A French court has extended Groupe Doux’s administration to give the founder of the poultry giant and its main creditor more time to finalise plans to run the company.

The court rejected around a dozen takeover bids, including that of investment group Sofiprotéol, which piloted a coordinated bid from a ‘consortium’ of companies, which were each interested in a part of Doux’s activities.

Doux’s period in administration has been extended to 30 November but the Doux famliy and Barclays will be in court on 9 October to present a progress report on their continuation plan.

The court has ordered the liquidation of Doux’s loss-making fresh products division, Doux Frais, which is not included in the Doux recovery plan.

However, the division, which employs over 1,700 staff, has been allowed to continue trading until September in the hope of a buyer being found. The deadline for bids is 10 August.

Sofiprotéol said it was “regrettable” the co-ordinated bid had not been retained by the court and evoked “contestable legal reasons” for the decision.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Company Profile – free sample

Thank you!

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

By GlobalData
Visit our Privacy Policy for more information about our services, how we may use, process and share your personal data, including information of your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications. Our services are intended for corporate subscribers and you warrant that the email address submitted is your corporate email address.

The court justified the rejection of the co-ordinated bid on the grounds that its “indivisibility” deprived the bankruptcy judges of a freedom of choice.