A foreign founder, investment fund or international group can finance the purchase of a French company in several ways. The difficulty begins when the target company itself is asked to provide the cash, the loan or the guarantee that makes the purchase possible. In that situation, the transaction may fall within the French prohibition on financial assistance. The nationality of the buyer does not remove the risk. The decisive questions are what is being acquired, which company provides the support, what form the support takes, and whether the support was given in order to enable the purchase of that company’s own shares.

The central provision is Article L. 225-216 of the French Commercial Code. It covers an advance of funds, a loan and a security granted for a third party’s subscription or purchase of the company’s own shares. The rule also matters in a leveraged buyout, or LBO, where a new holding company borrows to acquire a target and the parties later expect the target’s cash flow to service the debt. A properly documented holding-company structure can be lawful; a target guarantee signed at closing may create a very different problem.

This guide is written for foreign businesses considering an acquisition in France. It distinguishes the statutory prohibition from ordinary group financing, explains the special position of a SAS (société par actions simplifiée, or simplified joint-stock company), and gives a practical closing checklist. It does not address an individual’s move to France or a property purchase. For the broader corporate-formation and cross-border company-law framework, see the firm’s French companies and international business-law hub. The analysis should be completed before the term sheet becomes an unconditional commitment.

I. Can a French company finance a foreign buyer’s acquisition of its shares?

A. What does the French financial-assistance prohibition cover?

Article L. 225-216 of the French Commercial Code is short, but its consequences are substantial. It provides: Une société ne peut avancer des fonds, accorder des prêts ou consentir une sûreté en vue de la souscription ou de l’achat de ses propres actions par un tiers. In English, a company cannot advance funds, grant a loan or give security in order to enable a third party to subscribe for or purchase its own shares. The text is linked here in its current version on Légifrance, Article L. 225-216.

Three forms of assistance are therefore expressly identified:

• An advance of funds: the target pays money, transfers cash or makes a payment that leaves the buyer with the means to complete the share purchase.
• A loan: the target lends to the buyer, to a new acquisition vehicle or to another person whose borrowing is economically dedicated to the purchase.
• A security: the target gives a guarantee, surety, mortgage or other security for acquisition debt. A security is not harmless merely because the target does not immediately pay cash; it exposes the target’s assets or credit to the acquisition financing.

The phrase “in order to” is the practical centre of the analysis. A lawyer reviewing the file will not look only at the label placed on a transfer. The review normally follows the funds, the timing and the contractual purpose. A payment made shortly before completion, a guarantee included in the acquisition facility, a pledge over target assets, or a side letter linking a target loan to the sale may reveal the prohibited purpose. The same analysis can apply where the buyer is a foreign parent, a French subsidiary, a newly incorporated holding company or an acquisition vehicle controlled by the foreign group.

The prohibition is not a general rule that prevents a French company from doing business with a shareholder, a parent company or an overseas group. Ordinary trading terms, a genuine working-capital facility and a properly priced service agreement must be examined under their own rules. The difficulty is the connection with the acquisition of the target’s own shares. If the target’s cash or credit is the bridge that permits the buyer to pay the seller, the arrangement deserves immediate escalation.

The distinction between a real statutory trigger and a merely suspicious sequence of events appears in Cass. com., 12 June 2019, no. 16-25.025. The Cour de cassation, France’s highest court for private and commercial matters, stated in the case before it that the transaction ne constituait pas une avance de fonds faite par la société Résidéa, ni un prêt par elle accordé en vue de la souscription ou de l’achat de ses propres actions, de sorte qu’elle ne pouvait, à ce titre, constituer une faute de gestion commise par M. Q…, en qualité de dirigeant de la société Résidéa. The decision is useful because it prevents overreach: a transaction cannot be treated as financial assistance without identifying an actual advance or loan by the relevant company and the required acquisition purpose.

A Paris Court of Appeal order also reproduced the statutory wording in CA Paris, 7 September 2023, no. 23/00045, in a dispute involving a contested dividend and a proposed conservatory seizure. The court quoted Article L. 225-216 and then examined whether the alleged claim and the causal link were sufficiently established. That procedural decision is not a substitute for a transaction opinion, but it illustrates why a party cannot simply assert “financial assistance” and skip the evidence: the purpose, the company’s act and the resulting loss must all be connected.

For a foreign buyer, the safest early test is a four-column funds-flow table:

• who receives the acquisition debt;
• who pays the seller and at what stage;
• which entity gives each guarantee, pledge or undertaking; and
• which cash flows are expected to repay the debt after completion.

If the target appears in the third column as guarantor of the debt used to purchase its own shares, or in the first two columns as lender or payer, the structure should be stopped for legal review. Calling the payment an “intercompany advance”, “vendor support”, “completion facility” or “management fee” does not change the economic purpose if the amount is being used to buy the target’s shares.

B. Does the rule apply to a SAS, a subsidiary or a foreign buyer?

The corporate form must be checked before the acquisition documents are drafted. A SAS is a société par actions simplifiée, a flexible French joint-stock company commonly used by foreign groups. Article L. 227-1 of the Commercial Code makes compatible rules governing sociétés anonymes, or SAs (public limited companies), applicable to a SAS, while listing specific exclusions. The current SAS chapter on Légifrance places Article L. 225-216 outside the listed exclusion for Articles L. 225-17 to L. 225-126. The resulting application to a SAS is a legal inference from the statutory cross-reference, and the precise transaction should still be checked against the current text and the company’s documents.

The SAS’s internal governance does not disappear because the president can sign for the company. Under Article L. 227-5, the articles of association determine how the SAS is managed. Under Article L. 227-6, the company is represented toward third parties by its president, who has extensive powers to act in the company’s name within the corporate purpose. That external representation rule does not make an unlawful transaction lawful internally. The board-equivalent approval, shareholder decision, committee consent or financial limit required by the articles must be identified and documented.

Article L. 227-8 adds an important risk layer: the rules governing the civil liability of SA board members and members of a management board apply to the president and directors of a SAS. The statutory text is direct: Les règles fixant la responsabilité des membres du conseil d’administration et du directoire des sociétés anonymes sont applicables au président et aux dirigeants de la société par actions simplifiée. A foreign group cannot assume that the use of a flexible SAS eliminates personal exposure for a manager who signs an unsupported guarantee or cash transfer.

An SA has a different internal approval framework. Article L. 225-35 requires the board of directors to determine the company’s business policy in accordance with its corporate interest and provides a specific authorization regime for guarantees, sureties and similar commitments. For a group guarantee, the board may in some circumstances authorize guarantees for controlled companies on an annual or global basis. That power is not a blank cheque for the target to guarantee the acquisition of its own shares. The acquisition-purpose prohibition remains a separate question.

A SARL is different again. A SARL is a société à responsabilité limitée, or private limited-liability company. Its equity is divided into parts sociales rather than the “actions” referred to in Article L. 225-216. That does not mean every SARL financing structure is safe. Article L. 223-21 provides, on pain of contractual nullity, that managers and individual members cannot borrow from the company or have the company guarantee their commitments to third parties, subject to the statutory financial-business exception. The purpose of the acquisition, the identity of the borrower and the relationship between the buyer and the SARL must therefore be analysed under the SARL rules, corporate-interest rules and general contract law.

The buyer’s foreign nationality is not the legal dividing line. The relevant questions are the target’s corporate form, the location and governing law of the target’s acts, the identity of the borrower and the purpose of the support. A US fund, a UK parent, a Singapore acquisition vehicle and a French holding company can all be “third parties” for the purpose of the target’s own-share purchase. The same is true if the target is a subsidiary of a foreign group. The group chart should therefore identify direct and indirect control using the tests in Article L. 233-3 of the Commercial Code, including majority voting rights, voting agreements, de facto control and the power to appoint or remove management.

Control and group membership also bring corporate-interest questions. Article 1833 of the French Civil Code requires a company to be managed in its corporate interest while taking social and environmental issues into account. A target may expect a long-term benefit from joining an international group, but that expectation should be supported by evidence: a commercially priced service, an identifiable operational advantage, a documented integration plan or a proportionate guarantee. A bare statement that “the parent owns us” is not a substitute for the target’s own interest.

The 2026 decision of the Agen Court of Appeal shows how a cross-border group payment can become a personal-liability issue even outside a classic acquisition guarantee. In CA Agen, 11 March 2026, no. 24/00590, the court described an intercompany cash advance in these terms: Une avance de trésorerie désigne un prêt, ou une avance de fonds, qu’une société accorde à une autre société, généralement appartenant au même groupe, afin de lui permettre de faire face à un manque temporaire de liquidités. It then held, on the facts and evidence before it, that the manager was personally liable for the unpaid balance: Par conséquent, il est personnellement débiteur de la somme restant due, soit 5 688,30 Euros, indépendamment du fait que c’est la société [3] qui a bénéficié des avances. A foreign destination and a group relationship did not replace authorization, accounting evidence or repayment discipline.

II. What can a foreign investor do when the target offers financing or guarantees?

A. Which exceptions and alternative structures can be documented?

Article L. 225-216 contains two express exceptions. It does not apply to the ordinary business operations of credit institutions and financing companies. It also excludes transactions intended to allow employees to acquire shares in the company, a subsidiary or a company within a group savings plan. The current text sets out both exceptions immediately after the prohibition. Neither exception is a normal route for a foreign founder or an overseas investment fund acquiring a French business. A target that is not itself carrying on regulated lending as an ordinary activity should not rely on the banking exception.

The most practical alternative is to separate the acquisition finance from the target. A buyer or a newly created holding company borrows from the bank, receives equity from the foreign investors and purchases the target’s shares. The target does not pay the seller, lend the purchase price or guarantee the acquisition facility at completion. This is the structure described in the official Service Public Entreprendre guide to the legal structure of a business takeover: a holding company can contract the borrowing needed for the acquisition, while dividends from the acquired company may later help service that debt. The guide also distinguishes a purchase of shares from a purchase of a business or assets.

This separation needs to be real, not cosmetic. The acquisition facility should identify the holding company as borrower. The buyer’s equity contribution should be traceable. Security should normally be taken over the buyer’s or holding company’s assets, including shares already owned by that entity where legally and contractually appropriate, rather than over the target’s operating assets for the purpose of buying the target. The seller may negotiate a vendor loan, deferred consideration, escrow or a warranty package with the buyer. Those arrangements must be reviewed for their own legal and tax consequences, but they do not turn the target into the financier of its own sale.

After completion, the target may distribute dividends to its shareholder if the statutory conditions are met. That is not an automatic route around Article L. 225-216. Article L. 232-11 of the Commercial Code defines distributable profit, permits certain distributions from available reserves and prohibits a distribution that would reduce equity below the capital and non-distributable reserves. Article L. 232-12 requires approval of the annual accounts and a finding that distributable sums exist before the general meeting determines the dividend; it also regulates interim dividends.

The legal distinction is therefore between a lawful dividend decided after completion and a payment engineered in advance to fund the purchase price. The documents, meeting minutes, balance sheet and cash-flow forecast should support the first description. A dividend that is only a label for a pre-arranged transfer can create a dividend, corporate-interest or financial-assistance challenge. In the 2023 Paris case cited above, the court examined the connection between a large dividend, the purchase price and the alleged loss rather than treating the label “dividend” as conclusive.

Other post-completion group transactions can be considered when they have a separate business purpose. A target may provide services to its parent, receive services from the group, make an ordinary sale or grant working-capital support to an affiliate. The file should show market terms, a business need, credit analysis, repayment terms, adequate security where appropriate and a benefit to the target. It should also show that the transaction was not agreed as part of the purchase-price funding. The more closely the transfer follows completion and the more directly it repays acquisition debt, the more carefully the purpose and sequence must be documented.

Related-party approval is a separate safeguard. For a SAS, Article L. 227-10 requires a report on certain agreements made directly or through an intermediary with the president, a director, a shareholder holding more than 10% of voting rights or a controlling company. The associates decide on that report, and the provision states that an unapproved agreement may still produce effects while the interested person, president and other directors may bear the damaging consequences for the company. This procedure does not cure a transaction that is prohibited by Article L. 225-216. It helps expose the conflict and preserve an approval trail; it is not a legalization mechanism.

The articles of association and authority chain must be checked in parallel with the statutory prohibition. In CA Paris, 25 June 2025, no. 24/12067, concerning a guarantee granted by an SA with a management board, the court stated: Il en résulte que si le président du directoire a le pouvoir d’exécuter une décision prise par le directoire, le cas échéant, pour certains actes au nombre desquels le cautionnement, en vertu d’une autorisation donnée au directoire par le conseil de surveillance, il ne peut, en l’absence d’une telle décision, décider par lui-même de consentir un engagement de caution au nom de la société que s’il a reçu du directoire délégation pour ce faire. The court later added: Il s’ensuit que le cautionnement litigieux est entaché de nullité. The same decision also considered the protection of a good-faith bank under the rules applicable to the dispute. The practical lesson is that authority, corporate purpose, third-party reliance and the substantive prohibition must be reviewed separately.

Tax planning cannot replace the corporate analysis. The official BOFiP guidance on participation income and parent-subsidiary treatment, published through the French tax administration, addresses eligibility and conditions for participation income. It does not authorize a target to fund its own sale. A foreign group should model withholding tax, corporate income tax, interest limitation, transfer pricing and treaty questions separately, and then confirm that the chosen tax result rests on a transaction that is valid under company law.

For the acquisition vehicle itself, the legal and tax file should be consistent with the funding documents. The official Service Public page on the French LBO structure explains that a holding company is created to borrow and acquire the target, and that cash flow may later move through dividends. That description is a starting point, not a substitute for a funds-flow opinion. It should be tested against the target’s articles, solvency, distributable reserves, existing debt covenants, employee rights and any regulated activity.

B. What are the consequences of an unlawful loan or guarantee?

The consequences must be described with care because several legal routes can overlap. A transaction may be challenged as a breach of an imperative company-law provision, as a contract that does not satisfy the conditions of validity, as a management fault or as a criminal offence applicable to the relevant company and officer. The post-2025 reform of French company-law nullities also matters. Article 1844-10 of the Civil Code, in force since 1 October 2025, provides that the nullity of social decisions may result from the violation of an imperative company-law provision or a general contractual ground, while a breach of the articles is not, unless the law provides otherwise, by itself a ground for nullity.

For the underlying contract, Article 1178 of the Civil Code provides that a contract that does not satisfy the conditions required for validity is null, that the judge generally pronounces the nullity unless the parties agree, and that an annulled contract is treated as never having existed. It also provides for restitution of performed obligations and preserves a possible damages claim for the injured party. The result in a particular financial-assistance dispute depends on the legal basis pleaded, the date of the acts, the type of entity, the parties’ knowledge and the transitional rules. A transaction should not be described as automatically void without that analysis.

There can also be a direct criminal risk for officers of an SA. Article L. 242-24 of the Commercial Code states that the president, directors or general managers of an SA who carry out, in the company’s name, operations prohibited by the first paragraph of Article L. 225-216 are liable to the same 150,000-euro fine specified in that article. The provision is expressly drafted for an SA; a SAS or SARL requires a separate check of the applicable criminal text and any other offence. That qualification is important for a foreign group whose French operating company is not an SA.

Personal civil liability is a separate concern. Article L. 225-251 makes SA directors and the general manager responsible, individually or jointly according to the circumstances, for statutory breaches, breaches of the articles and management faults. Through Article L. 227-8, the same responsibility framework reaches the president and directors of a SAS. The Cass. com., 25 March 2020, no. 18-11.684 decision is a useful reminder that a group-support allegation still requires proof of causation. The Cour de cassation held that the reasons relied upon were impropres à caractériser le lien de causalité devant exister entre la faute de gestion retenue et l’insuffisance d’actif. That does not make group support safe; it means that the claimant must establish the management fault and the loss link instead of relying on a general accusation.

In a live deal, the buyer, lender, seller, target and directors should therefore ask four consequence questions:

• Could the lender lose the benefit of the target’s guarantee or security, or be required to return or unwind a payment?
• Could the target seek restitution, damages or an accounting adjustment from a buyer, parent or director?
• Could a liquidator, creditor, minority shareholder or insolvency officeholder challenge the transaction after the target becomes distressed?
• Could a director or officer face personal civil or criminal exposure because the approval, purpose or solvency review was missing?

Third-party good faith is not a complete insurance policy. The 2025 Paris decision illustrates the tension: the court examined whether the bank was in good faith and whether it could rely on the company’s apparent authority, while also discussing the missing internal decision. A lender should not assume that a signature by the French president eliminates every challenge. It should request the articles, corporate approvals, delegation, legal opinion and evidence that the target is not guaranteeing its own acquisition debt.

A foreign investor should complete the following checklist before signing or drawing the acquisition facility:

1. Map the entities. Identify the seller, buyer, acquisition holding company, target, operating subsidiaries, parent company, guarantors and any nominee. Confirm which entity owns the shares at each stage.
2. Map the purpose. Read the facility agreement, term sheet, escrow agreement, vendor loan and side letters together. Record whether any target cash, target guarantee or target asset is required to pay for the target’s shares.
3. Classify the company. Confirm whether the target is a SAS, SA, SARL, branch or another form. A branch is not a separate legal person from its foreign company, so the authority and liability analysis may move to the foreign head office.
4. Review authority. Obtain current articles, the Kbis and corporate resolutions. A Kbis is the official extract from the commercial and companies register; it is a public identity document for a registered legal entity. Check the president’s appointment, delegations, guarantee limits and any reserved matters.
5. Verify the registry trail. The INPI guidance on documents proving a business’s existence explains the role of the Kbis and the newer RNE attestation. The RNE, or Registre national des entreprises, is the National Business Register operated through the INPI, the National Institute of Industrial Property. The greffe is the court registry responsible for validating and delivering the Kbis. Compare the registry data with the deal documents.
6. Check public notices and liabilities. Search the BODACC, the Bulletin officiel des annonces civiles et commerciales, for insolvency and corporate notices. Check tax, social-security and employment exposure, including URSSAF, the French network responsible for collecting social-security contributions, when the target employs staff. These checks do not decide financial-assistance legality, but they reveal whether the target can bear a guarantee or dividend distribution.
7. Test solvency and consideration. Obtain recent accounts, cash-flow forecasts, debt covenants and a downside case. A guarantee that leaves the target unable to fund payroll, tax or suppliers can create a corporate-interest and director-liability problem even when Article L. 225-216 is not the decisive provision.
8. Separate completion from post-completion. Put acquisition borrowing at the buyer or holding-company level. If dividends, services or refinancing are expected later, specify their independent legal basis, timing, approvals and financial conditions. Do not pre-document a target transfer as a disguised repayment of acquisition debt.
9. Check related-party rules. Identify agreements with the foreign parent, the buyer, the president, directors and shareholders. For a SAS, prepare the Article L. 227-10 report where applicable, but do not treat that report as a cure for prohibited financial assistance.
10. Preserve cross-border evidence. Keep certified corporate extracts, powers of attorney, translations, beneficial-owner information, bank KYC documents and signed resolutions. The file should show who decided, what information was available and why the target received a proportionate business benefit.

The formalities after a share purchase also require planning. The official Service Public page on signing a final business-transfer deed explains that a transfer of shares can involve registration with the tax service and that the deed should allocate responsibility for the applicable registration duty. The foreign buyer should also coordinate updates to the company’s registry information, beneficial-owner declarations and bank mandates. The INPI’s RNE information page explains that the register is fed through the one-stop shop for business formalities and that company events such as changes and cessation are declared there. None of those filings replaces the substantive review of the acquisition funding, but inconsistent filings can make a later dispute harder to defend.

Finally, the wording of the legal opinion should match the facts. It should not say merely that the target is “part of the group” or that the foreign buyer is “independent”. It should identify the target’s acts, the acquisition purpose, the corporate approvals, the source of repayment, the intended security package and the reasons the structure falls outside or complies with Article L. 225-216. If the answer depends on a dividend, the opinion should verify distributable sums under Articles L. 232-11 and L. 232-12. If it depends on a guarantee, it should verify both substantive corporate benefit and signing authority.

Conclusion

A French company should not finance a foreign buyer’s purchase of its own shares by advancing the price, lending to the acquisition vehicle or guaranteeing the acquisition debt. Article L. 225-216 is drafted around the company’s own shares and applies by its terms without a nationality exception. For a SAS, the statutory cross-reference in Article L. 227-1 generally brings the rule into the analysis, while the articles, the president’s authority and the director-liability regime remain critical. For a SARL, different prohibitions and corporate-interest rules must be applied to parts sociales.

The workable route is usually a genuine separation: the buyer or a holding company raises the acquisition financing, completes the purchase and later receives only lawful, properly approved distributions or services. The target’s cash flow can be relevant to the economic model, but it cannot be used as a substitute for a target-level guarantee or loan at closing. Before signing, a foreign founder or group should obtain a funds-flow review, registry and liability checks, a corporate-authority opinion and a tax analysis that does not assume corporate-law validity.

The legal sources checked for this guide include the current versions of Articles L. 225-216, L. 227-1, L. 227-5, L. 227-6, L. 227-8, L. 227-10, L. 223-21, L. 232-11, L. 232-12, L. 242-24, Articles 1833, 1178 and 1844-10 of the Civil Code, and the cited decisions of the Cour de cassation and courts of appeal. The rules should be rechecked if the transaction is signed after a legislative change or if the target enters financial distress.

Need a quick opinion on your case.

A telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm can help you test the acquisition funds flow, target guarantee and corporate approvals.

Call Maître Reda Kohen at +33 6 46 60 58 22 or use the firm’s contact form.