A 50/50 ownership structure can look balanced when a foreign founder incorporates a French company with a local co-founder, investor or operating partner. It becomes dangerous when the two shareholders no longer agree on the budget, management, financing, annual accounts or a sale. A tied vote does not automatically dissolve the company or give one shareholder control. The first legal question is whether the company can still operate under its articles; the second is which remedy matches the emergency.
This distinction matters in both a société par actions simplifiée (SAS, a French simplified joint-stock company) and a société à responsabilité limitée (SARL, a French private limited liability company), but the answer differs. An SAS is governed primarily by its articles, while a SARL follows more detailed statutory voting and meeting rules. A French registered office brings French corporate law into the analysis even when a shareholder or parent company is abroad.
For a foreign founder, the crisis may appear as an operational failure: a bank will not release a payment, an accountant cannot finalise accounts, payroll or tax work is delayed, or the president and shareholder issue contradictory directions. Those facts can support urgent relief only if documented. The court will need the articles, voting records, correspondence, accounts and concrete company risk, not personal hostility alone.
This article sets out a decision tree for a tied 50/50 vote: identify the deadlock, test the articles, preserve evidence and cash, consider a negotiated or court-appointed intervention, and reserve dissolution for a genuine current paralysis. It focuses on company law for a French business, not immigration or property law. For the wider incorporation route, see the firm’s French company creation and corporate structuring page.
I. What does a 50/50 shareholder deadlock mean in a French company?
A. Why can equal voting rights paralyse an SAS or SARL?
A 50/50 deadlock exists when the company’s legal decision-making mechanism requires the consent, presence or votes of both sides and the two sides cannot produce the required result. The percentage alone is not enough. The analysis must compare four elements: the ownership of shares or actions, the voting rights attached to them, the majority or quorum rule for the particular decision, and the powers already granted to the president, manager or another corporate body.
The starting point is the shareholder’s participation right. Article 1844 of the French Civil Code provides that “Tout associé a le droit de participer aux décisions collectives.” In English, every shareholder has the right to participate in collective decisions. That right protects the 50/50 founder from being silently excluded from a meeting, but it also means that the other founder cannot simply manufacture a decision by treating the absent or dissenting shareholder as irrelevant. A meeting notice, agenda, attendance record, proxy and vote should therefore be preserved whenever a decision is disputed.
An SAS offers substantial freedom to design these mechanisms. Article L. 227-5 of the French Commercial Code states that “Les statuts fixent les conditions dans lesquelles la société est dirigée.” The articles may allocate day-to-day powers to the president, create a managing committee, reserve specified decisions to the shareholders, require a supermajority, impose unanimity, organise consultation by written consent, or create a casting mechanism. Article L. 227-9 adds that “Les statuts déterminent les décisions qui doivent être prises collectivement par les associés dans les formes et conditions qu’ils prévoient.” A foreign founder should read the signed articles before relying on a general internet explanation of “SAS voting rules”. The decisive rule may be contractual and company-specific.
This is why a tied vote on a reserved matter is not the same as a tied vote on ordinary operations. If the president has authority to sign ordinary supplier contracts, pay employees and operate the bank account, a dispute over a new acquisition may not prevent routine business. If the articles require both shareholders to approve any payment above a threshold, appoint or remove the president, approve the annual budget or issue new shares, the same dispute may stop the company at once. The scope of the reserved-matter clause, not the emotional intensity of the disagreement, determines the first legal diagnosis.
The articles should also be checked for provisions that are easy to miss in a foreign founder’s English translation. Look for the definition of a collective decision, the calculation of votes, quorum, a second meeting, written consultation, electronic participation, proxy rules, notice periods, a casting vote, the term and removal of the president, approval thresholds for related-party transactions, restrictions on share transfers, mediation, expert determination and a buy-sell mechanism. A shareholders’ agreement may add contractual obligations, but it cannot be assumed to amend the articles or bind the company in the same way without examining its parties, wording and enforceability.
In an SARL, the statutory framework can produce a different result. For many ordinary decisions, Article L. 223-29 of the Commercial Code provides that “Dans les assemblées ou lors des consultations écrites, les décisions sont adoptées par un ou plusieurs associés représentant plus de la moitié des parts sociales.” If that majority is not achieved, the same provision can permit a second meeting or consultation, unless the articles provide otherwise, with decisions taken by the majority of votes cast. Consequently, a 50/50 SARL may be blocked at the first vote but not necessarily at a second vote for every ordinary decision. That rule does not remove the need to check the relevant decision, the articles and any special majority requirement.
Amendments to the articles are a classic danger point. Article 1836 of the Civil Code states that, unless the articles provide otherwise, “Les statuts ne peuvent être modifiés, à défaut de clause contraire, que par accord unanime des associés.” In an equal ownership company, a refusal to amend the registered office, corporate purpose, capital, management structure or transfer provisions can therefore be decisive. The same article also prevents an increase in one shareholder’s commitments without that shareholder’s consent. A court will not generally use an urgent application to rewrite a carefully negotiated constitutional bargain merely because the bargain has become inconvenient.
The difference between ownership and management should be recorded in a matrix before anyone sends a formal notice. A shareholder may own 50% but have no power to sign for the company. A president may manage the company but still need shareholder approval for reserved matters. A director may have authority toward third parties even when an internal decision was defective, creating a separate question about the company’s remedy, the director’s liability and the protection of a contracting third party. A bank mandate may continue operationally while the shareholders are in dispute, yet the bank will often require clear proof of the valid corporate representative before changing signatories.
| What is blocked? | What it may show | What must be checked first |
|---|---|---|
| Appointment or removal of a president or manager | The corporate body may be unable to function or may be operating with disputed authority | Articles, term, removal threshold, notice, quorum and current registration |
| Annual accounts or budget approval | Compliance, banking and tax work may be delayed, but ordinary operations may continue | Statutory deadline, meeting procedure, accountant’s requests and cash consequences |
| New financing, capital increase or transfer of shares | The company may lack funding or an exit route | Reserved-matter clause, pre-emption, approval rights and valuation mechanism |
| Payment or contract above a threshold | A contractual approval gate may create immediate supplier or payroll risk | Delegations, bank mandates, emergency powers and evidence of the imminent risk |
| Any shareholder meeting | The dispute may concern an irregular notice rather than a substantive tie | Convocation, agenda, attendance, proxy, vote count and minutes |
The company’s interest is the organising principle. Article 1833 of the Civil Code requires a company to have a lawful purpose and to be formed in the common interest of its shareholders; it also states that “La société est gérée dans son intérêt social, en prenant en considération les enjeux sociaux et environnementaux de son activité.” The corporate interest is not identical to the personal victory of the founder who files first. A refusal can be justified if a proposed transaction harms the company, but a pattern of refusing every decision without addressing the company’s payroll, tax, customer and creditor obligations can support a different conclusion.
For a foreign founder, the practical issue is often that the other shareholder controls the French documents or systems. Ask for the signed version of the articles, the latest company extract, the shareholder register, minutes, accounting records, bank mandates, tax correspondence, employment records and material contracts. The extrait Kbis is the official extract showing registered information from the French Trade and Companies Register; it is not a substitute for the articles or minutes. The greffe is the court registry. The RCS is the Register of Commerce and Companies. The SIREN identifies the legal entity and the SIRET identifies an establishment. Explain these labels in the case file so that a non-French bank, parent company or investor does not confuse a public registration extract with proof of current internal authority.
The National Institute of Industrial Property, or INPI, operates the French business-registration infrastructure and makes company information searchable through its official resources. Its guidance on searching for a business in the French company database is useful when a founder needs to compare the registered company name, identifier, establishment and filed information with the documents received from the co-shareholder. The result is an evidence source, not proof that a disputed internal vote was valid. The articles, minutes and correspondence remain central.
Financial compliance creates a second evidence trail. The French tax administration’s professional online-account guidance explains that the company’s professional account can show declarations, payments, corporate tax, value added tax, business property tax and refund requests. If one shareholder changes the tax access, refuses to approve a return or blocks the accountant’s mandate, preserve the dated notices and access history. The tax account is not a substitute for a corporate vote, but it can demonstrate concrete consequences for the company and identify a deadline that makes interim relief urgent.
B. How can a foreign founder prove that the deadlock affects the company itself?
A court distinguishes a shareholder disagreement from an objectively paralysed company. The evidence should show a chain: a required decision, a valid attempt to obtain it, the tie or refusal, the resulting operational failure, and the specific risk if no remedy is ordered. The closer the evidence is to the company’s ordinary functions, the stronger the analysis. A personal breakdown, offensive messages or a failed relationship may explain the dispute, but they do not by themselves prove that the company cannot pursue its purpose.
Useful proof includes signed notices of meeting, delivery receipts, agendas, attendance sheets, proxies and minutes; a version history of the articles and shareholders’ agreement; written votes and the exact calculation of the majority; bank rejection messages; unpaid payroll or supplier notices; an accountant’s statement that accounts or tax filings cannot be finalised; a lease termination warning; a customer cancellation; insurance correspondence; and evidence that a statutory filing or payment deadline will be missed. Preserve original email headers and attachments. If a document is in English or another language, keep the original file and prepare a reliable French translation if the court or counsel requires it. Do not overwrite a disputed version with a later “clean” copy.
Build a timeline with four columns: date, corporate act, evidence and consequence. “The co-founder stopped cooperating” is too general. “On 4 August, the president sent the proposed annual budget; on 8 August, the other 50% shareholder voted against it; on 12 August, the bank refused the payment requiring budget approval; on 15 August, payroll funding was due” is capable of being tested. The timeline should also record decisions that were not blocked. If the company continued to sign contracts, collect revenue and pay creditors, the other side may argue that the dispute is serious but not paralysing. That argument must be answered with the particular functions that cannot continue.
The Supreme Court’s case law illustrates both sides of the test. In Civil Chamber 3 of the Cour de cassation, 23 February 2017, no. 15-28.792, the Légifrance text records a lower-court finding that the dispute “paralyse le fonctionnement de la société, notamment en raison de la répartition égalitaire du capital”. That passage is not a rule that equal ownership alone proves paralysis. The same decision shows why the factual link matters: the appeal argued that the company still pursued its activity through the lease of its asset and that the court had not established an inability to continue the corporate purpose. For a foreign founder, the lesson is to prove the blocked function and not stop at the cap-table percentage.
The opposite risk is treating a refusal to attend a meeting as the whole case. In Civil Chamber 3 of the Cour de cassation, 25 January 2018, no. 17-10.353, the reported argument states that “la paralysie ne saurait résulter du seul refus, par un associé, de tenir ou de participer à des assemblées générales”. A founder who seeks relief should therefore identify what could not be decided, what the company lost or risked, and why the articles offered no workable alternative. A properly convened meeting that fails is evidence; it is not always the remedy.
A stronger example appears in Civil Chamber 3 of the Cour de cassation, 14 February 2019, no. 17-28.549. The court upheld the finding where equal shareholders did not convene general meetings, communicated only through lawyers, did not approve accounts, did not provide the requested management documents and had no effective collective decision-making. The decision states that “la paralysie dans la prise de décision collective était caractérisée”. It is the combination of facts that matters: no meetings, no accounts, no documents, no functioning management and a demonstrated impact on the company, rather than the simple fact that two people disliked each other.
Do not exaggerate the evidence. A disputed expense is not automatically misappropriation. A refused financing round is not automatically an abuse of equality. An unapproved set of accounts may result from a genuine accounting dispute, a defective convocation or a shareholder’s obstruction. The application should separate established facts, documents that support them, and allegations that still require investigation. Overstating a criminal or tax accusation can damage credibility and expose the applicant to a separate dispute.
The foreign element changes the logistics, not the basic test. If the parent company is abroad, identify the legal entity that owns the shares and the natural person authorised to instruct it. Check powers of attorney, corporate authorisations, beneficial-owner information and the address for service. A foreign parent’s board resolution may need a certified copy, legalisation or apostille and a French translation depending on the document and the forum. The correct format should be confirmed for the actual filing; an informal translation should not be presented as an official document. Keep the ownership evidence separate from the proof of operational paralysis.
Public filings can help establish the background. A company’s Kbis or RNE information may show who is registered as president or manager, while the INPI database can help locate filed information. Neither record resolves every internal dispute. A registered president may be challenged or may have exceeded internal limits; conversely, an internal limitation may not automatically defeat a third party who relied on the company’s external authority. The application should explain the relationship between the registered position, the articles, the disputed decision and the immediate corporate harm.
A tax or payroll deadline can show urgency without deciding the merits. The IS is French corporate income tax, TVA is value added tax, URSSAF is the French body that collects most social-security contributions, and the DSN is the monthly nominative social declaration. If the deadlock prevents a filing, payment or employee instruction, attach the official notice and the accountant’s explanation. The court can understand a dated risk more easily than a general statement that the company is “in trouble”.
Finally, distinguish a refusal that protects the company from a refusal that consumes it. A shareholder can ask for information, challenge an irregular resolution or oppose a transaction that appears outside the corporate interest. The evidence becomes more concerning when every route is blocked, the same shareholder refuses to attend or vote, documents are withheld, the company cannot approve accounts or pay ordinary obligations, and the dispute leaves no functioning decision-maker. That distinction will influence whether the next step should be a meeting notice, a targeted injunction, a mandataire ad hoc, an administrateur provisoire, a negotiated exit or a dissolution claim.
II. What remedies can a foreign founder seek when a vote is tied?
A. Can mediation, a mandataire ad hoc or a provisional administrator restore decision-making?
The least disruptive remedy should be tested first, unless a payment, payroll, asset or legal deadline requires immediate protection. Start by sending a short formal notice that identifies the decision, cites the article or statutory rule, proposes a meeting date and attaches the resolution and supporting documents. Set out a practical agenda rather than a broad demand to “resolve the dispute”. For example, the agenda can separate approval of accounts, appointment of an accountant, authority to pay payroll, access to records and a discussion of an exit valuation. A precise agenda can reveal that only one decision is blocked and prevent the dispute from spreading to every function.
A negotiated protocol can then create temporary operating rules. It may appoint an independent accountant, define a payment threshold, require dual approval for exceptional transfers, preserve existing bank mandates, set a timetable for exchanging documents and provide a neutral process for valuing shares. The protocol should state whether it binds the company, the shareholders, the president, the parent company or only the signatories. It should also address confidentiality, tax filings, employees, ongoing litigation, new borrowing and what happens if the protocol fails. A “gentlemen’s agreement” is difficult to enforce when the relationship has already broken down; a signed instrument with a clear mission is safer.
Mediation can be valuable where both founders still need a functioning business. The mediator does not decide who owns the company or replace the president. The mediator can help the parties separate an operational bridge from the final exit: preserve payroll, release ordinary invoices, approve a limited budget, appoint an interim finance contact and establish an independent valuation. For a foreign founder, agree in writing on the working language, the language of any binding protocol, the location or video format, confidentiality and the signatory authority of each participant. A mediation proposal should not be used to delay a filing when the company faces an immediate and documented peril.
A mandataire ad hoc is a court-appointed agent given a defined and limited mission. Depending on the company form and the application, the mission may involve convening a shareholders’ meeting, fixing an agenda, representing the company in a conflict of interest or facilitating a specific transaction. The agent does not automatically take over all management. The order must be drafted with precision: which meeting, which documents, which decisions, which period and which reporting obligation? An overly broad request can look like an attempt to obtain control through interim proceedings.
The SARL has an especially useful statutory route for the meeting problem. Article L. 223-27 of the Commercial Code allows shareholders holding half of the shares to request a meeting and states that “Tout associé peut demander en justice la désignation d’un mandataire chargé de convoquer l’assemblée et de fixer son ordre du jour.” Article L. 223-26 also deals with the annual accounts and permits a person interested in the matter to ask the president of the competent court, acting in référé, to order the managers to convene the meeting or appoint a mandataire for that purpose when the meeting has not been held within the statutory period. A référé is an expedited interim proceeding. These provisions do not mean that every shareholder may obtain a general manager or a forced buy-out; they provide focused tools for convening and protecting statutory decision-making.
In an SAS, the articles should be checked for an internal route before a court application is drafted. Article L. 227-9 gives the articles a central role in identifying collective decisions and their conditions. A court may be asked for an urgent measure when the evidence shows a specific risk, but an SAS shareholder cannot assume that the SARL’s meeting provisions transfer automatically. The request should identify the company’s legal form, registered office, articles, decision blocked, attempted procedure and precise order sought. The choice of court and procedural basis should be checked for the company and dispute involved, particularly where a commercial court has jurisdiction or where an internal arbitration or mediation clause exists.
The general référé framework illustrates the difference between a disputed final remedy and a protective measure. Article 834 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that, in an emergency, the judge may order measures “qui ne se heurtent à aucune contestation sérieuse ou que justifie l’existence d’un différend”. Article 835 permits, even in the presence of a serious dispute, measures necessary to prevent imminent harm or end a manifestly unlawful disturbance. Its wording refers to measures “pour prévenir un dommage imminent, soit pour faire cesser un trouble manifestement illicite”. The application should therefore ask for a measure that can be implemented without deciding the entire ownership dispute: access to accounting records, preservation of assets, a meeting notice, a temporary prohibition on an identified transfer, or a defined representative for a defined corporate act.
A provisional administrator, or administrateur provisoire, is more intrusive. The administrator may temporarily replace or neutralise ordinary management within the scope of the order. The court expects evidence of an acute crisis, an impossible normal operation and a serious threat to the company’s interest. A decision of the Court of Appeal of Montpellier, RG no. 21/00981, describes the standard as follows: “La nomination d’un administrateur provisoire est une mesure exceptionnelle destinée à remédier à une situation de crise aigüe rendant impossible le fonctionnement normal d’une société et la menaçant d’un péril imminent.” The same decision refused the appointment where the company was still holding meetings, generating revenue and signing leases despite serious disagreement. The mere existence of a 50/50 split is not enough.
In practical terms, reserve the request for a situation such as an unstaffed or disputed management body, contradictory instructions that prevent essential payments, a real risk of asset dissipation, an inability to approve or file accounts, or a corporate activity that cannot continue without an authorised decision. Explain why a narrower mandataire ad hoc or injunction would not protect the company. Propose a limited mission, duration, reporting line and power list. The court may be more receptive to a temporary safeguard than to a request that transfers the business to a stranger without a defined endpoint.
When the company’s bank account is at risk, avoid unilateral self-help. A shareholder who still has online credentials should not empty the account, change all beneficiaries, transfer intellectual property or remove accounting records in anticipation of a lawsuit. Preserve the balance, ordinary payroll, tax payments and essential suppliers; notify the bank of the dispute through a controlled written channel; and obtain urgent advice on a targeted order if the other side is about to move assets. An emergency request should identify the account or asset, the threatened act, the evidence and the requested safeguard. General accusations of “fraud risk” are less effective than a dated and document-backed transaction alert.
The same discipline applies to digital systems. Preserve the company’s domain, accounting software, cloud storage, payroll access, customer database and corporate email. Record the administrator account, the current permissions and any attempted change. Do not delete the other shareholder’s access merely because the person is hostile unless the articles, employment or security rules and a lawful instruction support that action. If the company’s data is held by the foreign parent, identify the contractual owner and the location of the records. A mandataire or administrator cannot perform a useful mission if the books and credentials have disappeared.
The remedy request should also protect employees and creditors. The company, not the individual shareholder, owes wages, social contributions, tax and contractual payments. A dispute over who is right does not suspend those obligations. Attach payroll dates, URSSAF notices, tax deadlines and creditor demands. A court can assess urgency more readily when the application shows a concrete company-level consequence, while a founder’s loss of influence may be relevant but is not the same thing as corporate peril.
B. When can the court order dissolution, and how can the founder protect evidence and cash?
Judicial dissolution is the exit remedy of last resort because it ends the company and moves the matter into liquidation. Article 1844-7 of the Civil Code allows “la dissolution anticipée prononcée par le tribunal à la demande d’un associé pour justes motifs”, including “la mésentente entre associés paralysant le fonctionnement de la société”. The statutory text does not say that a 50/50 company must be dissolved after a disagreement. It requires just cause and a paralysis of the company’s functioning. The applicant must show a present and material inability to pursue the corporate purpose, not only a prediction that the relationship will become unpleasant.
The evidence should answer five questions. Which corporate decision or management function is legally necessary? Why can the ordinary organs no longer perform it? What attempts were made to use the articles, hold a meeting or obtain information? What actual harm has resulted or is imminent? Why is a negotiated exit, a mandataire, a provisional administrator or a targeted interim order insufficient? If the company can still trade, pay, contract and comply through an operating president, dissolution may be refused even where the shareholders have not spoken for months. If no accounts are approved, no organs meet, no records are delivered and no collective decision can be made, the case is materially stronger.
The 2019 Supreme Court decision cited above is useful because it links personal conflict to a series of objective failures. In no. 17-28.549, the court upheld the finding after the lower court identified missing meetings, unapproved accounts, missing management documents, absent collective decisions and management that was no longer assured. The decision describes the parties’ inability to work together and concludes that “la mésentente entre les associés paralysait le fonctionnement de la SCI”. A SCI is a French civil property company; the corporate form differs from an SAS or SARL, but the evidential logic is valuable. The applicant must connect the deadlock to company operation.
The 2017 decision provides the necessary caution. In no. 15-28.792, the court’s published text shows why the judge must examine whether the company still carries out its purpose. A leased asset, continuing revenue or a president who can still perform ordinary acts may undermine the claim that the company is objectively paralysed. Include those facts in the application and explain their limits. A company may collect rent or receive revenue while being unable to refinance, approve accounts, appoint a required director or sell an essential asset. The court needs the complete operating picture.
A failed meeting is not necessarily an invalid meeting, and an invalid resolution is not necessarily a dissolved company. Article 1844-10 of the Civil Code now provides that “La nullité des décisions sociales ne peut résulter que de la violation d’une disposition impérative de droit des sociétés” or a general contractual ground, and adds that, unless the law provides otherwise, “la violation des statuts ne constitue pas une cause de nullité”. The official Service Public summary of the corporate-nullity reform explains the practical change for social decisions. That rule should shape the pleading. If the problem is an irregular notice, ask whether the resolution can be challenged and what practical relief follows. Do not present every breach of an internal rule as automatic nullity or use a nullity claim as a substitute for proving operational paralysis.
For a shareholder who wants to leave rather than liquidate the company, the articles and any shareholders’ agreement should be analysed for a transfer, buy-sell, withdrawal, exclusion, call or put mechanism. A “shotgun” clause, for example, may require one party to name a price at which the other may buy or sell, but its validity and implementation depend on the wording, parties, corporate form and mandatory rules. A court will not invent a buy-out mechanism simply because a 50/50 relationship has failed. If the company or a shareholder must buy social rights and the price is disputed in a situation covered by Article 1843-4 of the Civil Code, that provision allows an expert to determine value and requires the expert to apply valuation rules in the articles or a binding agreement where they exist.
Article 1843-4 is not a universal right to force the other founder to buy. It is a valuation mechanism when the law or the parties’ valid instruments refer to it. The valuation file should contain the latest accounts, management accounts, debt, cash, tax exposures, customer concentration, intellectual property, employment liabilities, shareholder loans and contingent litigation. Foreign currency, intercompany balances and foreign-parent guarantees should be reconciled. An apparently attractive valuation can be misleading if the French company owes a shareholder loan, has unpaid URSSAF contributions or cannot access the parent’s cash after the dispute.
Preserve the company while the exit is negotiated or litigated. The following steps are usually more defensible than a unilateral takeover:
- Make a read-only copy of accounts, bank statements, tax notices, payroll files, contracts, customer orders, invoices, shareholder correspondence and the current articles.
- List bank accounts, signatories, payment limits, direct debits, tax mandates, payroll dates and essential suppliers, then mark the items that require a corporate vote.
- Keep ordinary payments and statutory filings current where authority is clear, while recording any disputed approval and seeking a targeted order before taking an exceptional step.
- Send a document-preservation notice to the shareholder, president, parent company, accountant, bank and relevant service providers where evidence may be deleted or altered.
- Do not publish a new Kbis, change the president, move the registered office or file a capital transaction on the assumption that the other 50% shareholder’s silence is consent.
- Prepare a proposed interim mission: meeting, documents, cash controls, account approval, valuation timetable and end date.
The registered office usually matters for procedure. A company with its registered office in Paris or Île-de-France may need a filing before the competent Paris or regional commercial court, depending on the legal form, the parties, the nature of the dispute and any special jurisdiction rule. Do not choose a court solely because the founder lives there or the parent company has its headquarters there. The application should state the registered office shown by the current company record, attach the relevant registration evidence and verify the procedural route before service. A Paris or Île-de-France section is useful when it identifies the court channel, practical filing timetable and documents to prepare; it should not turn a nationwide corporate dispute into a generic local article.
For a foreign founder, service and translation should be planned at the start. Identify the French company’s address for service, the co-shareholder’s personal or corporate address, the foreign parent’s representative and the email channels used for notices. Obtain a reliable French version of key foreign exhibits when necessary and keep a table linking each translation to the original. If the parent company must authorise a French proceeding, record the approving body, date, signatory and authority. These formal points do not prove the merits, but defects can delay an urgent application and give the other side an avoidable procedural argument.
When asking for a provisional administrator or a mandataire, ask for a mission the judge can supervise. The order should say whether the appointee can convene a meeting, access the bank, sign ordinary payments, obtain accounts, communicate with employees, instruct the accountant, negotiate a sale or report to the court. A general power to run the entire company can be disproportionate where a meeting notice would solve the problem. Conversely, a power limited to sending a notice may be inadequate if the president has stopped paying employees and the company faces immediate harm. Tailoring the mission is part of proving that the requested remedy protects the company rather than rewarding one shareholder.
The company’s interest also controls the treatment of related-party transactions during the deadlock. A shareholder should identify loans, management fees, IP licences, foreign-parent invoices, expense reimbursements and transfers to an affiliate. Preserve contracts, invoices, approvals and payment history. Do not label every intra-group payment abusive without examining its terms and performance. If a transaction is genuinely threatening the company, seek a narrowly framed preservation or injunction measure and explain the evidence. The court can assess an identified transaction more effectively than a broad claim that the foreign parent “controls everything”.
The annual accounts and tax position deserve particular attention because they can outlast the dispute. In an SARL, Article L. 223-26 requires the accounts and related documents to be submitted to the shareholders within the statutory framework and preserves a shareholder’s access to specified social documents concerning the last three financial years. In a company with a tied vote, request the documents in writing, identify missing items and ask the accountant to state what prevents finalisation. In an SAS, the articles and applicable statutory provisions must be read together; the same practical evidence remains useful even if the procedural route differs. Tax access through the DGFiP professional account can help show declarations and payments, but it does not cure a defective corporate approval.
Judicial dissolution must also account for creditors and employees. Dissolution is followed by liquidation, during which assets are realised, debts paid in the legal order and the remaining balance distributed. It is not a private transfer of the business to the founder who files. A foreign founder seeking dissolution should identify ongoing contracts, employees, leases, intellectual property, customer data, tax debts, shareholder loans and litigation. If the business remains viable under new governance, a sale or buy-out may protect value better than immediate liquidation. If the conflict has destroyed the decision-making structure and no workable exit exists, the evidence should say so clearly.
Use the remedy sequence as a decision table:
| Situation | Proportionate first request | Evidence to attach |
|---|---|---|
| Meeting was not convened or the agenda was withheld | Formal notice, statutory request or a targeted mandataire mission | Articles, request, delivery proof, proposed agenda and meeting deadline |
| One decision threatens payroll, tax or an essential contract | Urgent preservation or injunction measure | Official deadline, bank or accountant notice, contract and cash forecast |
| Management body cannot act and assets are at immediate risk | Limited provisional administrator request | Contradictory instructions, blocked payments, asset risk and why narrower relief fails |
| Both founders accept a negotiated separation | Protocol, valuation and transfer or buy-out mechanism | Articles, agreement, accounts, debt schedule and valuation assumptions |
| Current operation is objectively impossible and no exit works | Judicial dissolution for just cause | Longitudinal proof of paralysis, company harm and failed alternatives |
Keep the claim focused on the company, even if the shareholder conflict includes allegations of bad faith, diversion or discrimination. A court may later address liability or the validity of a transaction, but the urgent corporate application should identify the decision, the harm and the requested measure. The strongest application gives the judge a workable order that can be executed in France, monitored, translated for the foreign founder and brought to an end when the company has a functioning governance solution.
Conclusion
A tied 50/50 vote is a warning signal, not an automatic legal conclusion. In an SAS, the articles usually determine which decisions are collective, what majority is required and whether a casting or exit mechanism exists. In an SARL, statutory meeting and majority rules can sometimes prevent a first failed vote from becoming a permanent block, but the particular resolution and articles remain decisive. In either form, Article 1844 protects participation, while the company’s interest and the objective operation of its organs control the remedy.
The foreign founder should create a dated evidence file before escalating: articles, shareholder agreement, minutes, notices, exact vote count, bank and accounting records, tax and payroll deadlines, contracts, registration information and proof of the company-level consequence. A mandataire ad hoc or a focused référé may restore a meeting or protect an asset. A provisional administrator is exceptional and needs evidence of an acute crisis and imminent peril. Judicial dissolution under Article 1844-7 is available for just cause when the disagreement actually paralyses the company, but it ends the business and should be compared with a documented buy-out or transfer route.
The immediate objective is therefore not to “win” the tied vote by improvisation. It is to keep the French company compliant, preserve cash and evidence, identify the narrowest effective intervention and choose an exit only after testing whether the business can be governed. A foreign shareholder who prepares the corporate documents and procedural evidence in that order gives the court, the bank, the accountant and the other founder a clear basis for the next lawful step.
Need a quick opinion on your case
A telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from our firm can help you identify the right remedy for a 50/50 shareholder deadlock and protect the French company’s evidence, cash and decision-making process.
We can review the articles of association, shareholders’ agreement, meeting records, bank mandates, accounts and urgent payroll or tax deadlines before you seek a mandataire, interim order, buy-out or dissolution.
Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or use our contact page. For a Paris or Île-de-France matter, include the company’s registered office, the next procedural deadline and the documents already available.