Crowdfunding lawyer Paris: recover your claim when a project defaults.

No, in principle. The platform puts the investor and the project owner in contact; it does not guarantee repayment. The debtor of your claim remains the issuer of the bonds or the borrower, together with the guarantors it has provided. The platform’s liability can be sought only if it has committed a fault of its own, distinct from the economic failure of the project: inaccurate information, selection without the required diligence, absence of a warning, negligent handling of the collection it had undertaken to carry out.

To act on a contractual basis, a contract with the platform must be established. The pre-trial judge of the Paris judicial court declared inadmissible the claims of investors who did not prove that they had received from the platform “personalised advice on the advisability of the investment promoted on its platform” (TJ Paris, 20 December 2023, No. 23/03569) (our translation), the platform having acted only as a service provider to the project owner. That decision is unfavourable to the investors. The firm therefore begins by reading the general terms, the mandates and the presentation documents to establish in what capacity the platform acted, before considering an action against it. In that case, the claimants relied on no tort-based ground; a platform’s own fault may still fall under non-contractual liability (Article 1240 of the Civil Code).

For bonds, the answer is most often no. The holders of the same issue form a masse, and only its representatives, duly authorised by the general meeting, may bring the actions that defend the bondholders’ common interests (Article L. 228-54 of the Commercial Code). The Court of Cassation upheld the inadmissibility of the claim of an institutional investor who sought only documents before trial, on the ground that such an action “may be brought only by the representative of the masse authorised by the general meeting of bondholders” (Cass. com., 9 October 2024, No. 23-10.645) (our translation). The judgment dismisses the investor’s appeal to the Court of Cassation: it is unfavourable to the investor.

The judicial court of Mulhouse applied the same rule to a bondholder who claimed capital and interest as damages, recalling that “The notion of common interests of bondholders presupposes an identity of purpose characterised by subscription to the same loan” (TJ Mulhouse, 9 April 2026, No. 25/00016) (our translation). The claims were declared inadmissible. The firm therefore first checks whether a representative exists, whether it is authorised and whether it has acted, then, failing that, the route by which one can be appointed. A crowdfunding loan concluded directly between a lender and a borrower is not subject to this regime.

The platform’s cessation of activity does not extinguish the masse’s claim, but it may leave it without a representative. The representatives are appointed by the issue agreement, by the general meeting of bondholders or, failing that, by court decision at the request of any interested party (Article L. 228-51 of the Commercial Code). In an emergency, court appointment may be requested by any interested party (Article L. 228-50 of the Commercial Code).

Bondholders holding at least one-thirtieth of the securities may also request that the meeting be convened and, if it is not convened within the regulatory period, have an agent appointed by the court to convene it (Article L. 228-58 of the Commercial Code). In a case where it was undisputed that “the company Koregraf resigned from its mandate as representative of the masse of bondholders” (CA Paris, pôle 1 ch. 2, 26 February 2026, No. 25/03374) (our translation), the Paris court of appeal declared admissible the bondholders subsequently appointed as representatives and upheld the order requiring the debtor company to pay an interim sum. The firm examines who can convene the meeting, with what quorum of securities, and what agenda authorises the future representative to act for recovery and for liability.

For bonds, the representatives of the masse file in the insolvency proceedings, for all the bondholders, the principal amount of the bonds remaining outstanding and, for the record, the matured and unpaid coupons (Article L. 228-84 of the Commercial Code). If they fail to file, a court decision appoints, at the request of the creditors’ representative, an agent to represent the masse and file its claim (Article L. 228-85 of the Commercial Code). For a masse of holders of association securities, the Paris court of appeal thus admitted, in the insolvency proceedings, the claim filed by the agent appointed for that purpose (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 9, 20 October 2022, No. 21/17363). The claim was admitted only in part: the oldest interest was held to be time-barred, because the holders could themselves have applied urgently for a representative to be appointed.

For a crowdfunding loan, each lender is a separate creditor. The claim is sent to the creditors’ representative within the period set by decree, and it may be filed by the creditor or by any agent or representative of the creditor’s choice (Article L. 622-24 of the Commercial Code). That period is two months from publication of the opening judgment in the BODACC (Article R. 622-24 of the Commercial Code). Many loan agreements entrust this filing to the platform: the firm checks that it was made, for what amount and on what date, and, if no valid filing covers the claim, examines an application for relief from the time bar, which requires that the failure not be due to the creditor and must be made within six months (Article L. 622-26 of the Commercial Code).

A guarantor answers for the debt within the limits of the commitment, and that cap is decisive. In a property transaction financed by bond crowdfunding, the Paris economic activities court (tribunal des activités économiques) ordered the issuer and the directors who were guarantors to pay the platform acting as representative of the masse, but held that “These guarantee commitments covered maximum amounts without specifying that any late-payment interest or recovery costs may be added” (TAE Paris, 15 January 2025, No. 2024031836) (our translation). The guarantors were therefore bound only up to those amounts, and their requests for time to pay were rejected.

The guarantee does not replace the collective action. For bonds, it is in principle the representative of the masse or the security agent who calls on the guarantee. The firm re-reads the deed of guarantee, the maximum amount, the date of the formal notice and the existence of other security, such as an autonomous guarantee, a mortgage or a fiducie. It also checks that the guarantor is not itself in insolvency proceedings, which would require a separate filing in its insolvency proceedings.

An action for liability is subject to a five-year limitation period running from the day the investor knew, or should have known, the facts enabling the investor to act (Article 2224 of the Civil Code and Article L. 110-4 of the Commercial Code). The starting point depends on the nature of the damage. As regards information on the risk of capital loss, the Court of Cassation holds that “the limitation period for an action for compensation for such damage cannot start to run before the date on which the investment was lost” (Cass. com., 21 May 2025, No. 24-13.217) (our translation). That judgment concerned an investment services provider; it applies by analogy, though not automatically, to the intermediary in a crowdfunding transaction.

Other time limits are shorter. Filing a claim in insolvency proceedings runs from publication of the opening judgment, and a clause in the contract may set claim periods. Referral to the AMF mediator suspends the limitation period, which then starts running again for at least six months (Article L. 621-19 of the Monetary and Financial Code). The firm reconstructs the chronology of each payment date to date precisely the moment the loss appeared.

Not necessarily. The Court of Cassation set aside a ruling of a court of appeal that regarded an investor’s loss as hypothetical for as long as the liquidation of the issuing company continued. It criticised the court for not examining whether “the absence of repayment at maturity made the harm certain in principle, consisting at a minimum of the loss of the fruits of the capital invested” (Cass. com., 2 July 2025, No. 24-13.258) (our translation). If that examination establishes that the unpaid maturity makes the harm certain in principle, only its amount remains to be determined. The case concerned a wealth management adviser; the reasoning sheds light on the position of an investor whose repayment date has passed.

One limit stems from the collective nature of some losses. Where the issuer is in liquidation, the Court of Cassation holds that “Actions seeking the protection and reconstitution of the creditors’ common pledge therefore fall within the liquidator’s monopoly” (Cass. com., 10 June 2026, No. 25-11.187) (our translation). In that Aristophil case, investors who sued banks for sums declared in the insolvency were held inadmissible. That decision is unfavourable to the investors. The firm therefore distinguishes personal loss, linked to a fault committed towards you, from loss that would be only a fraction of the collective liabilities.

For a crowdfunding service provider, Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 of 7 October 2020 requires that any information on costs, financial risks, project selection criteria and the nature of the services be correct, clear and not misleading, and that it be communicated at least before the commitment (Article 19). Each offer is accompanied by a key information sheet drawn up by the project owner, which the platform provides to investors after verifying its completeness, accuracy and clarity under appropriate procedures (Article 23). Member States apply their civil liability rules where that sheet is misleading, inaccurate or omits key information (Article 23, paragraph 10).

The provider must also assess the knowledge of the non-sophisticated investor and ask for a simulation of the investor’s ability to bear losses, without being able to prevent the investor from investing but warning of the risks where the investor’s knowledge is judged insufficient (Article 21), and a pre-contractual reflection period of four calendar days applies, during which the offer may be withdrawn without penalty (Article 22). Form is not always enough. In investment advice, the Grenoble court of appeal upheld a judgment holding that “the provision of standardised documents, which refer to a general, unspecified and unsupported risk, cannot suffice to establish that the company Mes Cartes Conseil complied with its duty to inform” (CA Grenoble, ch. com., 22 May 2025, No. 24/01698) (our translation). The firm compares what you were given with these requirements.

The crowdfunding service provider, or PSFP, falls under the European regulation. It is authorised by the competent authority of the Member State in which it is established (Article 12 of the regulation), and may offer its services in other Member States after the notification provided for in Article 18. In France, it is authorised by the Financial Markets Authority, with the binding opinion of the Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority where it facilitates the granting of loans (Article L. 547-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code). It acts in particular for loans to businesses and for bonds or shares issued by project companies. Its obligations derive from Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 of 7 October 2020 and from national liability law.

The crowdfunding intermediary, or IFP, falls under French law alone. It brings project owners and funders together through interest-bearing loans, loans without interest or donations for activities outside the scope of the regulation, as well as, for individuals, through loans without interest or donations and, in the field of training, through certain credits (Article L. 548-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code). It must behave honestly, fairly, transparently and professionally, provide information on project selection and warn lenders by publishing default rates (Article L. 548-6 of the Monetary and Financial Code). The platform’s status on the date of your subscription determines the rules that apply; the firm checks it on the AMF register and on the register of intermediaries.

It can be, for a dispute within the competence of the Financial Markets Authority. The AMF mediator receives complaints from any interested party, and referral to the mediator suspends the limitation period for the civil action from the day of referral (Article L. 621-19 of the Monetary and Financial Code). When the mediation is declared ended, the period starts running again for a duration that may not be less than six months, under the general mechanism for mediation (Article 2238 of the Civil Code).

Mediation does not settle everything. It does not replace the filing of a claim in the issuer’s insolvency proceedings, nor the action of the representative of the masse against the issuer and its guarantors. It concerns the conduct of the regulated professional, for example the information given or the handling of a complaint. The firm first checks that the platform fell within the AMF’s competence at the time of the facts, then prepares a written, chronological and documented file, which can later be used before the court if the mediation does not succeed.

Yes, where the person responsible is covered by civil liability insurance. The injured third party has a right of direct action against the insurer covering the liability of the person responsible (Article L. 124-3 of the Insurance Code). This route has practical value when the platform or the adviser has ceased its activity or is in insolvency proceedings, because the compensation paid by the insurer is not part of the assets shared among the creditors.

The Paris judicial court thus ordered the insurer of a financial investment adviser, on the investor’s direct action, to compensate a loss of a chance, while allowing the insurer to set up the excess provided for in the policy (TJ Paris, 17 July 2026, No. 22/11896). A direct action requires proof of the insured’s fault, the loss and the causal link, and it remains subject to the caps, excesses and exclusions of the insurance contract. The firm identifies the insurer, asks for disclosure of the certificate and the policy terms, then verifies that the claim falls within the period of cover.

Compensation depends on the fault established. Where the breach concerns information or advice, the compensable loss is in principle a loss of the chance not to invest or to invest differently, measured by the chance lost and not by the whole capital. Non-material loss is accepted only with reservations: the Paris judicial court rejected that claim, holding that “every investment carrying a risk, the investor cannot, by definition, claim such loss” (TJ Paris, 17 July 2026, No. 22/11896) (our translation).

The Nancy judicial court offers an unfavourable illustration specific to crowdlending. It held that the platform had “failed to show diligence in performing its mandate as regards the late recourse to the guarantor” (TJ Nancy, 7 November 2024, No. 23/00362) (our translation), then dismissed the lender’s claim for lack of a serious chance of recovery before the borrowers’ liquidation, also noting the tax advantage the lender had enjoyed. A fault is therefore not enough: it must be shown what it actually cost. The firm quantifies the loss of a chance from the documents, the available security and the state of the insolvency proceedings.