Your French subsidiary is losing money, the Paris team has shrunk to two people, and the Lyon office lease still runs for another eighteen months. As the foreign parent, you want out: cleanly, quickly, and without a French creditor or the tax office coming after the group two years later. French law offers a clear three-step path \u2014 dissolution, liquidation, radiation (the strike-off from the company register) \u2014 but each step has traps built specifically for absent owners. A shareholder vote taken under the wrong majority, a disputed supplier invoice closed without a provision, or a final tax return filed one week late can freeze the whole process or expose your appointed liquidator to personal liability. This guide walks a foreign founder or group through the entire exit, from the dissolution vote taken abroad to the day the company disappears from the Registre national des entreprises (the National Company Register, the single French company register that replaced the old Registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s for publicity purposes), with the exact statutes and the latest Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) decisions that govern each move.<\/p>\n
The first question is brutal and must be asked before anything else: can the company still pay its debts as they fall due? Voluntary dissolution, the path described in this guide, is reserved for companies that are not in a state of cessation des paiements, the French legal term for cash-flow insolvency. The official service-public guide on voluntary cessation states it plainly: voluntary cessation concerns companies that are not in cessation of payments, and the shareholders decide the dissolution and appoint an amicable liquidator responsible for the dissolution, liquidation and then strike-off formalities (see Cessation of a business (voluntary dissolution)<\/a>). If the subsidiary cannot meet its liabilities with available assets, the foreign parent must not vote a voluntary dissolution at all: French insolvency proceedings (sauvegarde, redressement judiciaire, liquidation judiciaire) take over, and attempting an amicable liquidation while insolvent exposes the directors to sanctions for late filing. When in doubt, ask a French court to confirm solvency before moving.<\/p>\n Assuming the company is solvent, dissolution starts with a shareholder decision. The legal basis is Article 1844-7 of the Civil Code<\/a>, which lists the ways a company ends, including early dissolution decided by the shareholders. The voting rules depend entirely on the company form, and this is where foreign groups trip. In a SAS (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e, the flexible joint-stock company most foreign investors choose), dissolution and appointment of the liquidator are decided unanimously unless the articles of association say otherwise. In a SARL (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e, the quota-based limited liability company), the decision requires a majority of the shares plus one. A foreign parent that holds 90 percent of a SAS and assumes it controls the vote can discover that a minority holder blocks the exit. Check the articles first: most well-drafted SAS articles lower the threshold to a simple or qualified majority, but many off-the-shelf SAS statutes do not.<\/p>\n The meeting itself can be organized from abroad: the foreign shareholder votes by written consultation or videoconference if the articles allow it, and the minutes must record the dissolution and the appointment of the liquidateur amiable (the amicable liquidator, the person in charge of winding the company up outside any court proceeding). The liquidator can be the current French director, a shareholder, an officer of the foreign parent, or an outsider such as French counsel. For a foreign group, appointing someone physically present in France matters enormously: the liquidator will sign tax filings, answer the SIE (Service des imp\u00f4ts des entreprises, the corporate tax office), close the bank account and handle the greffe (the registry office of the commercial court that keeps company records). His mandate cannot exceed three years, and he must file a declaration of non-conviction and prove his identity, because a convicted person cannot act as liquidator.<\/p>\n Once voted, the dissolution must be published and filed. The liquidator publishes a dissolution notice on a SHAL (Support habilit\u00e9 \u00e0 recevoir des annonces l\u00e9gales, the authorized platform for legal announcements, the successor of the former JAL journals) and then files the voluntary dissolution on the Guichet unique (the one-stop shop run by the INPI, the French intellectual property and companies office, through which every company formality now passes). The filing must be made in the month following the dissolution decision, with the minutes, the publication certificate, the liquidator’s identity documents and declaration. The INPI forwards the file to the greffe, which updates the company’s record: the Kbis (the official identity extract of a French company, its birth certificate for banks and counterparties) then shows the company en liquidation, in liquidation. Miss the one-month window and the file bounces; file with a missing document and the Guichet unique issues a rejection that must be regularized, each round costing weeks.<\/p>\n The legal effects of dissolution are governed by two texts every foreign owner should know. Article L. 237-2 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides: “La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 est en liquidation d\u00e8s l’instant de sa dissolution pour quelque cause que ce soit sauf dans le cas pr\u00e9vu au troisi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a de l’article 1844-5 du code civil. Sa d\u00e9nomination sociale est suivie de la mention ” soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en liquidation “. La personnalit\u00e9 morale de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 subsiste pour les besoins de la liquidation, jusqu’\u00e0 la cl\u00f4ture de celle-ci. La dissolution d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 ne produit ses effets \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard des tiers qu’\u00e0 compter de la date \u00e0 laquelle elle est publi\u00e9e au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s.” In plain English: from dissolution the company is in liquidation, its name must carry the words “soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en liquidation”, its legal personality survives only for liquidation purposes until closure, and nothing counts against third parties until publication. Complementing it, Article 1844-8 of the Civil Code<\/a> states: “La dissolution de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 entra\u00eene sa liquidation, hormis les cas pr\u00e9vus \u00e0 l’article 1844-4 et au troisi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a de l’article 1844-5 . Elle n’a d’effet \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard des tiers qu’apr\u00e8s sa publication.” Dissolution triggers liquidation and only publication makes it enforceable against third parties. Practically, this means contracts signed between the shareholder vote and the register publication still bind the company as a going concern, and every letter, invoice and email must carry the liquidation mention: Article R. 237-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a> requires the words “soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en liquidation” and the liquidator’s name on all documents sent to third parties, with a 1,500 euro fine for breach. If you are setting up rather than closing, the milestones of a healthy French company \u2014 bank account, Kbis, VAT number, first hire \u2014 are described in our pillar guide to setting up a company in France as a foreign founder<\/a>; closing unwinds those same milestones in reverse. For the general step-by-step walkthrough of closing a French SAS from abroad, see also our companion guide How to Close a French SAS from Abroad<\/a>; the present article focuses on the group-specific decisions \u2014 the TUP fast track, creditor opposition, asset buybacks and liquidator liability.<\/p>\n If the foreign parent owns 100 percent of the French subsidiary, French law offers a shortcut that skips liquidation entirely: the TUP, transmission universelle du patrimoine (the universal transfer of all assets and liabilities to the sole shareholder). The mechanism sits in the third paragraph of Article 1844-5 of the Civil Code<\/a>: when all shares end up in one hand, there is no automatic dissolution, but the sole shareholder can trigger dissolution followed by the automatic transfer of the whole estate \u2014 assets and debts \u2014 to itself, with no liquidation phase. The official service-public guide confirms the point for the EURL (entreprise unipersonnelle \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e, the one-person SARL) and the SASU (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e unipersonnelle, the one-person SAS) whose sole shareholder is a legal entity: dissolution brings universal transmission of the company’s estate to the sole shareholder, who recovers all assets and debts, and this is called simplified dissolution (see the voluntary cessation guide<\/a> and the dedicated factsheet on universal transmission of assets<\/a>).<\/p>\n For a foreign group, the TUP looks like the perfect exit: one decision, one publication, and the French company vanishes into the parent. But three conditions make it narrower than it appears. First, the sole shareholder must be a legal person, not a natural person: a foreign individual who personally owns 100 percent of a SASU cannot use the TUP and must go through full liquidation. Second, the transfer only happens after a creditor protection period. Article 1844-5 of the Civil Code<\/a> says: “Les cr\u00e9anciers peuvent faire opposition \u00e0 la dissolution dans le d\u00e9lai de trente jours \u00e0 compter de la publication de celle-ci. Une d\u00e9cision de justice rejette l’opposition ou ordonne soit le remboursement des cr\u00e9ances, soit la constitution de garanties si la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en offre et si elles sont jug\u00e9es suffisantes. La transmission du patrimoine n’est r\u00e9alis\u00e9e et il n’y a disparition de la personne morale qu’\u00e0 l’issue du d\u00e9lai d’opposition ou, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant, lorsque l’opposition a \u00e9t\u00e9 rejet\u00e9e en premi\u00e8re instance ou que le remboursement des cr\u00e9ances a \u00e9t\u00e9 effectu\u00e9 ou les garanties constitu\u00e9es.” Creditors have thirty days from publication to object, a court then rejects the objection or orders repayment or guarantees, and the transfer and disappearance of the company only occur once that period or the court process ends. A French landlord owed eighteen months of Lyon rent, an URSSAF office (the social security collection agency) with unpaid contributions, or a supplier with an unpaid invoice can each freeze the fast track for months.<\/p>\n Third, and most dangerous for groups in difficulty, the TUP is unavailable when insolvency proceedings govern the assets. In a 2 October 2024 decision (Commercial Chamber, appeal no. 23-14.912, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2024:CO00519<\/a>), the Cour de cassation held: “La dissolution d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9, dont toutes les parts sociales sont r\u00e9unies en une seule main, intervenue au cours de son plan de redressement pr\u00e9voyant l’inali\u00e9nabilit\u00e9 de son fonds de commerce, n’entra\u00eene pas la transmission universelle de son patrimoine \u00e0 l’associ\u00e9 unique.” A dissolution occurring during a court-approved recovery plan that froze the business assets does not trigger the universal transfer, because the assets remain subject to the public-order rules of insolvency proceedings. The lesson for a foreign parent is direct: if the subsidiary is under a redressement plan, or more broadly if its assets are tied up in collective proceedings, the shortcut is closed and only the insolvency court route works. Attempting a TUP in that context produces a dissolution with no transfer \u2014 the worst of both worlds.<\/p>\n In practice, use the TUP only for a clean, solvent, debt-light subsidiary: one corporate shareholder, no litigation, no tax audit in progress, landlords and lenders pre-warned and paid. Everywhere else, run the full dissolution-liquidation-radiation sequence, where each creditor is paid or provisioned under the liquidator’s control. The few weeks saved by the fast track are never worth a creditor objection that lands mid-transfer and leaves a zombie company on the register.<\/p>\n From dissolution, the liquidator runs the show. Article L. 237-24 of the Commercial Code<\/a> gives him the widest powers: “Le liquidateur repr\u00e9sente la soci\u00e9t\u00e9. Il est investi des pouvoirs les plus \u00e9tendus pour r\u00e9aliser l’actif, m\u00eame \u00e0 l’amiable. Les restrictions \u00e0 ces pouvoirs, r\u00e9sultant des statuts ou de l’acte de nomination, ne sont pas opposables aux tiers. Il est habilit\u00e9 \u00e0 payer les cr\u00e9anciers et r\u00e9partir le solde disponible.” He represents the company, sells the assets even by private sale, pays creditors and distributes the balance, and any internal limits on his powers cannot be invoked against third parties. He may only continue current business or start new operations for liquidation purposes with shareholder or court authorization. For the foreign parent, this breadth is a double-edged sword: the liquidator can act fast, but the parent cannot quietly cap his authority in a side letter and expect banks or buyers to respect it.<\/p>\n The standard liquidation program has five workstreams. First, inventory: the liquidator lists every asset and liability, including contingent ones \u2014 the pending client dispute, the tax audit opened last spring, the URSSAF control letter. Second, asset sales: stock, equipment, vehicles, the fonds de commerce (the business as a going concern: lease rights, clientele, trade name) and, where relevant, real estate. Here sits a trap built for groups: Article L. 237-6 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides that, without unanimous shareholder consent, any sale of liquidation assets to a person who held the status of shareholder, manager, director, auditor or supervisor in the company requires authorization from the commercial court, after hearing the liquidator and the auditor. A foreign parent that plans to buy back the French subsidiary’s client list, brand or equipment at a friendly price cannot simply sign with its own liquidator: it needs either unanimity or a court order. Skip that step and the sale can be challenged, with the liquidator exposed.<\/p>\n Third, employees. If the subsidiary still has staff, the liquidator must dismiss them through the economic dismissal procedure (licenciement \u00e9conomique), with its notices, severance, redeployment obligations and, above certain headcounts, a full employment protection plan. The DPAE (d\u00e9claration pr\u00e9alable \u00e0 l’embauche, the pre-hiring declaration) logic runs in reverse: every termination must be declared and documented for URSSAF and P\u00f4le emploi purposes. Where funds run short, employees benefit from the AGS (Association pour la garantie des salaires, the wage guarantee scheme that advances unpaid wages when the employer cannot pay). A foreign parent that assumed French employment ends with a resignation letter learns here that payroll is a senior creditor in practice, and mishandled dismissals generate claims that follow the group into the TUP transfer or block the liquidation accounts.<\/p>\n Fourth, creditor payment in rank: employees and super-privileged claims, the tax office and URSSAF, secured lenders, then unsecured suppliers. Fifth, reporting: Article L. 237-23 of the Commercial Code<\/a> requires the liquidator to convene the shareholders within six months of appointment and report on the asset and liability position, the continuation of operations and the time needed to finish; Article L. 237-25 of the Commercial Code<\/a> requires annual accounts and a written report within three months of each year-end. A foreign parent used to light-touch subsidiary governance must therefore expect at least one formal meeting and yearly accounts until closure \u2014 the liquidation cannot be left to sleep.<\/p>\n The personal liability of the liquidator is the enforcement engine of all these duties. Article L. 237-12 of the Commercial Code<\/a> states: “Le liquidateur est responsable, \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard tant de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 que des tiers, des cons\u00e9quences dommageables des fautes par lui commises dans l’exercice de ses fonctions.” The liquidator answers to the company and to third parties for the harmful consequences of his faults. Three recent Cour de cassation decisions, all ruling on friendly liquidations closed too fast, show exactly where the line sits.<\/p>\n On 11 March 2026 (Commercial Chamber, appeal no. 24-21.461, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2026:CO00122<\/a>), the Court restated the two governing rules. First: “Selon le premier de ces textes, le liquidateur est responsable, \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard tant de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 que des tiers, des cons\u00e9quences dommageables des fautes par lui commises dans l’exercice de ses fonctions.” Then the operational consequence: “Il en r\u00e9sulte que la liquidation amiable d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 impose l’apurement int\u00e9gral du passif, les cr\u00e9ances litigieuses devant, jusqu’au terme des proc\u00e9dures en cours, \u00eatre garanties par une provision, et qu’en l’absence d’actif social suffisant pour r\u00e9pondre du montant des condamnations \u00e9ventuellement prononc\u00e9es \u00e0 l’encontre de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, il lui appartient de diff\u00e9rer la cl\u00f4ture de la liquidation et de solliciter, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant, l’ouverture d’une proc\u00e9dure collective contre la soci\u00e9t\u00e9.” An amicable liquidation requires full clearance of liabilities; disputed claims must be covered by a provision until the pending cases end; and if the assets cannot cover potential judgments, the liquidator must delay closure and, where needed, ask the court to open insolvency proceedings. The court of appeal in that case had excused the liquidator because the company was broke anyway and collective proceedings would not have paid the creditor either \u2014 the Cour de cassation quashed that reasoning for failing to verify that even partial recovery was hopeless. Poverty of the company is no excuse for skipping the provision.<\/p>\n On 22 January 2025 (Commercial Chamber, appeal no. 23-14.213, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2025:CO00030<\/a> \u2014 a case brought, tellingly, by a claimant domiciled in the Czech Republic, exactly the cross-border configuration foreign groups face), the Court recalled the general fault principle alongside the liquidator’s statute: “Aux termes du premier de ces textes, tout fait quelconque de l’homme, qui cause \u00e0 autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arriv\u00e9 \u00e0 le r\u00e9parer.” Any act that causes damage to another obliges the person at fault to repair it. The decision then draws a precise causation lesson: where the underlying judgment against the dissolved company had been declared void, the co-debtor’s loss came from having no enforceable title at all, not from the liquidator’s failure to provision \u2014 so liability failed on causation, not on duty. Foreign parents should read this the right way round: courts examine the chain from fault to loss rigorously, but the duty to provision disputed claims stands intact.<\/p>\n On 11 December 2025 (Third Civil Chamber, appeal no. 21-14.676, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2025:C300598<\/a>), the Court confirmed the provision rule once more \u2014 “Il est jug\u00e9 que la liquidation amiable d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 impose l’apurement int\u00e9gral du passif, les cr\u00e9ances litigieuses devant, jusqu’au terme des proc\u00e9dures en cours, \u00eatre garanties par une provision (Com., 9 mai 2001, pourvoi n\u00b0 98-17.187, publi\u00e9)” \u2014 and added the damages measure that now governs these cases: “lorsque le pr\u00e9judice caus\u00e9 par la faute du liquidateur amiable qui a proc\u00e9d\u00e9 \u00e0 la cl\u00f4ture des op\u00e9rations de liquidation amiable de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 sans attendre l’issue du litige ni pr\u00e9voir une provision s’analyse en une perte de chance pour le cr\u00e9ancier de recouvrer la totalit\u00e9 de sa cr\u00e9ance, la r\u00e9paration de celle-ci doit \u00eatre mesur\u00e9e \u00e0 la chance perdue et ne peut \u00eatre \u00e9gale \u00e0 l’avantage qu’aurait procur\u00e9 cette chance si elle s’\u00e9tait r\u00e9alis\u00e9e.” When closing early without waiting for the dispute or provisioning it deprives a creditor of a chance to recover, damages equal the lost chance, not the full claim. A liquidator who closes over a live dispute therefore buys a lawsuit measured in probabilities \u2014 and the foreign parent that instructed him to hurry shares the spotlight.<\/p>\n The practical checklist for a foreign group follows directly: provision every disputed claim in the accounts until the case is finally decided; never vote closure while litigation or a tax audit is pending unless the provision covers it; if assets cannot cover the liabilities, stop and file for insolvency instead of closing; document every valuation behind asset sales to the group; and keep the provision papers, because the first question a French judge asks is what the liquidator set aside and when.<\/p>\n Closing starts with numbers. Once the assets are sold and the creditors paid or provisioned, the liquidator draws up the comptes d\u00e9finitifs de liquidation (the final liquidation accounts), showing either a boni de liquidation (a liquidation surplus to distribute) or a mali (a shortfall). He convenes the shareholders to approve the accounts, grant him quitus (the formal discharge of his management) and declare the liquidation closed, then writes the closing report. Closure must occur within three years of dissolution: Article 1844-8 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides that if closure has not occurred within three years of dissolution, the public prosecutor or any interested party may ask the court to complete the liquidation \u2014 a creditor, a minority holder or the parquet can seize the file and finish it at your expense. If the shareholders cannot deliberate or refuse to approve the accounts, the liquidator or any interested party may ask the commercial court to rule on the accounts and the closure instead of the meeting. A sulking minority cannot hold the exit hostage forever.<\/p>\n Where the accounts show a surplus, tax intervenes before the final publication: the closing report must be registered with the SIE and the surplus bears a 2.5 percent registration duty, except for single-shareholder EURL and SASU structures. Then comes the final tax sprint, and foreign groups consistently underestimate it. For a company subject to IS (imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s, the French corporate income tax), the liquidator must file the final results return within sixty days of approval of the final accounts; Article 221 of the General Tax Code<\/a> provides that on dissolution, corporate tax is assessed under the conditions of Article 201, meaning profits not yet taxed become immediately taxable. For TVA (taxe sur la valeur ajout\u00e9e, the French VAT), the liquidator files the last return \u2014 the CA3 monthly return within thirty days of cessation under the normal regime, or the annual regularization CA12 within sixty days under the simplified regime \u2014 and claims or repays the final VAT balance, including the VAT due on asset disposals and self-supplies that many liquidators forget. Social filings mirror the tax sprint: final DSN (d\u00e9claration sociale nominative, the monthly payroll return) entries, clearance requests to URSSAF, and proof that no contribution balance blocks the strike-off. Each of these filings runs on impots.gouv.fr or the URSSAF portal through the company’s professional account, which is why the liquidator’s continued access to the company’s credentials and the French bank account until the very end is an operational necessity, not a detail.<\/p>\n With the accounts approved and the tax filings sent, the liquidator publishes the closure notice on a SHAL and then files for radiation (the strike-off, the removal of the company from the register) on the Guichet unique within one month of publication of the closure, attaching the approved accounts and the closure minutes. The INPI route is documented step by step by the INPI closing guide (dissolution, radiation)<\/a>. The greffe checks the file and the company is removed from the RNE; the disappearance then becomes enforceable against third parties. The governing texts are Articles R. 123-247 to R. 123-249 of the Commercial Code<\/a> on the strike-off filing and Article R. 237-7 of the Commercial Code on the closure filing. The official guide states the consequence plainly: once the delisting formalities are complete, third parties can no longer demand payment of their claims from the vanished company. That is the legal moment the foreign parent is truly out.<\/p>\n Two failure modes deserve a final warning because they hit foreign owners disproportionately. First, the greffe rejection: a missing publication certificate, accounts not certified by the liquidator, or a closure report filed before the tax certificate arrives, and the radiation filing bounces. Each rejection restarts correspondence with a registry that writes only in French and only to the registered office \u2014 which the group may already have vacated. Keep a French address for service and a reachable liquidator until the Kbis shows the radiation. Second, the creditor who surfaces after closure: a supplier who never declared his claim, a landlord invoking a restoration clause, a tax reassessment for a pre-closure year. Against a radiated company, late creditors turn to the former liquidator personally under Article L. 237-12 or to the shareholders up to the distributed surplus. The provision discipline of the previous section is the only real insurance: close with every known risk provisioned or settled, keep the liquidation papers for the prescription period, and treat the three years after radiation as a tail-risk window, not a full stop.<\/p>\n Closing a French subsidiary from abroad is a controlled demolition, not a door slammed on the way out. Vote the dissolution under the right majority, file it on the Guichet unique within the month, and publish every step so it counts against third parties. If the group owns 100 percent through a company and the balance sheet is clean, the TUP fast track removes the liquidation phase \u2014 but its thirty-day creditor opposition window and its total unavailability in insolvency mean it must be chosen deliberately, never by default. During liquidation, give the liquidator the means to do the job properly: a full inventory, provisions for every disputed claim, court authorization for any sale back to the group, and a solvent-only closure vote. Clear the final IS and VAT returns on time, publish the closure, and file the radiation within the month so the disappearance binds the world. Done this way, the exit costs a few months of discipline and ends with a struck-off company, a discharged liquidator and no tail. Done in a hurry, it ends with a zombie company on the RNE, a personally liable liquidator under the March 2026 case law, and French creditors writing to the foreign parent. The difference is never the size of the company \u2014 it is the paperwork, the provisions and the calendar.<\/p>\n Closing a French subsidiary and want to avoid a blocked filing or a liable liquidator? Get a phone consultation within 48 hours with an avocat of the firm, with a clear action plan for your dissolution, liquidation and strike-off.<\/p>\n Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> or reach us via our contact page<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A foreign parent guide to closing a French subsidiary: dissolution vote, TUP fast track, liquidator duties, final tax returns and strike-off from the French company register.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16391,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80314,80313],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2119805","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nB. Can a Foreign Parent With 100 Percent Skip Liquidation Through the Fast Track?<\/h3>\n
II. How Do You Liquidate, Pay the Tax Bill and Get the Company Struck Off?<\/h2>\n
A. How Does the Liquidator Sell the Assets, Dismiss Staff and Pay Creditors Without Personal Liability?<\/h3>\n
B. How Do You Approve the Final Accounts, Clear French Tax and Obtain Radiation?<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case?<\/h2>\n