Practical guide · Selling a company
The indemnification promised by warranty and indemnity provisions is only worth the seller’s ability to pay on the day a claim is made. Three tools dominate practice: an escrow over a fraction of the price, the autonomous first-demand guarantee (article 2321 of the French Civil Code) and a vendor loan available for set-off. Their effects differ sharply for each party; the choice is negotiated together with the warranty itself, not afterwards.
The scenario to avoid is well known: a tax reassessment notified two years after completion, perfectly drafted warranties, and a seller who has become unreachable, moved abroad or reinvested the whole price. Security is not an accessory of the warranty: it is the condition of its effectiveness.
Warranty and indemnity provisions create a contractual claim against the seller. If the seller is insolvent, untraceable or simply recalcitrant, the buyer will need a judgment and then its enforcement, years of proceedings for an uncertain outcome. Security reverses the balance: the funds are already blocked, or a solvent third party has undertaken to pay. The question is therefore not whether security is needed, but which one, for what amount and for how long.
The amount and duration of the security track the warranty: cover the cap for as long as claims remain possible, at least for the tax and social security risks, whose reassessment periods are the longest.
The escrow blocks a fraction of the price in the hands of a third party, often a lawyer acting as escrow agent or a bank. The escrow agreement sets the amount, the duration, the release events in favour of the buyer, an accepted claim or a decision upholding it, and the release schedule in favour of the seller, in tranches aligned with the expiry of the warranty periods. It also settles the fate of the funds where a claim is pending at a release date: the corresponding tranche stays blocked until the outcome.
The hard point of the negotiation is the release condition while a claim is pending: without a clause blocking the release up to the amount of notified claims, the escrow empties before the disputes are resolved.
The autonomous guarantee is the undertaking by which the guarantor, most often a bank, binds itself, in consideration of an obligation subscribed by a third party, to pay a sum either on first demand or on agreed terms (article 2321 of the French Civil Code). Its distinctive feature is autonomy: the guarantor may raise no defence drawn from the underlying obligation; it pays first, the parties argue afterwards. The statute reserves only manifest abuse or fraud by the beneficiary, or its collusion with the principal. For the buyer it is the most effective security; for the seller the most dangerous, and for the seller’s bank a priced commitment backed by counter-guarantees.
A seller who grants a first-demand guarantee should frame its call: a decreasing amount, documents required in support of the demand, a long-stop date, because it will not be able to argue at the moment of payment.
A suretyship (cautionnement) is the contract by which the surety undertakes to pay the debtor’s debt in case of the debtor’s default (article 2288 of the French Civil Code): the surety may raise the defences attached to the guaranteed debt, and the beneficiary must establish what the seller owes before being paid. The autonomous guarantee of article 2321 is detached from the debt: a compliant demand triggers payment. The difference between the two is one of nature, not degree, and the characterisation follows the drafting: an undertaking that refers to the guaranteed debt as the measure of payment risks recharacterisation as a suretyship.
The drafting of the instrument deserves the same care as the warranty itself: a badly drafted “first-demand guarantee” gets argued as a suretyship, and its whole value disappears.
Where part of the price is paid on deferred terms, the vendor loan, the buyer owes a debt to the seller which can serve as reverse security: sums due under the warranty are set off against the instalments of the vendor loan, set-off extinguishing reciprocal obligations up to the lower amount once its conditions are met and it is invoked (article 1347 of the French Civil Code). The contract organises the set-off: notice, treatment of contested claims, often by blocking the instalment up to the amount of the claim until its resolution.
For the buyer, the vendor loan is the cheapest security; for the seller, it stacks credit risk on the buyer on top of the warranty exposure, which the rate and the security of the vendor loan should reflect.
Warranty and indemnity insurance, usually taken out by the buyer, transfers all or part of the indemnification risk to an insurer. It gives the seller a clean exit, without escrow or bank commitment, and the buyer a solvent debtor. It has its limits: a premium, exclusions, notably the risks identified in due diligence, its own retention, and an underwriting process that must fit the deal timetable. It has become standard on transactions of significant size and is progressively reaching the mid-cap market.
The policy must be negotiated as a mirror of the warranty: every exclusion in the policy reopens, for the buyer, a risk to be covered by another security or by the price.
The choice is a trade-off between cost, security and liquidity of the price. The escrow is simple and cheap but immobilises part of the price for the seller. The first-demand guarantee frees the price but consumes the seller’s banking capacity and carries fees. The vendor loan costs nothing but makes each party carry the other’s risk. Insurance has a certain cost against a transferred risk. Combinations are frequent: a short escrow for price adjustments, a bank guarantee for the long tax risks.
The right reflex is to price each option, financial cost for the seller, actual security for the buyer, before the negotiation: security is always paid for somewhere, in the price, in the premium or in the rate.
The escrow agreement says: in practice, fees are often shared equally, or borne by the party in whose interest the escrow is mainly constituted.
In principle no: the guarantor may raise no defence drawn from the underlying obligation. The statute reserves only manifest abuse or fraud by the beneficiary, or its collusion with the principal (article 2321 of the French Civil Code).
Whatever the agreement provided: careful drafting blocks the tranche to be released up to the amount of notified, unresolved claims, until their amicable or judicial outcome.
Yes, and it is frequent: an escrow for the short period and a bank guarantee for the long tax risks, or a vendor loan available for set-off in addition. The combination is calibrated on the cap and the warranty periods.
A warranty to secure, an escrow to negotiate, a guarantee call to manage?
The firm acts for sellers and for buyers. See also: what do French warranty and indemnity provisions contain.
Mickaël Labigne, avocat, admitted to the New York and Paris Bars. About the firm.
Last updated: 5 October 2026.
This information is general and does not constitute legal advice. Every transaction calls for its own analysis.