You live in London, New York or Dubai and you have found the right French target: a small SAS in Paris with real clients, real revenue and a seller who wants to move fast. He sends you a one-page share purchase agreement in English, promises that the company has no debts, and asks you to wire the price to his personal account before the end of the month. If you sign that document, you may buy the shares, inherit a tax reassessment, discover that the transfer was never enforceable against the company, and learn that a regulated activity required a ministerial clearance you never sought. French law does not stop a foreign buyer from taking over a French SAS, but it imposes an order: check the articles, secure the approval, agree the price and its adjustments, clear foreign-investment screening when it applies, pay the registration duty, and record the transfer in the company’s own books. This guide explains that order in plain English, with the exact French rules, the official texts, and two recent Cour de cassation decisions you can rely on when the seller pressures you to skip a step.<\/p>\n
A SAS (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e, the flexible French joint-stock company) is the vehicle most foreign buyers meet, because Article L. 227-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a> states that “Une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e peut \u00eatre institu\u00e9e par une ou plusieurs personnes qui ne supportent les pertes qu’\u00e0 concurrence de leur apport.” Shareholders risk only their contributions, the articles organise governance almost freely, and shares transfer in principle without the heavy consent machinery of the SARL. That freedom is precisely what traps foreign buyers: everything depends on what the articles actually say, and on entries in two private registers kept by the company itself, the registre des mouvements de titres (share transfer ledger) and the comptes individuels d’actionnaires (individual shareholder accounts). The Kbis (the official company identity certificate issued by the greffe, the clerk’s office of the commercial court), the RNE (Registre national des entreprises, the national company register fed through the Guichet unique, the single online filing portal), the BODACC (Bulletin officiel des annonces civiles et commerciales, the gazette where company events are published) and the tax administration each play a distinct role, and confusing them is how buyers pay twice or own nothing. The two questions below follow the chronology of a real acquisition: first, how ownership passes, then how the price survives hidden debts.<\/p>\n Taking over a SAS means buying shares, not buying the company as a thing. The seller transfers his shares to you, you step into his shoes as shareholder, and the company itself continues with its contracts, employees, debts and disputes. That is why the articles of association (statuts) matter more than any English-language term sheet: they decide whether the sale needs a prior consent, whether a forced-sale clause can push a minority holder out, and whether violating those clauses destroys the sale entirely. Remote buyers add one more layer, because every notice, consent and signature must travel by email, power of attorney and sworn translation without breaking the French formalities that make the transfer enforceable.<\/p>\n The starting point is deceptively short. Article L. 227-14 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides that “Les statuts peuvent soumettre toute cession d’actions \u00e0 l’agr\u00e9ment pr\u00e9alable de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9.” In English: the articles may subject every share transfer to the prior approval (agr\u00e9ment) of the company, meaning a collective decision of the existing shareholders or a designated body before the shares can change hands. Many SAS articles reproduce this clause, often with a one-to-three-month answer period, a deemed consent if nobody answers, and an obligation for the company to buy back or arrange the buy-back of the shares at an expert price if it refuses. Other SAS have no approval clause at all, in which case shares are in principle freely transferable, subject only to any lock-up (inali\u00e9nabilit\u00e9) or pre-emption clause the articles may add.<\/p>\n A foreign buyer must therefore read the full, up-to-date articles before paying anything, not the two-page extract the seller forwards. Ask for the version filed with the RNE through the Guichet unique, check the date of the last shareholders’ decision amending the articles, and have the approval clause translated line by line. Identify who gives approval, by what majority, within what period, to whom notice must be sent, and what happens on refusal: repurchase by whom, at what price, within what period. Send the formal request for approval (demande d’agr\u00e9ment) by a traceable channel to the president of the SAS and to the registered office (si\u00e8ge social), attaching your identity, your financing, and the draft transfer deed. If you are buying through a foreign holding company, disclose the chain up to the ultimate beneficial owner, because existing shareholders routinely condition approval on knowing who will sit beside them, and the beneficial-owner register (RBE, registre des b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaires effectifs) will require that disclosure after closing in any event.<\/p>\n Skipping approval is not a curable irregularity. Article L. 227-15 of the Commercial Code<\/a> states that “Toute cession effectu\u00e9e en violation des clauses statutaires est nulle.” The Cour de cassation repeats this formula word for word: in its judgment of 21 June 2023, no. 21-25.952<\/a>, the Commercial Chamber states “Aux termes de ce texte, toute cession effectu\u00e9e en violation des clauses statutaires est nulle.” Nullity means the buyer is deemed never to have become a shareholder: he cannot vote, cannot appoint or remove the president, cannot take dividends, and every decision taken with his vote can be attacked. Anyone with standing, including the company itself or a remaining shareholder, can invoke it, and the buyer who already paid must then sue for restitution while the seller may already have spent the price.<\/p>\n The same judgment teaches a second lesson that foreign buyers in joint ventures constantly misuse. The case concerned a shareholders’ agreement (pacte d’associ\u00e9s<\/a>) whose article 14 C forced a defaulting party to sell all its shares to the victim of the breach, while the articles contained a separate exclusion clause, article 2-9, for breach of professional duties. The court of appeal had annulled the contractual promise because it contradicted the statutory exclusion clause. In that same judgment of 21 June 2023, no. 21-25.952<\/a>, the Cour de cassation quashed that reasoning, holding that “l’article 2-9 des statuts ne concerne pas la cession des actions de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 [Y] mais r\u00e9git le cas d’exclusion d’un associ\u00e9 pour violation des r\u00e8gles de fonctionnement”, so that article “n’a pas pour objet de priver un associ\u00e9 de la facult\u00e9 de conclure une promesse unilat\u00e9rale de vente de ses actions consentie sous la conditions suspensive de la r\u00e9alisation d’un \u00e9v\u00e9nement qu’elle pr\u00e9voit”. In practical terms: an exclusion clause organised by Article L. 227-16 of the Commercial Code<\/a>, under which “les statuts peuvent pr\u00e9voir qu’un associ\u00e9 peut \u00eatre tenu de c\u00e9der ses actions” and may suspend his non-pecuniary rights until he sells, does not swallow up every contractual promise to sell. A buyer can therefore combine two tools without confusing them: rely on the articles for approval and exclusion mechanics, and sign a separate shareholders’ agreement with buy-or-sell promises, deadlock puts and calls, and leaver clauses for founders who leave. Keep them consistent, because a promise that contradicts a statutory clause it was supposed to implement will still be annulled under Article L. 227-15, while a promise that operates on a different trigger survives.<\/p>\n For comparison, the SARL (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e, the closed limited-liability company) is stricter by statute and therefore less attractive when the buyer is unknown to the existing members. Article L. 223-14 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides that “Les parts sociales ne peuvent \u00eatre c\u00e9d\u00e9es \u00e0 des tiers \u00e9trangers \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 qu’avec le consentement de la majorit\u00e9 des associ\u00e9s repr\u00e9sentant au moins la moiti\u00e9 des parts sociales”, with a three-month deemed-consent period, a forced buy-back at an expert price fixed under Article 1843-4 of the Civil Code on refusal, and nullity of any contrary clause. A foreign buyer choosing between a SAS target and a SARL target should price that difference: in a SARL, approval is the statutory default and refusal leads to a regulated exit; in a SAS, approval exists only if the articles created it, but its violation kills the sale outright. When the articles require unanimity to add or amend certain clauses, Article L. 227-19 of the Commercial Code<\/a> adds that clauses under Articles L. 227-14 and L. 227-16 “ne peuvent \u00eatre adopt\u00e9es ou modifi\u00e9es que par une d\u00e9cision prise collectivement par les associ\u00e9s dans les conditions et formes pr\u00e9vues par les statuts”, so check the amendment history: an approval clause inserted without the required collective decision is itself vulnerable.<\/p>\n Practical checklist before wiring any deposit: obtain certified articles with all amendments; confirm whether an approval clause exists and copy its exact procedure; send the approval request early, because the clock only runs from proper notice; never accept a seller’s assurance that approval “will be a formality” without the signed decision; and make the share purchase agreement conditional (condition suspensive<\/a>) on obtaining approval, so the price is automatically refunded if consent is refused. A buyer who closes before approval buys a lawsuit, not a company.<\/p>\n French shares in a SAS are not bearer papers handed over with a handshake. They are book-entry securities, and ownership passes by registration. Article L. 228-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a> defines the framework, recalling that securities of the same class carry identical rights (“qui conf\u00e8rent des droits identiques par cat\u00e9gorie”), and the Cour de cassation constantly recalls that transfer results from inscription in the buyer’s account. The implementing rule most buyers meet is Article R. 228-10, which the Cour de cassation cites in the decision below: registration in the buyer’s account is made on the date agreed by the parties and notified to the issuing company. Concretely, the seller signs an ordre de mouvement (transfer order), the company records it in the registre des mouvements de titres and credits the buyer’s compte individuel d’actionnaire, and only then is the buyer enforceable as shareholder against the company and third parties.<\/p>\n The landmark recent ruling for remote closings is Commercial Chamber, 18 September 2024, no. 22-18.436, published in the Bulletin<\/a>. A Swiss seller and the manager of the target had signed a Cerfa tax form declaring the sale of all the shares, the sale had been transcribed in the transfer ledger and the buyer’s shareholder account, and the seller later claimed no sale had occurred and tried to remove the buyer as president. The Cour de cassation rejected the claim, approving the court of appeal for holding that the Cerfa form “qui est sign\u00e9 par le c\u00e9dant et qui comporte toutes les informations n\u00e9cessaires pour inscrire la cession sur le registre des mouvements de titres et le compte d’actionnaire, vaut ordre de mouvement”. In English: a tax declaration signed by the seller containing all information needed to record the sale counts as a transfer order, so the ledger and account entries were regular, ownership had passed, and the buyer was the sole shareholder. The attempted removal decided by a meeting the seller convened afterwards was therefore void.<\/p>\n Foreign buyers should draw three operational lessons from that case rather than treating it as permission to close on a tax form. First, what saved the buyer was the combination of a signed writing from the seller plus complete ledger and account entries in a bound ledger initialled by the greffe. A wire receipt alone, an English email saying “we agree”, or an entry made by the buyer himself in books he controls without a seller-signed order will not survive the same test. Second, the transfer order must come from the seller or his duly authorised agent; a buyer cannot sign for both sides, and a president-buyer who registers his own purchase without a seller mandate invites exactly the nullity suit the Swiss seller attempted. Third, dating matters for dividends, voting rights and liability: the parties should state in the deed the agreed transfer date, notify it to the company the same day, and ensure the ledger entry bears that date, because Article R. 228-10 ties enforceability to the agreed date as notified to the issuer.<\/p>\n Run the closing from abroad in this order. Sign a French-law share transfer deed (acte de cession) identifying the company, the number and class of shares, the price and its adjustments, the approval decision, and the agreed transfer date; attach the seller-signed ordre de mouvement for each seller. Deliver the originals or qualified electronic signatures to the president of the SAS with written instructions to record. Verify the next day that the registre des mouvements de titres shows the chronological entry with names, share numbers, date and signatures, and that your compte individuel d’actionnaire has been opened or credited. Keep a complete copy of the ledger page and the shareholder account statement: French banks, the tax administration and future buyers will ask for them before the Kbis ever mentions your name, because the Kbis names the president, not the shareholders. If the articles require it, also update the shareholders’ list annexed to the articles and file any resulting change of president or registered office through the Guichet unique to the RNE, then check the BODACC publication. Registration with the tax administration (enregistrement) within one month of the deed, with payment of the duty examined below, completes enforceability on the tax side but never replaces the company books: a stamped tax form without ledger entry does not make you a shareholder, and a ledger entry without a valid seller order does not survive a challenge.<\/p>\n Common failure patterns seen in cross-border files: paying into an escrow released on a mere tax stamp while the ledger still shows the seller; letting the seller remain president with sole bank powers after the sale and discovering months later that he emptied the account; accepting a backdated ledger entry added in a different ink after the dispute arose; and buying shares pledged (nanties) to a bank without obtaining the release of the pledge. Each is avoidable by one reflex: no release of the price balance until you hold the signed order, the ledger copy and the shareholder account proving you own what you paid for.<\/p>\n Buying shares means buying the past. The employment dispute the seller minimised, the VAT reassessment notified last year, the current-account advance the seller intends to reclaim the week after closing, and the environmental order attached to the leased premises all stay inside the company you now own. French law offers no clean-share principle that wipes the slate on change of control. The protection comes from four negotiated and regulatory layers examined together: the true price with its adjustment machinery, the taxes and clearances that condition the deal, the pre-closing audit that surfaces what the seller did not disclose, and the contractual guarantee that makes the seller pay for what surfaces later. A buyer who treats the headline price as the deal value misunderstands French acquisitions.<\/p>\n The headline price is only the starting point. Professional French share deals adjust it through closing accounts (comptes de cl\u00f4ture), a locked-box with a leakage covenant, or an earn-out tied to future results, plus a specific treatment of shareholder current accounts (comptes courants d’associ\u00e9s, the loans shareholders made to the company), intra-group payables, and cash left in the till. A foreign buyer should insist that the deed states whether the price is for a cash-free, debt-free company, defines net debt line by line under French accounting rules, attaches the reference balance sheet, and explains who bears the corporate tax (IS, imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s) for the straddling period. Without that paragraph, the seller can legally withdraw his current-account credit the day after closing and leave the buyer to fund payroll, or leave a supplier dispute in the company while arguing it was “known”. Require a pre-closing bank certificate, a dated trial balance, and a written undertaking that no distribution, bonus or repayment occurs between signing and closing except as listed.<\/p>\n French tax then takes its share of the share deal itself. Article 726 of the General Tax Code (Code g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des imp\u00f4ts)<\/a> opens with the principle that “Les cessions de droits sociaux sont soumises \u00e0 un droit d’enregistrement dont le taux est fix\u00e9”, then fixes 0.1% for sales of shares in joint-stock companies whose securities are not listed, which covers the ordinary SAS, with higher rates for other cases, notably 3% for interests in non-joint-stock companies after a EUR 23,000 allowance and 5% for interests in real-estate-rich entities. The same article expressly covers deeds signed abroad over shares of companies seated in France: “Lorsque les cessions mentionn\u00e9es aux deuxi\u00e8me et troisi\u00e8me alin\u00e9as du pr\u00e9sent 1\u00b0 s’op\u00e8rent par acte pass\u00e9 \u00e0 l’\u00e9tranger et qu’elles portent sur des actions ou parts de soci\u00e9t\u00e9s ayant leur si\u00e8ge en France, ces cessions sont soumises au droit d’enregistrement dans les conditions pr\u00e9vues au pr\u00e9sent 1\u00b0”, subject only to a capped credit for foreign registration duties actually paid. A buyer signing in London or Delaware therefore still registers the deed with the French tax administration (service des imp\u00f4ts des entreprises, the business tax office) within one month and pays the 0.1% duty on the price plus any charges added to it, with penalties and interest for late filing. Budget it, allocate it expressly to the buyer in the deed, and file through your French counsel or expert-comptable (chartered accountant) with the Cerfa declaration of the transfer, because the impots.gouv.fr portal and the tax office will ask for the deed, the ledger entry and the price calculation together.<\/p>\n The third cost that can kill a signed deal after the fact is foreign-investment screening (IEF, investissements \u00e9trangers en France). Article L. 151-3 of the Monetary and Financial Code<\/a> provides that “Sont soumis \u00e0 autorisation pr\u00e9alable du ministre charg\u00e9 de l’\u00e9conomie les investissements \u00e9trangers dans une activit\u00e9 en France qui, m\u00eame \u00e0 titre occasionnel, participe \u00e0 l’exercice de l’autorit\u00e9 publique ou rel\u00e8ve de l’un des domaines suivants”, followed by public order, public security, national defence, and arms, ammunition, powders and explosives, with a decree in Conseil d’Etat defining the covered sectors and the investments concerned. In practice the screening extends well beyond weapons, through energy, water, transport, telecoms, health, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and other critical technologies and infrastructures listed by the decree, and it catches non-EU buyers first, with intra-EU buyers concerned in the most sensitive cases. Control, acquisition of all or part of a business branch, and crossings of 25% of voting rights in covered French entities are the classic triggers, and the sanction for closing without the required clearance is severe: the investment is void, administrative orders to restore the prior situation, and criminal exposure, with conditional clearances routinely imposing governance, supply, employment or technology commitments.<\/p>\n A foreign buyer must therefore qualify IEF before signing, not after closing. Map the target’s real activities against the decree’s list using NAF codes, customer contracts and R&D descriptions, not the seller’s assurance that the company is “just a services company”. If any doubt remains, file a rescrit-style prior question or a full authorisation request with the Treasury (Direction g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du Tr\u00e9sor, the office that instructs IEF files for the Minister for the Economy) and make the purchase conditional on clearance. Never accept a clause by which the seller warrants that no clearance is needed while the buyer bears the risk: if the administration later characterises the activity as sensitive, it is the buyer who holds a void investment. Service-public.fr and the Treasury’s published guidance describe the filing channel, and your counsel will lodge the file in French with the ownership chain, the business plan, and the commitments you offer on continuity of the sensitive activity in France.<\/p>\n Price, duty and clearance belong in the same condition-precedent list: approval obtained, IEF clearance obtained or inapplicability confirmed in writing, representations true at closing, no material adverse change, bank pledge releases delivered, and registration formalities acknowledged. Release any deposit only into a regulated escrow (s\u00e9questre) held by a lawyer or notary, against those conditions, with the balance wired only after the ledger and shareholder-account evidence is in your hands. That single escrow paragraph saves more foreign buyers than any post-closing lawsuit.<\/p>\n The audit (due diligence<\/a>) is not a luxury for large deals; it is the evidential foundation of every later claim. Order, before signing, a compact French-law audit covering corporate life (articles, minutes, ledger conformity, president appointments, regulated agreements), employment (contracts, working time, collective-bargaining agreement, URSSAF, the social-security collection body, history), tax (IS, VAT, withholding, R&D credits), material contracts (change-of-control clauses that let key clients terminate if the seller sells), litigation, and the lease (bail commercial<\/a>, the protected commercial lease, or office lease). Read the last three years of accounts with your expert-comptable, reconcile the filed accounts with the BODACC history and the RNE extract, and ask the seller’s bank for the pledge and guarantee position in writing. Every risk the audit surfaces should either reduce the price, be cured before closing, be placed in a specific indemnity with its own cap and time limit, or be carved out of the general guarantee with a higher cap. A risk noted in the audit but left unpriced becomes, under French deal practice, a risk the buyer accepted with open eyes.<\/p>\n The contractual shield is the garantie d’actif-passif (asset-liability guarantee, often called garantie de passif), by which the seller promises that the reference accounts were true and agrees to compensate the buyer euro for euro for any undisclosed liability arising from facts before closing, such as a tax reassessment, an URSSAF reassessment, or a supplier judgment relating to pre-closing deliveries. Negotiate it as a payment obligation of the seller to the company or to the buyer, not as a vague warranty of good health. Fix its essentials in plain figures: duration of at least three years for tax and social matters to cover reassessment periods, a deductible (franchise) low enough to catch payroll and VAT items, a cap (plafond) expressed as a percentage of the price with carve-outs for fraud and for the seller’s own current-account manipulations, a notification procedure with short deadlines and control of the defence against the administration, and a de minimis threshold that does not exclude serial small wage claims. Back it with a bank guarantee (garantie bancaire \u00e0 premi\u00e8re demande) or a retained portion of the price in escrow for twelve to twenty-four months, because an uncapped personal promise from a seller who has moved the cash offshore is worth the paper it is written on. Coordinate it with the shareholders’ agreement put-and-call promises validated by the 21 June 2023 judgment above: use the asset-liability guarantee for hidden debts, and separate leaver, bad-leaver and deadlock clauses, with an expert price under Article 1843-4 of the Civil Code where the articles or the pact refer to it, for founder departures.<\/p>\n When the damage appears after closing, French buyers typically combine three actions. First, they call the guarantee by formal notice within the contractual period, quantifying the loss with the tax or URSSAF notice, the judgment, or the audited adjustment, and they draw on the escrow or bank guarantee without waiting for the seller’s goodwill. Second, where the seller committed fraud (dol, intentional concealment of decisive information) or gave false representations on the accounts, they sue for annulment or damages on that distinct ground, within the applicable limitation periods, using the audit correspondence to prove what the seller knew. Third, where the transfer itself violated the articles, they invoke nullity under Article L. 227-15, but here the weapon cuts both ways: a buyer who discovered he overpaid cannot invent an approval defect to escape the price, and a seller who regrets the sale cannot invoke his own articles to reclaim shares he validly sold. The 18 September 2024 ruling illustrates the endgame: once ledger and account prove ownership, the disappointed seller’s attempt to remove the buyer as president collapses and the removal meeting is annulled. Conversely, a buyer who never secured proper ledger evidence will spend the same energy proving he owns anything at all.<\/p>\n Close the file with the same discipline as the opening. Keep the signed deed, the seller-signed transfer orders, the complete ledger pages, the shareholder accounts, the approval decision, the IEF clearance or inapplicability analysis, the tax registration receipt, the updated RNE extract and Kbis, the escrow statements, and the guarantee with its bank security in one closing binder, in French with English translations. Calendar the guarantee deadlines, the tax filing anniversaries, the RBE update, the first post-closing shareholders’ meeting approving the accounts, and the renewal of the president’s powers if they were time-limited. Instruct a French accountant from day one for IS instalments, VAT and payroll through URSSAF and the DSN (d\u00e9claration sociale nominative, the monthly payroll return), because the first missed deadline after a takeover signals to every administration that the new foreign owner is not in control. A well-papered acquisition does not prevent disputes; it decides them, usually without a hearing, when the other side’s counsel reads the binder.<\/p>\n Buying a French SAS from abroad succeeds when the buyer respects the sequence French courts enforce. Approval first: read the articles, identify whether Article L. 227-14<\/a> was activated in your target, request consent in the contractual form, and make the sale conditional on it, because Article L. 227-15<\/a> annuls every transfer made in breach of a statutory clause, a rule the Cour de cassation restated on 21 June 2023 (no. 21-25.952)<\/a>. Transfer second: obtain a seller-signed order, record it in the transfer ledger and your shareholder account on the agreed date notified to the company under Article L. 228-1<\/a>, and verify the entries before releasing the price, because the Commercial Chamber held on 18 September 2024 (no. 22-18.436)<\/a> that a signed Cerfa containing all recording information counts as a transfer order only when that full chain is proved. Price and clearance third: adjust for net debt and current accounts, register the deed and pay the Article 726 duty even when signed abroad, and clear Article L. 151-3<\/a> screening whenever the activity may be sensitive. Guarantee last: audit before signing, write a capped but secured asset-liability guarantee with tax and social tails, and keep exclusion promises under Article L. 227-16<\/a> distinct from sale promises. Remote buyers who follow that order inherit a business; those who wire first and verify later inherit its debts and its lawsuits.<\/p>\n Buying a French SAS from abroad turns on your approval clause, transfer entries, price adjustments and hidden liabilities. Our firm offers a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer of the firm to review your target file and set the strategy before you sign or release funds. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> or write through our contact page<\/a> with your draft deed and company documents attached.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Foreign buyer guide to taking over a French SAS from abroad: approval clause, transfer order and ledger entry, price adjustments, registration duty, IEF clearance and asset-liability guarantee against hidden debts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":4194,"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-2121609","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-decryptage","category-doing-business-in-france"],"yoast_head":"\nI. How does a foreign buyer legally take over the shares of a French SAS from abroad?<\/h2>\n
A. Does the SAS require prior approval, and what happens when the buyer ignores it?<\/h3>\n
B. How is the transfer made enforceable: transfer order, ledger entry and shareholder account?<\/h3>\n
II. How does a foreign buyer avoid paying for the seller’s hidden debts after buying a French company?<\/h2>\n
A. What is the real price: adjustments, registration duty and foreign-investment clearance?<\/h3>\n
B. How do audits, asset-liability guarantees and post-closing remedies protect the buyer?<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n