You live in London, New York, Dubai or Singapore, and the news from Paris is bad: your French subsidiary is running out of cash. The local director asks for an urgent wire from the foreign parent, the Paris accountant mentions an increase of the share capital, and somebody drops the words preferential subscription rights, depositary certificate and single portal. For a foreign shareholder, this is unfamiliar territory. In many common-law systems, putting more money into your own subsidiary is a private matter between parent and child. In France, it is a formal corporate operation governed by the Commercial Code, with a shareholder vote, individual subscription forms, a bank certificate proving the money arrived, a filing with the trade and companies register and a new Kbis extract — the official company identity document issued from the register. This guide explains, for the non-resident shareholder, how to increase the capital of a French SAS, SASU, SARL or EURL from abroad: who votes and what happens to the preferential rights of the other shareholders, how the money reaches the company by cash wire or by setting off a shareholder loan, how the operation is registered, and how the same tool rescues a subsidiary that has lost half of its capital. The companion guides to read alongside are the formation guide for foreign founders, the half-capital-loss guide and the shareholder-loan guide, because a capital increase is often the second half of one of those stories.

I. Your French Company Votes a Capital Increase While You Live Abroad: Who Decides, Who Can Subscribe and How the Money Arrives

A. Who Votes More Shares Into Existence From Abroad, and What Happens to the Preferential Rights of Each Shareholder?

Creating new shares is a decision of the shareholders, not of the director. For companies limited by shares — the public limited company (SA) and, by reference, the simplified joint-stock company (SAS, or SASU where there is a single shareholder), the form most foreign founders choose — Article L225-129 of the Commercial Code provides that « L’assemblée générale extraordinaire est seule compétente pour décider, sur le rapport du conseil d’administration ou du directoire, une augmentation de capital immédiate ou à terme », which means that only the extraordinary general meeting (EGM), voting on a report from the board, can decide an immediate or deferred capital increase. The SAS has no board of directors in the SA sense, but the competence rule travels with the SA regime wherever the articles of association (statuts) do not organise the decision differently, so in practice the foreign shareholder votes the increase in EGM or, in a SASU, records it in a sole-shareholder decision. The same article adds a completion clock: « L’augmentation de capital doit, sous réserve des dispositions prévues aux articles L. 225-129-2 et L. 225-138 , être réalisée dans le délai de cinq ans à compter de cette décision ou de cette délégation », meaning the increase must be completed within five years of the vote or delegation, as verified on Légifrance on 19 October 2026. Where the shareholders do not want to fix every detail immediately, Article L225-129-2 of the Commercial Code allows the EGM to delegate its competence to the board or management, but states that « Lorsque l’assemblée générale extraordinaire délègue au conseil d’administration ou au directoire sa compétence pour décider de l’augmentation de capital, elle fixe la durée, qui ne peut excéder vingt-six mois, durant laquelle cette délégation peut être utilisée et le plafond global de cette augmentation », meaning the delegation must fix a duration of no more than twenty-six months and an overall ceiling. For a foreign parent that cannot easily reconvene an EGM from abroad at short notice, voting a delegation with a ceiling inside the twenty-six-month window is the flexible route; the board or president then calls the increase when the cash is actually needed.

The second question the EGM must settle is who gets to subscribe the new shares. French law protects existing shareholders with a preferential subscription right (droit préférentiel de souscription, universally shortened to DPS): Article L225-132 of the Commercial Code states that « Les actionnaires ont, proportionnellement au montant de leurs actions, un droit de préférence à la souscription des actions de numéraire émises pour réaliser une augmentation de capital », meaning each shareholder has a preferential right, in proportion to the shares held, to subscribe cash shares issued in a capital increase. The statute adds that « Les actionnaires peuvent renoncer à titre individuel à leur droit préférentiel », meaning shareholders can individually waive that right — the mechanism a foreign parent uses when a minority co-founder or a French partner agrees not to follow the increase so the parent can take the whole issue. Where the waiver must be imposed rather than negotiated, Article L225-135 of the Commercial Code allows the meeting that decides or authorises the increase to remove the preferential right for all or part of the issue, voting on a board report and, depending on the route, a special report from the statutory auditor (commissaire aux comptes, usually shortened to CAC). And where the money must come from one named person — typically the foreign holding company wiring funds from abroad — Article L225-138 of the Commercial Code provides that « L’assemblée générale qui décide l’augmentation du capital peut la réserver à une ou plusieurs personnes nommément désignées ou catégories de personnes répondant à des caractéristiques déterminées », meaning the EGM can reserve the increase to one or more named persons or to categories meeting defined characteristics, removing the preferential right for that purpose. In a Franco-foreign joint venture, this reserved increase is the standard tool for letting the foreign partner inject the rescue cash alone; the named beneficiaries do not take part in the vote, and the quorum and majority are calculated after deducting their shares.

Foreign investors should know that French courts read the DPS strictly as a shareholder’s right — and that holding American Depositary Receipts is not being a shareholder. On 26 November 2025 (appeal no. 24-15.626, published in the Bulletin, full decision on courdecassation.fr), the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation recalled that « selon l’article L. 225-132 du code de commerce, les actionnaires des sociétés par actions ont, proportionnellement au montant de leurs actions, un droit de préférence à la souscription des actions de numéraire émises pour réaliser une augmentation de capital », and drew the consequence: « Il résulte de ce texte que le droit préférentiel de souscription appartient aux actionnaires de la société qui procède à l’augmentation de capital », meaning the preferential subscription right belongs to the shareholders of the company carrying out the increase. Applied to an investor holding American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) over Alcatel-Lucent shares, the Court held that « Le détenteur d’ADR, qui n’a souscrit qu’à ces seuls titres de créances émis par le dépositaire, n’est juridiquement titulaire de droits qu’à l’encontre de ce dernier », meaning the ADR holder, who subscribed only to debt instruments issued by the depositary bank, holds rights only against that bank — and therefore cannot claim shareholder status to exercise the DPS attached to the underlying shares until the shares themselves are acquired. The lesson for a foreign group is practical: if the parent holds its French subsidiary through depositary receipts, nominee layers or an unrecorded beneficial interest, it must first appear as the registered shareholder on the French share register before it can subscribe, waive or benefit from any DPS arrangement.

In the private limited company (SARL, or EURL for a single member), the logic is the same but the plumbing is simpler: there are no negotiable DPS instruments, and the increase is voted by the members. Article L223-32 of the Commercial Code governs cash increases in a SARL and states that « Ces parts sont obligatoirement libérées, lors de la souscription, d’un quart au moins de leur valeur nominale », meaning the new units must be paid up by at least one quarter of their nominal value at subscription, adding that « La libération du surplus doit intervenir, en une ou plusieurs fois, dans le délai de cinq ans à compter du jour où l’augmentation du capital est devenue définitive », meaning the balance must be paid within five years of the day the increase became final, as verified on Légifrance on 19 October 2026. One trap is specific to the SARL and catches foreign sole members who topped up the company informally: Article L223-7 of the Commercial Code provides that « Toutefois, le capital social doit être intégralement libéré avant toute souscription de nouvelles parts sociales à libérer en numéraire, à peine de nullité de l’opération », meaning the existing capital must be fully paid up before any subscription of new cash units, failing which the operation is void. Before voting the increase, check the balance of the initial capital account: if the original 10,000 euros were only one-fifth paid, the unpaid balance must be called first, or the whole rescue increase can be annulled.

B. How Does the Money Actually Reach the Company: Cash Wire From Abroad or Set-Off of Your Shareholder Loan?

French law recognises two ways of paying for new shares, and the foreign shareholder will use one or the other depending on whether fresh money crosses the border. The classic route is cash (numéraire): the subscriber signs a subscription form (bulletin de souscription) and wires the funds to a blocked account opened with a bank, the Caisse des dépôts or a notary acting as depositary. Article L225-146 of the Commercial Code states that « Les souscriptions et les versements sont constatés par un certificat du dépositaire établi, au moment du dépôt des fonds, sur présentation des bulletins de souscription », meaning subscriptions and payments are evidenced by a depositary certificate drawn up when the funds are deposited, against presentation of the subscription forms. From abroad, this means the parent’s treasury team wires euros to the French blocked account with the reference of the subscriber, collects the certificate, and only then can the company acknowledge the increase; a simple intra-group SWIFT confirmation or a parent-company board minute is not a substitute for the depositary certificate. One precondition applies to every cash issue: Article L225-131 of the Commercial Code provides that « Le capital doit être intégralement libéré avant toute émission d’actions nouvelles à libérer en numéraire », meaning the existing capital must be fully paid up before any issue of new shares payable in cash — the SA and SAS twin of the SARL nullity rule above, so the same balance check is required whatever the vehicle.

The second route avoids moving money at all: converting into capital a debt the company already owes the foreign shareholder — typically the balance of a shareholder current account (compte courant d’associé, the intra-group loan described in the shareholder-loan guide). French law calls this liberation by set-off (compensation de créances), and the same Article L225-146 of the Commercial Code provides that « Les libérations d’actions par compensation de créances liquides et exigibles sur la société sont constatées par un certificat du notaire ou du commissaire aux comptes de la société, ou, s’il n’en a pas été désigné, d’un commissaire aux comptes désigné à cet effet selon les modalités prévues aux articles L. 225-228 et L. 22-10-66 », meaning shares paid up by setting off liquid and due claims against the company are evidenced by a certificate from the notary or the statutory auditor, or a specially appointed auditor. Three words do the heavy lifting here: the claim must be liquid (a fixed, determined amount) and due (exigible, its term expired or payable on demand with demand made), so a loan whose maturity lies two years ahead, or a disputed management-fee invoice the subsidiary has never accepted, cannot be converted until it is made due and undisputed. In practice the foreign parent signs a set-off agreement (convention de compensation), the auditor verifies that the current-account balance is due and matches the subscribed amount, and the certificate replaces the bank depositary certificate. For exchange-control and tax paperwork, the operation is still a cross-border event recorded in the parent’s books, even though no cash crosses the border that day.

The third route — paying for shares with something other than money or a debt, such as the parent’s equipment, software, patents or the business contributed from abroad (apports en nature) — is the most audited, because overvalued contributions inflate the capital that creditors rely on. Article L225-147 of the Commercial Code requires that « En cas d’apports en nature ou de stipulation d’avantages particuliers, un ou plusieurs commissaires aux apports sont désignés à l’unanimité des actionnaires ou, à défaut, par décision de justice », meaning that for contributions in kind or special benefits, one or more contributions auditors are appointed unanimously by the shareholders or, failing that, by court order. Their report values each contribution under their own responsibility, and the EGM votes on it with the contributor abstaining. Foreign groups frequently ask whether the subsidiary’s usual accountant or auditor can simply sign the valuation — and the Court of Cassation answered no, harshly, on 28 May 2026 (appeal no. 25-13.211, published in the Bulletin, full decision on courdecassation.fr): « Il résulte de la combinaison des articles L. 225-149-3, dans sa rédaction alors applicable, L. 225-147, L. 227-1 et L. 822-11-3, devenu L. 821-31, du code de commerce que les fonctions de commissaire aux apports sont, à peine de nullité des délibérations prises au vu de son rapport, incompatibles avec toute activité ou tout acte de nature à porter atteinte à son indépendance à l’égard de l’une des parties à l’opération d’apport ou d’une personne qui la contrôle ou qu’elle contrôle », meaning the contributions-auditor role is, failing which the resolutions voted on the report are void, incompatible with any activity or act capable of harming independence towards any party to the contribution or any person controlling or controlled by it. The Court added the concrete application: « Il en est ainsi lorsque le commissaire aux apports a, avant sa désignation, accompli, pour le compte de la société dont les titres sont apportés, une mission d’expertise-comptable de cette société », meaning this is the case where the auditor previously performed an accounting assignment for the company whose shares are contributed. A foreign parent that contributes shares of another group company valued using figures prepared by that company’s own accountant must therefore appoint a genuinely independent contributions auditor — or watch the whole increase, and the engagement letter itself, annulled.

II. Your Capital Increase Becomes Real Against Creditors and Courts: Registration, Publication and the Rescue After Heavy Losses

A. How Do You Register the New Capital and Get the Updated Kbis Without Flying to France?

Voting and paying are only half the operation. Until the increase is published and entered on the trade and companies register (registre du commerce et des sociétés, universally shortened to RCS), the company cannot prove its new capital to banks, landlords or the tax office, and the directors sign contracts in the name of a capital figure that no longer exists. The closing sequence runs in a fixed order: the president or board records the subscriptions and payments, the EGM (or the sole shareholder) acknowledges that the increase is final and amends the capital clause of the articles of association, and the company files the whole package — amended statuts, minutes, depositary or auditor certificate, and the updated beneficial-owner information where the capital shift changed control — through the single online portal (guichet unique) operated by the National Institute for Industrial Property (INPI, Institut national de la propriété industrielle), which routes the file to the registry clerk of the commercial court (greffe du tribunal de commerce, shortened to greffe) of the registered office. The greffe issues the new Kbis extract showing the increased capital, and the operation is advertised in the official bulletin of civil and commercial announcements (BODACC, Bulletin officiel des annonces civiles et commerciales), the public journal in which company creations, capital changes and insolvency openings must appear. From abroad, the foreign shareholder organises this through dated powers of attorney given to the French president, lawyer or accountant, with sworn translations where the greffe requires them; nothing in the sequence requires the shareholder’s physical presence in France, but everything requires a signed original or a qualified electronic signature on each corporate document.

Two information duties frame the filing. First, the shareholders themselves must be told about the issue in a formal notice: Article R225-120 of the Commercial Code provides that « Lorsqu’une émission d’actions nouvelles ou de valeurs mobilières donnant accès au capital est susceptible d’entraîner une augmentation de capital, les actionnaires sont informés de cette émission et de ses modalités par un avis contenant notamment les indications suivantes », meaning that where an issue of new shares or securities giving access to capital may lead to a capital increase, shareholders are informed of the issue and its terms by a notice containing, among others, the company name, the amount of the increase, and the opening and closing dates of the subscription period, as verified on Légifrance on 19 October 2026. A foreign majority shareholder that quietly wires money and amends the statuts without serving that notice hands every minority shareholder a ready-made annulment argument. Second, the tax treatment of the paperwork is lighter than most foreigners fear: Article 635 of the General Tax Code lists the company deeds that must be registered within one month, but expressly carves out « Les actes constatant la transformation d’une société et ceux constatant l’augmentation de son capital, à l’exception des augmentations de capital en numéraire et par incorporation de bénéfices, de réserves ou de provisions et des augmentations nettes de capital de société à capital variable constatées à la clôture d’un exercice », meaning deeds recording capital increases are excluded from compulsory registration where the increase is in cash, by capitalising profits, reserves or provisions, or a net variable-capital increase recorded at year-end. In plain terms, a standard cash increase funded from abroad pays no registration duty on the deed itself — which is not the same as being exempt from the RCS filing, the BODACC notice and their registry fees. And where a report or formality is missing or defective, the Code offers a targeted remedy rather than automatic nullity: Article L225-149-3 of the Commercial Code channels the listed reports and formalities of capital increases towards « une injonction de faire suivant les modalités définies aux articles L. 238-1 et L. 238-6 », meaning a court injunction to do what was omitted, under the procedure of Articles L238-1 and L238-6 — a minority shareholder or the public prosecutor can force the company to complete the missing step, which is faster and cheaper for everyone than relitigating the whole increase.

B. When Does a Capital Increase Rescue a Subsidiary That Has Lost Half Its Capital, and How Do Courts Police the Accordion Operation?

The most dramatic use of a capital increase from abroad is the rescue of a subsidiary whose equity has fallen below half of its share capital — the alarm-bell procedure described in the half-capital-loss guide. One of the lawful cures is rebuilding equity through a cash increase or a set-off of the parent’s current account, and where losses exceed the capital itself, groups combine the two moves into a single accordion operation (coup d’accordéon): the EGM first reduces the capital to zero to wipe out the losses, then immediately increases it back with fresh money. French law authorises capital reductions on paper, since Article L225-204 of the Commercial Code states that « La réduction du capital est autorisée ou décidée par l’assemblée générale extraordinaire, qui peut déléguer au conseil d’administration ou au directoire, selon le cas, tous pouvoirs pour la réaliser », adding the constitutional limit of the operation: « En aucun cas, elle ne peut porter atteinte à l’égalité des actionnaires », meaning it can never infringe shareholder equality. But the accordion has a strict legal condition that foreign parents must understand before voting it, because getting the sequence wrong destroys the company instead of saving it.

The leading case is a cautionary tale for every majority shareholder tempted to use the rescue to squeeze out a minority. In the Intégrale affair, an EGM of a SAS held on 30 June 2015 voted to reduce the capital to zero and immediately increase it, formally maintaining the preferential subscription rights — then the majority shareholder subscribed the entire increase alone and emerged as the sole shareholder, while the minority holder who had not followed was wiped out. The minority went to the emergency judge (juge des référés), who suspended the resolutions recording the subscription of the whole increase by the majority and the resulting new capital. On 4 January 2023 (appeals nos. 21-10.609 and 21-12.515 joined, full decision on courdecassation.fr), the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation laid down the governing principle: « Vu les articles L. 210-2 et L. 224-2 du code de commerce » — having regard to those articles — « Il résulte de ces textes que la réduction à zéro du capital d’une société par actions n’est licite que si elle est décidée sous la condition suspensive d’une augmentation effective de son capital amenant celui-ci à un montant au moins égal au montant minimum légal ou statutaire », meaning a reduction of a share company’s capital to zero is lawful only if decided subject to the condition precedent of an effective capital increase bringing capital back to at least the legal or statutory minimum. The Paris appeal court had reasoned that, since the emergency judge suspended only some resolutions, the minority holder had lost shareholder status by the time he sued — but the Court of Cassation quashed that analysis, holding that the appeal court had itself found « que l’augmentation du capital de la société Intégrale par la souscription d’actions nouvelles, dont la réalisation avait été suspendue, n’était pas effective, ce dont elle aurait dû déduire que la résolution décidant de la réduction à zéro du capital de la société ne pouvait, sauf à priver cette société de tout capital, légalement produire effet », meaning that where the court finds the new-share subscription whose completion was suspended was not effective, it must deduce that the resolution reducing the capital to zero could not lawfully take effect, since that would leave the company with no capital at all. For the foreign parent, the operational message is unforgiving: never let the reduction take effect before the fresh money is irrevocably subscribed and certified, keep the two resolutions legally linked by an express condition precedent, and treat a formally maintained DPS as a real right — give the minority genuine notice, a real subscription period and real bank details, because a DPS that exists on paper but cannot be exercised in practice is exactly what gets the operation suspended and then litigated for years.

Conclusion

Increasing the capital of a French subsidiary from abroad is an ordinary procedure, but it is never a mere wire transfer: the EGM alone creates the new shares within a five-year completion window, the preferential rights of every shareholder must be respected, waived or lawfully removed, the money must arrive as certified cash or as a certified set-off of a liquid and due claim, and the whole operation must be filed through the single portal to the greffe and published before the new Kbis proves anything to anyone. Contributions in kind demand a genuinely independent auditor, cash increases pay no registration duty but still pay registry fees, and the accordion rescue of a loss-making subsidiary only works where the reduction to zero is expressly conditioned on an effective increase. Run in that order — vote, certify, file, publish — a capital increase funded from London, New York or Dubai rebuilds the subsidiary’s equity, restores its credit with French banks and landlords, and closes the half-capital alarm that an empty wire alone could never silence.