-748 of May 4, 2017, “the security agent is granted the powers of a trustee, since he becomes the holder of the security interests and guarantees, which are transferred to a trust fund separate from his own assets, which he will manage in the interest of the beneficiary creditors.”
[10] Article 2488-7 of the Civil Code: “Under penalty of nullity, the agreement by which creditors appoint the security agent must be set forth in a written document specifying the agent’s capacity, the purpose and duration of the agent’s mandate, and the scope of the agent’s powers.” It is no longer necessary for the security agent to be designated in the instrument that establishes the secured obligation. The designation of the agent may therefore take place in a separate instrument either prior to or subsequent to the financing transaction.
[11] Governed by Articles 2011 et seq. of the Civil Code.
[12] Article 2488-8 of the Civil Code.