The facts relate to an international arbitration, commenced in 2001, between a French company (the seller) and an Egyptian company (the purchaser), in relation to three contracts for the sale of sugar. In 2003, the seller declared itself to be in receivership, followed shortly by a declaration of liquidation. The tribunal handed down its award on 9 February 2004, in the middle of liquidation proceedings, finding against the seller and ordering it to pay an amount of money to the purchaser. The liquidator of the seller commenced appeal proceedings against an order dated 20 February 2006 enforcing the award.

The Paris Court of Appeal, in an appeal from the court of first instance, held that the liquidator was estopped from opposing the enforcement of the award, since the liquidator had been fully informed of, and had voluntarily decided not to participate in, the arbitral proceedings. This Court of Appeal decision, from 2007, has often been cited as an example of the importance of estoppel in international arbitration proceedings in France.

The Court of Appeal decision was reviewed by the Cour de Cassation.

In its review, the Cour de Cassation overturned the Court of Appeal's ruling. The court found in favour of the seller on the basis that recognition of an award ordering a company in liquidation to make payments to an individual creditor is contrary to the rule of "international public policy". Previous Cour de Cassation decisions, which extend to international arbitration, are clear that the commencement of a collective proceeding (such as liquidation proceedings, in which the rights of all creditors must be recognised) will effectively trump any and all arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, the arbitral award rendered by the tribunal in this case, in 2004, was found to be unenforceable.

The court also held that the Court of Appeal decision violated "le principe du contradictoire". In other words, by estopping the liquidator from opposing the enforcement of the arbitral award, the Court of Appeal denied the claimant essential due process in the court proceedings, including the right to be heard.

In limiting its discussion of estoppel to the liquidator's behaviour and the specific circumstances prevailing at the time, the Cour de Cassation did not explore the more general application, or relevance, of estoppel in France, or in international arbitrations. Presumably, the concept of estoppel, as introduced into French jurisprudence by the Cour de Cassation in Golshani v. Islamic Republic of Iran 6 July 2005, Case no. 01-15912, still exists as good law, for example, in preventing a party from seeking annulment of an arbitral award based on arguments not raised before the arbitral tribunal.