The new case of early release of retirement savings for "cessation of self-employed activity" as a result of liquidation proceedings: the PERCOL does not necessarily have to emanate from the liquidated company

Facts 

Mrs F stated that as a former employee of Group X, she held a PERCOL that had been opened with account keeper A.

She explained that she had left Group X to set up her own company, SAS Y. However, some time after it was created, SAS Y ran into financial difficulties and, in a judgment handed down in November 2024, the Tribunal de Commerce had pronounced the closure of the liquidation proceedings that had been opened in relation to it.

As a result, Mrs F had approached her employee savings scheme account keeper and requested the early release of €3,800 from her PERCOL on the grounds of "cessation of self-employed activity as a result of liquidation proceedings".

However, Institution A had refused Mrs F’s request on the following grounds: "We inform you that the liquidation of your company Y does not allow you to obtain reimbursement from the employee savings scheme invested for company X".

Consequently, Mrs F asked for my help to get her PERCOL released.

Investigation

I questioned Institution A, which first of all told me that the grounds for release "Cessation of self-employed activity" is applicable in the event of liquidation or amicable settlement proceedings.

Institution A added that, if this ground was accepted, the assets accrued in the PERCOL scheme, opened by a company that had ceased trading, could be released.

In the case in question, the account keeper, after analysing the exchanges that had taken place, confirmed to me that Mrs F had submitted an online request for reimbursement on the grounds of "Cessation of self-employed activity".

This institution told me that the units affected by the requested release were invested in the PERCOL opened by Group X. However, the documents sent were about company Y.

In the light of this information, Institution A confirmed to me that Mrs F's request to release her assets could not be approved on the grounds of "cessation of self-employed activity as a result of liquidation proceedings” insofar as the assets were ineligible because they had been invested in the Group X retirement savings plan and Group X was not the entity that had been the subject of the liquidation proceedings.

Recommendation

On receipt of this response, I contacted Institution X again and provided it with my analysis of the situation.

I told it, as I have also told two other major employee savings scheme account keepers, that the regulations, as they result from the PACTE Law, do not specify a need for a link between the liquidation proceedings and the company with which the plan originates. Therefore, I did not believe that such a restriction was justified.

The two account keepers in question, who had initially taken the same view as Institution A, acknowledged that they were, in fact, not justified in making the release of the funds subject to the additional condition, not provided for by law, that the PER should emanate from the company subject to liquidation proceedings. The latter then reimbursed all the unavailable assets and undertook to treat future cases of release on this ground similarly.

In view of this information, I asked Institution A if it would agree, in the same way, to review its position on Mrs F's case.

In response, the latter informed me that it had given due consideration to my arguments and, after analysis by its legal department, confirmed that its position had been revised and indicated that it would be more vigilant in dealing with this type of request in the future.

As a result, it released Mrs F's assets early.

Lesson to be learned

With regard to retirement savings, the PACTE Law has harmonised the cases of early release on the basis of six grounds which, with the exception of the acquisition of the main residence, essentially correspond to life’s accidents, i.e. situations to which a saver is subject rather than which they choose for. The cases of early release are listed exhaustively in Article L. 224-4 of the Monetary and Financial Code, including the case, which did not exist for the PERCO, of "cessation of self-employed activity as a result of liquidation proceedings".

However, as this case shows, the regulations do not specify that there must be a link between the PERCOL, which is the subject of the release request, and the liquidated entity. Such a restriction is absolutely not provided for in the legislation and, in my opinion, runs counter to the objective of this case of release, which is to provide financial alleviation to an unfortunate entrepreneur.

It is therefore up to the professionals likely to be involved to allow the early release of a PERCOL that the applicant held as part of a previous salaried activity, prior to their own entrepreneurial activity which ended abruptly as a result of liquidation proceedings The three employee savings scheme account keepers with whom I have shared my analysis during mediation have all agreed to follow my recommendations, which I am delighted about.