Starting from September 1, 2026, a reform in France's payment order process introduces stricter timelines for creditors, particularly affecting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) dealing with overdue invoices. For a business leader, the situation can be frustrating: an invoice is now 60 days past due, the client is unresponsive, and the accountant is asking whether to provision for the debt. The usual response is to file a payment order, a procedure known for being cost-effective and not requiring a hearing. However, recent changes mean this approach may need reevaluation. A decree from February 16, 2026, has altered the rules, and an alternative, the preliminary reference (référé-provision), remains underutilized despite being suitable for many cases. The core principle of the payment order remains the same: a creditor submits a request, a judge reviews the documents without hearing the debtor, and if convinced, issues an order (articles 1405 and following of the civil procedure code). What has changed is the time frame. The decree n° 2026-96 from February 16, 2026, reduced the period for serving the order to the debtor from six to three months. If the debtor is not notified within that time, the order becomes invalid (article 1411). This new rule applies to all orders issued from September 1, 2026. In exchange, enforcement is made easier. If the court receives no opposition within two months of service, the creditor can proceed with enforcement (article 1422). Practically, the company must now prepare everything in advance. It is necessary to verify the debtor's registered address using a recent Kbis extract, choose a judicial commissioner, and prepare the budget from the moment the request is filed. An order obtained but forgotten in a drawer is worthless after three months. One aspect remains unchanged and favors the creditor: the Court of Cassation confirmed that the payment order is exempt from the requirement of prior amicable attempt for small disputes (Cass. 2e civ., avis, September 25, 2025, n° 25-70.013). Before filing with the court, three questions should be considered: 1. Is the price clearly stated in the contract? The payment order is reserved for contractual debts with a determined amount (article 1405). A signed quote, a numbered order with a specified amount, or an accepted tariff grid are sufficient. A bill for overruns, work in-house, or penalties calculated later may lead to the request being rejected. 2. Has the client already contested something? An email criticizing the delivery quality, a reservation on a report, or a request for a credit note may indicate opposition. Opposition sends the case back to court for a regular trial, and the advance gained disappears. 3. Has the client acknowledged the debt? A deposit made, a payment schedule proposed, or a message such as "we will pay as soon as possible" often proves more effective than a long argument. They make the debt difficult to dispute, opening the way for the preliminary reference. If the answer is yes to the first question and no to the second, the payment order remains the most economical choice. In other cases, it is necessary to look toward the preliminary reference judge. The preliminary reference, an underestimated option, involves a hearing, which sometimes frightens business leaders. It is, however, its strength: the decision is made after the debtor has been summoned, and the debtor cannot nullify it with a simple objection. The rule is summarized in one sentence. The court president may grant a provisional amount when the existence of the obligation is not seriously contestable (article 873, paragraph 2, of the civil procedure code before the commercial court, now known as the economic activity court in certain jurisdictions; article 835, paragraph 2, before the judicial court). It is not necessary to demonstrate urgency. Three advantages make it a cash flow tool: the order is immediately enforceable, even if the debtor appeals within 15 days (articles 489 and 490); the amount does not have to be fixed by the contract: only the absence of serious contestation matters, and the judge may grant a partial provision on the undisputed part; the creditor can obtain simultaneously the late payment penalties, the 40 euro flat-rate compensation due between professionals (article L. 441-10 of the commerce code), and a sum for legal fees. The limit is clear. The preliminary reference judge does not rule on the substance of the dispute. If it must interpret disputed contractual clauses to grant the provision, it exceeds its powers: the Court of Cassation censured a court of appeal for this reason (Cass. com., September 23, 2014, n° 13-11.836). An incomplete file is therefore sufficient to fail the request. Finally, the preliminary reference order remains provisional. It does not have the authority of res judicata (article 488), and the debtor may still file with the court on the merits. In practice, once condemned and seized, it is rarely done. The right choice is therefore not "payment order by default," but a quick reading of the file before filing with the court. A clearly quantified claim that has never been disputed calls for the lightest route. A debt acknowledged, or exceeding what the contract provides, is better suited to the preliminary reference. A contested service before the due date relates to an action on the merits, possibly preceded by a precautionary seizure. In all cases, the 2026 reform rewards organized companies. Those that keep signed quotes, delivery notes, and written exchanges with clients already have the essential elements of their file.