French Supreme Administrative Court Scrutinizes Financial Incentives in Healthcare LBOs and Physician Independence

In its ruling dated 2 October 2026 (Nos. 501227 and 502006, Société IMAPOLE), the Conseil d’État—the French supreme administrative court—confirmed the decision to remove a medical imaging company from the register of the French Medical Council (tableau de l’Ordre des médecins), holding that the company’s articles of association and the agreements entered into between its shareholders impaired, in and of themselves, the professional independence of the physicians practising within it.

In the present case, the financing of such company was structured through an arrangement involving one of its parent entities holding 25% in the company’s share capital and is itself owned, inter alia, by financial investors. In the context of a financial transaction, two of the company’s founding physicians received, free of charge, preference shares in the parent entity entitling them to a portion of the proceeds from the sale of that entity. From 14 December 2026 onwards, the lead financial investor benefited from a customary drag along provision towards all the other stakeholders in the parent entity. The exit value attributable to the preference shares held by the two physicians increased according to the profits realised by the financial investors, provided that those profits reached at least twice their initial investment.

In this context, the public rapporteur (“rapporteur public”), whose opinion sheds light on the reasoning adopted by the Conseil d’Etat, indicated that professional independence must be assessed in light of the overall economic substance of the arrangement, rather than solely by reference to the formal allocation of share capital and voting rights. Thus, the Conseil d’État found that the physicians’ personal financial interest in achieving the investors’ expected returns, assessed in light of the capital invested, the target return, the time allowed to achieve it and the potential gains relative to their professional income, created incentives to pursue a financial-return policy which are in breach with the rules governing the medical profession.

As a result, this ruling does not establish a general prohibition on financial investment in sociétés d’exercice libéral (SELs). Rather, it confirms that such arrangements must be assessed substantively, taking into account the financial rights attached to shares, the incentive mechanisms in place and the relationship between investors’ expected returns and the personal financial interests of practising physicians. In particular, the formal preservation of physician control does not preclude a finding that the arrangements impair professional independence.

French veterinary clinics faced a comparable wave of scrutiny in a series of decisions dated 10 July 2023, which saw the Conseil d'État uphold the permanent removal of few veterinary companies from the professional register for lack of effective control by practicing veterinarians. This led the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Sovereignty to set up a conciliation process, resulting in a doctrine on implementation comprising 25recommendations. In practice, practitioners' advisers have used this doctrine to identify certain “red flag” clauses and “grey area” clauses, which are not problematic taken individually but may become so when combined. Similarly, we do not anticipate that this court decision will, in itself, call into question all of the financial mechanisms used to structure healthcare LBOs (including in the biology, pharmacy and radiology sectors), but it is expected to lead to a similar doctrine for these sectors (see below).

The government's action plan on the financialisation of the French healthcare system, published on 13 October 2026, moves in the same direction, though soft law rather than new legislation. It calls for a bespoke governance doctrine to be co-drafted with the professional Orders and investor representatives (Q1 2027), where sponsors should secure a seat at the table. It also calls for a decree to be adopted, expanding the Orders' review powers at incorporation and upon any change in practice conditions (Q1 2027), and a national declaratory register of medical structures' shareholdings (2027). It further sets up a national whistleblowing mechanism to help practitioners detect and report situations at risk to their professional independence (Q1 2027). Authorities also intend to better identify systemic actors in each sector and territory to improve continuity of service and prevent critical failures (Q2 2027). Finally, regional health agencies are to condition heavy medical equipment authorizations on public health objectives (Q1 2027).

We do not expect LBO structures in the healthcare sector to be banned as such, but rather this evolving framework to translate into a tightening of practice aimed at curbing abusive arrangements. Going forward, each financing structure will warrant a fact-specific, granular review to assess whether the balance struck between investors’ financial rights and the professional independence of practitioners remains consistent with the objectives pursued by the legislature and the professional Orders.

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2026 White & Case LLP}