A foreign founder may sign a share-transfer agreement, pay the price and still discover that the French company\u2019s records show the former shareholder. This is not a minor filing inconvenience. In a French simplified joint-stock company (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e, or SAS), the decisive corporate records are the register of movements of securities and the individual securities accounts. If those records were never updated, the buyer can face blocked voting rights, difficulty appointing a director, an inaccurate ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) declaration, disputes over dividends and serious obstacles in a later sale or financing round.<\/p>\n
The practical question is therefore not simply whether the parties signed a contract. It is whether the transfer was authorised where necessary, evidenced by a coherent chain of documents, entered in the company\u2019s records and made opposable to the company. A founder living in the United Kingdom, the United States, the Middle East or another country can assemble that proof remotely, but should do so methodically. The greffe<\/em> (the court registry) and the Kbis (the official extract of the Trade and Companies Register) do not replace the company\u2019s securities records. A tax declaration does not automatically prove that the company performed its corporate registration either.<\/p>\n This guide focuses on a narrow, actionable problem: how to prove ownership and obtain a correction when an SAS share transfer is missing or incorrectly recorded. It distinguishes the parties\u2019 contract, the order of movement, the register and the remedies available against an uncooperative company.<\/p>\n Begin by separating three questions that are often mixed together: what the seller and buyer agreed; when ownership was transferred between them; and when the company must recognise the buyer in its own records. A signed agreement is important evidence of the parties\u2019 bargain. It identifies the shares, price, completion date, warranties and any conditions. It may also show that the seller accepted an obligation to sign an order of movement and instruct the company to update its records. It is not, however, a substitute for checking the SAS\u2019s articles of association and its securities ledger.<\/p>\n An SAS is a company whose organisation is largely defined by its articles, subject to the mandatory rules in the Commercial Code. The current Article L. 227-1 of the French Commercial Code<\/a> places the SAS within the specific statutory framework for companies by shares. The articles can determine how approval, pre-emption, notification and signing operate. A buyer who ignores those rules may hold a strong contractual claim while still facing a challenge to the corporate effectiveness of the transaction.<\/p>\n For an ordinary transfer of SAS shares, the central statutory rule is the account-entry rule. Article L. 228-1 of the French Commercial Code<\/a> states, for the relevant type of transfer, that \u201cle transfert de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9sulte de l’inscription des valeurs mobili\u00e8res au compte de l’acheteur\u201d. In English, ownership follows the entry of the securities in the buyer\u2019s account. That rule explains why a buyer should not stop after obtaining a privately signed contract: the company\u2019s individual account and movement register must tell the same story as the contract.<\/p>\n The rule does not mean that a missing entry makes every document worthless. It means that the buyer must prove which legal step remains incomplete and what result is sought. The contract can prove consent, the price and the intended number of shares. A bank record can prove payment. A signed order can show the instruction to record the transfer. An approval resolution can show that a statutory restriction was satisfied. The company\u2019s refusal, silence or contradictory ledger can then be identified as the unresolved corporate step.<\/p>\n The articles of association matter particularly where the company has several founders or outside investors. Under Articles L. 227-14 and L. 227-15 of the French Commercial Code<\/a>, the articles may subject a transfer to prior approval and a transfer made in breach of a statutory clause may be void. The exact wording of the articles, the version in force on the transfer date and the approval minutes should therefore be preserved. Do not assume that an email saying \u201capproved\u201d has the same evidential value as a properly adopted corporate resolution if the articles require a formal decision.<\/p>\n There are four common scenarios:<\/p>\n The buyer should also check whether the transaction changed the identity of the UBO, meaning the natural person who ultimately owns or controls the company. A UBO filing is a separate transparency obligation. It can corroborate the chronology, but it does not cure a defective share register by itself. Conversely, an unchanged UBO filing can be an important warning that the post-transfer corporate file was never completed.<\/p>\n A foreign founder should build a chronology before contacting the company. Record the date of the agreement, the date of any approval, the agreed completion date, the date of payment, the date the order was signed, the date it was sent, the date the company acknowledged receipt, the date of the tax declaration and every later act in which the company treated the buyer as a shareholder or treated the seller as one. A short chronology often exposes the missing step faster than a large unindexed document bundle.<\/p>\n \u201cShare register\u201d is a useful search expression, but an SAS transfer usually involves several connected records. The first is the registre des mouvements de titres<\/em>, or register of movements of securities. It records the company\u2019s share movements in chronological order. The second is the buyer\u2019s individual securities account, which identifies the securities held by that shareholder. The third is the ordre de mouvement<\/em>, or order of movement, which is the transaction instruction supporting the entry. A company may also hold a shareholder file, board or president approvals, a cap table and digital accounting records. These documents should be consistent without being confused with one another.<\/p>\n Article R. 228-8 of the French Commercial Code<\/a> provides that \u201cLes registres de titres nominatifs \u00e9mis par une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 sont \u00e9tablis par cette soci\u00e9t\u00e9\u201d. The company therefore owns the responsibility for establishing and maintaining the registered-securities record, even if a lawyer, accountant or corporate-services provider keeps it on the company\u2019s behalf. A software export or a spreadsheet may assist administration, but it should not be assumed to override the statutory register.<\/p>\n The same provision permits durable media, including an electronic shared-record system, and contemplates files used to support the registers. That is useful for a founder abroad: an electronic record, a secure signature trail and a dated transmission can all form part of the evidence. The quality question is not whether a document is printed in France. It is whether the person who made it can be identified and whether the record\u2019s integrity and chronology can be demonstrated.<\/p>\n The contents of the register are not cosmetic. Article R. 228-9 of the French Commercial Code<\/a> requires entries that identify, among other items, the date of the transaction, the former and new holder, the nominal value and number of securities, their category and identifying references. A correction request should reproduce those fields in a table. That makes it easier for the company, an auditor or a judge to see exactly what should be written and exactly why the current entry is incomplete.<\/p>\n The date also deserves close attention. Article R. 228-10 of the French Commercial Code<\/a> provides that the buyer\u2019s account entry \u201cest faite \u00e0 la date fix\u00e9e par l’accord des parties et notifi\u00e9e \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9mettrice\u201d. The agreement\u2019s completion date, the date communicated to the issuer and the date actually entered should therefore be compared. If the company entered a later date without explanation, ask for a correction or at least a written statement explaining the discrepancy. A later administrative update should not silently rewrite the parties\u2019 agreed chronology.<\/p>\n Who must act? In an SAS, the company is the issuer and its president normally represents it toward third parties under the company\u2019s articles and the Commercial Code. The president, an authorised corporate secretary or a mandated professional may physically maintain the register, but the request should be addressed to the company at its registered office and copied to the current legal representative. If a service provider says that it cannot act without the president\u2019s instruction, ask the provider to preserve the records and identify the decision-maker rather than treating the refusal as a final answer.<\/p>\n The order of movement should be checked for practical completeness. At a minimum, identify the issuer, the transferor, the transferee, the number and class of shares, the transfer date and the signatures or authentication mechanism used. If the company uses its own form, compare it with the contract and the articles. A form that omits a share class, contains a different number of shares or names a former legal representative can generate a refusal even where the economic transaction is genuine.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court\u2019s Commercial Chamber addressed the evidential role of the French tax form in its decision of 18 September 2024, appeal No. 22-18.436<\/a>. The published rule explains that a signed Cerfa No. 2759 containing the information needed for the company\u2019s records \u201cpeut valoir ordre de mouvement\u201d. Cerfa is the French administrative form system. The decision is important for a foreign buyer because it shows that the court examines the document\u2019s signature and content, not merely its label. It does not mean that every incomplete or unsigned tax form automatically updates the register.<\/p>\n The same decision should be used carefully. If the Cerfa identifies the parties and shares but was filed only with the tax administration, ask whether it was also communicated to the company as an instruction. If it was sent to the issuer and the issuer received it, retain the email, delivery receipt and attachment hash or version. If the tax form was filed by an adviser without the seller\u2019s signature, the buyer should not overstate its value. The safer presentation is cumulative: contract, payment, approval, order, transmission and subsequent company conduct.<\/p>\n An older Commercial Chamber decision, 22 October 2002, appeal No. 98-22.772<\/a>, is also regularly cited for the evidential significance of the securities account. The published reasoning refers to a \u201cpr\u00e9somption de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 desdits titres\u201d in favour of the account holder. For a current dispute, use that decision as context rather than as a shortcut. The court will still examine the whole evidence, the articles, any approval clause and the chronology of the disputed entries.<\/p>\n Finally, distinguish the securities register from the RCS, the Registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s<\/em> (Trade and Companies Register), and from the RNE, the Registre national des entreprises<\/em> (National Business Register). The Service-Public guidance on the transfer of SAS shares<\/a> explains that the transfer becomes opposable to the company through entry in the register of movements and the individual accounts. The Kbis is valuable for the company\u2019s public identity, legal representative and registered-office information, but it is not the full shareholder ledger. The INPI information on the RNE<\/a> should be consulted for public formalities that actually apply; it should not be used as a substitute for asking the SAS to correct its private corporate records.<\/p>\n The first formal step is a focused written request to the SAS, not a general complaint to the greffe. Send it to the registered office and to the president or other legal representative. Use a delivery method that produces proof: registered international mail, a reliable electronic delivery service, a secure client portal or a combination of email and courier. A founder outside France should not rely on an informal message to an accountant\u2019s personal address. The objective is to prove that the issuer received a complete, intelligible instruction and had a reasonable opportunity to act.<\/p>\n The request should state the result sought in operational terms. Ask the company to:<\/p>\n Attach a numbered evidence schedule. The first item should be the share-transfer agreement, followed by the articles in force on the transfer date, any shareholders\u2019 agreement relevant to approval or pre-emption, the approval decision or waiver, the order of movement, evidence of payment, the tax declaration and receipt, the emails transmitting the documents, the company\u2019s response, and any extract of the current register or cap table. Add identity documents only to the extent necessary, redact unrelated personal data and use a secure channel for sensitive material.<\/p>\n The evidence schedule should explain the relevance of each item in one sentence. For example: \u201cItem 5 proves that the signed order of movement identifying 1,000 ordinary shares was delivered to the company\u2019s registered office on 12 March.\u201d This is more useful than sending a cloud folder with names such as \u201cfinal-final-transfer-new.pdf\u201d. Keep the original files, metadata and messages. If documents were signed electronically, preserve the certificate, audit trail, timestamp and validation report. If a foreign document is in another language, arrange a faithful translation where the recipient or court needs it, while keeping the original version.<\/p>\n Do not ask the greffe to perform the company\u2019s internal register update. The greffe administers filings and public registers; it does not normally rewrite the issuer\u2019s register of movements of securities on a shareholder\u2019s informal request. A greffe contact can be useful to verify a public filing, the current president, the registered office or whether a formal amendment was filed. It cannot ordinarily decide a contested question of ownership. If the transfer also changed the articles, the sole-shareholder identity, the legal representative or a reportable UBO, the relevant filing can be considered separately through the formalities system. The INPI guidance on filing company acts<\/a> is the appropriate official starting point for that public-formality question.<\/p>\n A tax filing has a different purpose. The French tax administration\u2019s Form 2759 page<\/a> concerns the declaration of transfers of social rights not recorded by an instrument. It can help establish that the parties declared a transaction and when they did so. It does not prove, without more, that the SAS entered the transfer in its own register. The buyer should therefore ask for a receipt or tax reference but should not treat the tax administration as the custodian of the corporate ledger.<\/p>\n If the company responds that the transfer is invalid, ask it to identify the precise ground. Typical answers include an unfulfilled approval clause, a missing seller signature, a mismatch in the share count, an alleged non-payment, a defective power of attorney, a conflict with a pledge or a concern about the identity of the buyer. Each answer requires a different response. A vague statement that \u201cthe register cannot be changed\u201d is not a proper analysis. Request the article of the articles, contract clause or legal provision on which the company relies.<\/p>\n The buyer should test the company\u2019s position against later conduct. Did the company invite the buyer to a shareholders\u2019 meeting? Did it pay dividends to the buyer? Did the buyer sign a resolution as shareholder? Did the company list the buyer in a cap table, financing document, UBO filing or correspondence with a bank? Did the former shareholder continue voting? These facts do not replace the statutory entry, but they can corroborate or contradict the competing accounts. A clean chronology may show that the company accepted the buyer for some purposes while refusing to correct its primary record.<\/p>\n Do not create a second transfer merely to make the software show the desired owner. A new order with a new date can create tax, accounting and governance confusion. The request should normally be for a correction or completion of the original movement, with an audit trail explaining the correction. If the company says that its historic register cannot be edited, request an attached correction note or a new entry that expressly references the original omission and preserves the original sequence. The proper format depends on the company\u2019s records and the dispute, but silent overwriting is the least defensible option.<\/p>\n Record deadlines and consequences in the letter. Give a short, reasonable period for a simple administrative correction, then state that the buyer will seek evidence-preservation and interim measures if the records remain inaccurate. Do not threaten criminal or regulatory action without a factual basis. If a financing, vote, dividend, sale or director appointment is imminent, state the date and explain the concrete harm. A court is more likely to understand urgency when the request identifies a transaction that cannot proceed because the shareholder account is wrong.<\/p>\n For an international founder, authority and identity documents can create friction. If the buyer acts through a foreign holding company, include the certificate of incorporation, current registry extract, board resolution or power of attorney establishing who signed. If a French lawyer or agent will receive records, the mandate should cover requests for the register, litigation and service of documents. If the seller is a foreign company, confirm that the signatory had authority under the seller\u2019s law. These details prevent the SAS from converting an otherwise clear correction request into a dispute about representation.<\/p>\n If the company refuses, the buyer should choose the remedy based on the evidence and urgency. There are usually three routes: a request for pre-trial evidence; an urgent application for an interim order; and proceedings on the merits seeking a definitive declaration and correction. The commercial court attached to the company\u2019s registered office will often be the practical forum for a dispute concerning a commercial company, but jurisdiction should be checked against the parties, the contract and the nature of the claim before filing.<\/p>\n Where the immediate problem is missing evidence, Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure<\/a> allows a person with a legitimate reason to seek legally admissible investigative measures before trial when the proof may affect the outcome of a dispute. The article opens with the words \u201cS’il existe un motif l\u00e9gitime de conserver ou d’\u00e9tablir avant tout proc\u00e8s la preuve\u201d. A request under this provision can be relevant where the company holds the original register, a digital audit trail, an approval record, board minutes or communications that the buyer cannot obtain voluntarily.<\/p>\n Article 145 is not a mechanism for asking the judge to decide the entire ownership dispute without a merits hearing. The applicant must identify a plausible future dispute, a legitimate reason to preserve or establish evidence and a measure that is proportionate and legally admissible. Ask for targeted production: the relevant pages of the register, the buyer\u2019s individual account, the original order of movement, the receipt log, the approval record and any document showing why the transfer was rejected. A demand for every corporate email over several years will look less proportionate and can obscure the central issue.<\/p>\n An urgent application may be appropriate when the company\u2019s refusal creates a present and clearly identifiable problem. Article 835 of the French Code of Civil Procedure<\/a> gives the r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9 judge power to order conservatory or restoration measures to prevent imminent harm or end a manifestly unlawful disturbance, and to order performance where the obligation is not seriously contestable. \u201cR\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9\u201d is the French interim procedure decided quickly by a judge who does not necessarily give the final ruling on every merits issue.<\/p>\n The requested order must be precise. Instead of asking \u201crecognise me as shareholder\u201d, ask the court, where the evidence supports it, to order the SAS under a daily penalty to enter the transfer dated on the agreed completion date, identify the transferor and transferee, state the number and class of shares, update the individual accounts and deliver a certified copy. A daily penalty, or astreinte<\/em>, is a financial pressure attached to non-compliance. The order should also say what happens if the company claims that a particular document is missing. A precise order is easier to enforce than a general declaration.<\/p>\n The evidence must be strong enough for the chosen procedure. The buyer should present the signed agreement, the signed order or equivalent instruction, approval evidence, payment, delivery proof, the company\u2019s refusal and any consistent subsequent conduct. Under Article 1353 of the French Civil Code<\/a>, \u201cCelui qui r\u00e9clame l’ex\u00e9cution d’une obligation doit la prouver\u201d. In practical terms, the person asking for the correction should make the judge\u2019s evidential path easy to follow. If the seller disputes the signature or the price, an interim judge may decide that the issue is too seriously contested and leave the parties to a full merits action.<\/p>\n Electronic evidence can be valuable for a founder abroad. Article 1366 of the French Civil Code<\/a> states that \u201cL’\u00e9crit \u00e9lectronique a la m\u00eame force probante que l’\u00e9crit sur support papier\u201d, provided the person can be identified and the record is created and kept in conditions that protect its integrity. Preserve the complete email, not only a screenshot. Keep the original PDF, signature report, delivery certificate, server-side timestamp where available, payment confirmation and the response headers or portal receipt. A WhatsApp image may be a lead, but it is weaker than a complete, attributable and preserved record.<\/p>\n The French courts\u2019 decisions show why the requested correction should target the records themselves. In the decision identified as Cour d\u2019appel de Paris, RG No. 24\/01706<\/a>, the court\u2019s reasoning treats the register as central to establishing shareholder status. The precise lesson is not that a register can never be challenged; it is that a party asking the court to disregard it needs a disciplined explanation and evidence. Conversely, where the register is incomplete, the buyer should explain why the contract, order, payment and delivery evidence justify the requested correction rather than merely asserting that the buyer \u201cobviously\u201d owns the shares.<\/p>\n A further illustration is the decision identified as Cour d\u2019appel de Saint-Denis de La R\u00e9union, RG No. 17\/01173<\/a>, which addresses a court-ordered entry of transfers in the company\u2019s accounts and register, supported by a penalty for non-compliance. It demonstrates the practical difference between a declaration and an executable order. The exact terms of any order depend on the facts, the documents and the relief requested; the decision should be cited as an example of the type of corrective relief that may be sought, not as an automatic outcome.<\/p>\n The decision identified as Cour d\u2019appel d\u2019Angers, RG No. 25\/01077<\/a> is also useful when checking the formal content and chronology of securities records. A buyer should compare the proposed correction with the fields expected in the register: date, parties, share category, number and references. A court will be more comfortable with a correction that preserves the chronology and completes identifiable fields than with a request that replaces the whole history with a new unexplained table.<\/p>\n What if the former shareholder has sold the same shares again? That is an escalation. The buyer should immediately preserve the first transfer evidence, notify the company and the competing holder where appropriate, and consider urgent protective relief. Do not contact a bank, customer or public authority claiming final ownership before the corporate and judicial position is clear. A second transfer can raise priority, good-faith, authority and damages questions that cannot be solved by editing a spreadsheet. A lawyer can assess whether the buyer needs an injunction, a claim for performance, damages, an action concerning the validity of a later transfer or a combination of those measures.<\/p>\n What if the company is about to hold a vote? Ask for the register and the voting position before the meeting, and state the urgency in the formal request. If the buyer is excluded, preserve the notice, attendance sheet, voting record and minutes. The legal effect of a vote can depend on the company\u2019s articles, the challenged share status and the type of resolution. An interim judge may be asked to prevent an imminent harm, but the request should be tied to a specific meeting and a specific evidential record rather than a general fear of prejudice.<\/p>\n What if the transfer was never approved under the articles? Do not hide that issue. Obtain the exact approval clause, identify the required decision-maker, check whether approval was requested or waived and determine whether the relevant legal consequence is invalidity, a claim against the seller or a problem of opposability. Articles L. 227-14 and L. 227-15 of the Commercial Code<\/a> make the articles\u2019 restrictions material. A correction request that ignores a real approval condition can damage credibility and increase the cost of the dispute.<\/p>\n Remotely based founders should also plan service and hearing logistics. French proceedings may require service by a French judicial officer, translations, a French address for certain procedural communications or an attorney with authority to act. A foreign power of attorney should be checked for execution formalities before it is needed urgently. Video participation is not an automatic substitute for every procedural requirement. The company\u2019s registered office, the court\u2019s territorial jurisdiction, the language of exhibits and the timing of service should be addressed at the start, not after an emergency application has been drafted.<\/p>\n The goal is a defensible chain: the articles permitted or authorised the transfer; the parties agreed a specific transaction; the seller and buyer signed or otherwise established the instruction; the price and completion event are evidenced; the company received the instruction; the register and individual account are corrected; and any public UBO or formal filing is updated separately when required. That chain is persuasive because each record answers a different question. It also gives the company a practical way to correct the problem without creating a second, contradictory transaction.<\/p>\n A French SAS share register that was not updated after a transfer should be treated as a corporate-proof problem, not just an administrative delay. The foreign founder should first identify the exact missing record: the order of movement, the register entry, the individual securities account, an approval or a related transparency filing. The signed agreement, payment, approval, tax form and electronic delivery trail should then be assembled into a dated evidence schedule.<\/p>\n The company should receive a precise request for correction addressed to its registered office and legal representative. The greffe and INPI can help verify public information and formalities, but they do not ordinarily replace the issuer\u2019s own securities records. If the company refuses, Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure may help preserve targeted evidence, while Article 835 may support an urgent corrective order where the evidence and urgency justify it. A merits action remains available when ownership, approval or priority is seriously contested.<\/p>\n For a founder abroad, the decisive advantage is preparation: preserve original electronic records, prove delivery, explain every French acronym and ask for a correction that can be executed line by line. The objective is not merely to obtain a new spreadsheet. It is to restore a coherent corporate record that can withstand a vote, financing, dividend payment, audit or later transfer.<\/p>\n For broader support with French company formation and corporate structuring<\/a>, the same document-first approach helps prevent a register dispute before it starts.<\/p>\n A telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from our firm can help you review the transfer agreement, order of movement, register extracts and refusal from the French company.<\/p>\n We can help you identify the corrective request, protect the evidence and assess whether an urgent application is appropriate.<\/p>\nI. What proves ownership when a French SAS share transfer is missing from the register?<\/h2>\n
A. Does the signed share-transfer agreement make a foreign founder an owner?<\/h3>\n
\n
B. Which register, account and transfer order must the company update?<\/h3>\n
II. How can a foreign founder correct a French share register and protect the evidence?<\/h2>\n
A. What should the shareholder request from the company and the greffe?<\/h3>\n
\n
B. Which court remedy can force an update when the company refuses?<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n