You found the office in Paris, the landlord wants a signed lease this week, and your French company does not exist yet. The bank asks for the company registration certificate, called extrait Kbis, before releasing the capital. A supplier asks for a purchase order now. From London, New York, Dubai or Singapore, the temptation is to sign first and register later. Under French law that order can leave you personally liable for the lease, the deposit and every invoice, even after the company is registered. This guide explains, in plain English for a business reader, which pre-registration acts bind you, which wording saves you, how a French SAS or SARL takes over your early commitments, and how to fix mistakes and fight claims without flying to France.<\/p>\n
The trap sits at the intersection of two French principles. First, a commercial company has no legal existence before its registration with the trade and companies register, called registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s or RCS, kept by the commercial court registry, called greffe du tribunal de commerce. Second, only acts expressly made in the name of or on behalf of the company in formation can later be taken over by it. An act signed merely by or for a company that does not yet exist is void, and three recent rulings of the Cour de cassation, the French supreme court for commercial matters, dated 29 November 2023, enforce that formalism strictly while opening a narrow judicial assessment of the parties’ intent. Every French acronym you will meet below, from Kbis to URSSAF, the social security collection body, and BODACC, the official gazette for company filings, is explained when it first appears.<\/p>\n
This article first explains why acts signed before the Kbis bind the founder personally, then gives the three legal routes that transfer those acts to the company and the practical remedies when a landlord, a bank or a supplier refuses to play along. It cites the Commercial Code, the Monetary and Financial Code, the Labour Code and the General Tax Code as verified on L\u00e9gifrance, and the 29 November 2023 trio of the Commercial Chamber. Companion guides cover forcing a French bank account open from abroad<\/a> and the annual legal calendar of a French company once it exists<\/a>.<\/p>\n A French SAS, soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e, and a French SARL, soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e, are the two standard limited liability vehicles a foreign founder uses for a French subsidiary. The SAS is defined by Article L227-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a>: “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.” One or more persons may form the company and bear losses only up to their contributions. The SARL is defined by Article L223-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a>: “La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e est institu\u00e9e par une ou plusieurs personnes qui ne supportent les pertes qu’\u00e0 concurrence de leurs apports.” The shield is identical in words, with a single-member SAS called SASU and a single-member SARL called EURL. But that shield only starts to work on a precise date.<\/p>\n That date is set by Article L210-6 of the Commercial Code<\/a>: “Les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s commerciales jouissent de la personnalit\u00e9 morale \u00e0 dater de leur immatriculation au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s.” Commercial companies acquire legal personality only upon registration with the trade and companies register. Before that date there is no company, no corporate assets and no corporate debtor. There is only a company in formation, called soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation, which is a factual situation, not a person. Anyone who signs, pays or orders during that period acts in a legal vacuum that the statute fills with personal liability.<\/p>\n The same Article L210-6<\/a> states the consequence: “sont tenues solidairement et ind\u00e9finiment responsables des actes ainsi accomplis, \u00e0 moins que la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, apr\u00e8s avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement constitu\u00e9e et immatricul\u00e9e, ne reprenne les engagements souscrits.” Persons who acted before registration remain jointly and indefinitely liable for the acts performed, unless the company, once duly formed and registered, takes over the commitments. And the statute adds the reward for a correct takeover: “Ces engagements sont alors r\u00e9put\u00e9s avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 souscrits d\u00e8s l’origine par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9.” Taken-over commitments are deemed to have been entered into by the company from the start, with retroactive effect. Liability or retroactive takeover, there is no third outcome. Either the company validly takes over, and the founder is released for the future with the company deemed debtor from day one, or it does not, and the founder stays liable indefinitely alongside anyone else who signed.<\/p>\n Three practical consequences follow for a founder abroad. First, you cannot hire before the Kbis. The pre-hiring declaration, called d\u00e9claration pr\u00e9alable \u00e0 l’embauche or DPAE, filed with URSSAF, requires the employer’s registration numbers. Article R1221-1 of the Labour Code<\/a> provides: “La d\u00e9claration pr\u00e9alable \u00e0 l’embauche comporte les mentions suivantes”. Without a registered employer there is no valid DPAE, and starting work early exposes the founder to concealed-work claims, called travail dissimul\u00e9. Second, you cannot invoice with French VAT before the company and its VAT number exist. Article 206 of the General Tax Code<\/a> makes French companies liable to corporate income tax, called imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s: “sont passibles de l’imp\u00f4t sur les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s, quel que soit leur objet, les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s anonymes, les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s en commandite par actions, les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e n’ayant pas opt\u00e9 pour le r\u00e9gime fiscal des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s de personnes dans les conditions pr\u00e9vues au IV de l’article 3 du d\u00e9cret n\u00b0 55-594 du 20 mai 1955 modifi\u00e9”. Tax personality follows legal personality, so early trading profits and early input VAT sit in limbo until takeover. Third, capital contributions have their own lock. In a SARL, Article L223-7 of the Commercial Code<\/a> provides: “Les parts sociales doivent \u00eatre souscrites en totalit\u00e9 par les associ\u00e9s.” Shares must be fully subscribed, cash paid up by at least one fifth at formation with the balance within five years, contributions in kind paid up at once. The funds are frozen on a blocked account until the Kbis arrives. Spending them early through side payments creates a second layer of personal exposure on top of the contract liability.<\/p>\n The wording on the signature page decides everything. French courts distinguish three formulas. An act signed expressly in the name of the company in formation, called au nom de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation, or on behalf of it, called pour le compte de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation, can be taken over after registration. An act signed merely by the future company, called par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, or signed by the founder in a personal capacity with the vague hope that the company will assume it later, cannot be rescued. The formula must appear expressly in the document, with the planned company name, registered office, called si\u00e8ge social, and legal form, so that the other party knows a substitution of debtor may occur after registration.<\/p>\n The Cour de cassation restated that rule in three formation-of-section judgments of 29 November 2023, Commercial Chamber, appeals Nos. 22-18.295, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:CO00758, published in the Bulletin, and 22-21.623, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:CO00757, available at Cour de cassation 22-18.295<\/a> and Cour de cassation 22-21.623<\/a>. The Court recalled: “ne sont susceptibles d’\u00eatre repris par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 apr\u00e8s son immatriculation que les engagements express\u00e9ment souscrits \u00ab au nom \u00bb (Com., 22 mai 2001, n\u00b0 98-19.742 ; Com., 21 f\u00e9vrier 2012, n\u00b0 10-27.630, Bull. n\u00b0 4 ; Com., 13 novembre 2013, n\u00b0 12-26.158) ou \u00ab pour le compte \u00bb (Com., 11 juin 2013, n\u00b0 11-27.356 ; Com., 10 mars 2021, n\u00b0 19-15.618) de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation, et que sont nuls les actes pass\u00e9s \u00ab par \u00bb la soci\u00e9t\u00e9”. Only commitments expressly entered into in the name of or on behalf of the company in formation can be taken over after registration, and acts entered into by the company itself are void. The judgments explain the policy: “Cette jurisprudence repose sur le caract\u00e8re d\u00e9rogatoire du syst\u00e8me instaur\u00e9 par la loi, lequel permet de r\u00e9puter conclus par une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des actes juridiques pass\u00e9s avant son immatriculation.” The takeover system is exceptional because it deems a non-existent person to have contracted, so it must warn both sides. The express wording protects the third party, who learns that a retroactive substitution of debtor may follow, and it warns the founder, who understands that personal commitment continues until takeover.<\/p>\n The same judgments, see Cour de cassation 22-18.295<\/a>, draw the line between void acts and valid-but-not-taken-over acts: “l’acte non express\u00e9ment souscrit \u00ab au nom \u00bb ou \u00ab pour le compte \u00bb d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation est nul et que ni la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 ni la personne ayant entendu agir pour son compte n’auront \u00e0 r\u00e9pondre de son ex\u00e9cution, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence d’un acte valable, mais non repris par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, qui engage les personnes ayant agi \u00ab au nom \u00bb ou \u00ab pour son compte \u00bb”. A void act binds nobody and can even leave the third party with no debtor at all if the act is annulled. A valid act that the company never takes over keeps binding the founder indefinitely. Both outcomes hurt, in opposite ways, which is why the signature formula plus a real takeover decision are both needed.<\/p>\n One nuance matters and must not be overstated. The 29 November 2023 judgments, see Cour de cassation 22-18.295<\/a>, observe: “L’exigence selon laquelle l’acte doit, express\u00e9ment et \u00e0 peine de nullit\u00e9, mentionner qu’il est pass\u00e9 \u00ab au nom \u00bb ou \u00ab pour le compte \u00bb de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation ne r\u00e9sultant pas explicitement des textes”. Since that express-wording requirement does not appear explicitly in the statutes, the Court opens a sovereign judicial assessment of the parties’ intent in some configurations, which one commentary summarised as giving effect to the parties’ will. The outcomes in the trio differ precisely on the facts, with cassation in one case and rejection in another. For a founder, the lesson is conservative. Intent-based rescue is litigated case by case, takes years and depends on the trial judges’ sovereign reading of the documents. The express formula costs one sentence and works every time. Never sign early paperwork relying on what everyone supposedly intended. Write the formula.<\/p>\n French practice knows three takeover routes, and the right one depends on timing. The first route is the annexed statement, called \u00e9tat des actes accomplis, attached to the statutes. For the SARL it is codified at Article R210-5 of the Commercial Code<\/a>: “l’\u00e9tat des actes accomplis pour le compte de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 en formation, avec l’indication, pour chacun d’eux, de l’engagement qui en r\u00e9sulterait pour la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 aux associ\u00e9s avant la signature des statuts.” The list of acts performed on behalf of the company in formation, showing for each the commitment it would create for the company, is presented to the shareholders before they sign the statutes. Then: “Cet \u00e9tat est annex\u00e9 aux statuts, dont la signature emporte reprise des engagements par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, lorsque celle-ci a \u00e9t\u00e9 immatricul\u00e9e au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s.” The statement is annexed to the statutes, and signing the statutes effects takeover once the company is registered. This route covers everything signed between the first steps and the signature of the statutes: office search mandates, called mandats de recherche, draft leases, bank pre-agreements, domain and trademark filings, and supplier quotes accepted early.<\/p>\n The same Article R210-5<\/a> organises the second route, the mandate for the gap period: “les associ\u00e9s peuvent, dans les statuts ou par acte s\u00e9par\u00e9, donner mandat \u00e0 l’un ou plusieurs d’entre eux ou au g\u00e9rant non associ\u00e9 qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9sign\u00e9, de prendre des engagements pour le compte de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9.” The shareholders may, in the statutes or by separate deed, mandate one or more of themselves, or the designated non-shareholder manager, to enter into commitments on behalf of the company. With one condition: “Sous r\u00e9serve qu’ils soient d\u00e9termin\u00e9s et que les modalit\u00e9s en soient pr\u00e9cis\u00e9es par le mandat, l’immatriculation de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s emporte reprise de ces engagements par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9.” Provided the commitments are defined and their terms specified in the mandate, registration alone effects takeover. This route covers the window between signature of the statutes and issuance of the Kbis, typically two to six weeks, when the founder must pay the legal gazette, called journal d’annonces l\u00e9gales, top up insurance, called assurance, or confirm the lease. For a SAS the mechanism is identical in substance through the general takeover rule combined with the statutes, which leave wide latitude to name the president and mandate holders, since Article L227-6 of the Commercial Code<\/a> gives the president wide representation powers after registration: “Le pr\u00e9sident est investi des pouvoirs les plus \u00e9tendus pour agir en toute circonstance au nom de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 dans la limite de l’objet social.” Draft the SAS statutes with an explicit article listing the pre-registration acts and the mandate for the interim period, mirroring the SARL statement, so the file shows the same discipline.<\/p>\n The third route is the post-registration decision. Acts that fit neither the annexed statement nor the mandate, because they were forgotten, signed in a hurry or wrongly worded, can still be taken over by a shareholders’ decision after registration, provided they were valid acts made in the name of or on behalf of the company in formation. A general meeting, called assembl\u00e9e g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, votes the takeover act by act, the decision is recorded in minutes, called proc\u00e8s-verbal, and the third party is notified in writing with acknowledgement of receipt, called accus\u00e9 de r\u00e9ception. This rescue has limits. It cannot cure a void act signed merely par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 with no in-formation wording. It cannot backdate tax or social filings that required an existing registration number. And it needs a real company decision, not a unilateral letter from the founder to himself. Where the founder is the sole shareholder, a written sole-shareholder decision, dated and filed with the company records, does the job, but it must still describe each act precisely.<\/p>\n Sequencing from abroad looks like this. Before signing anything, have counsel prepare the draft statutes with the planned name, office and purpose, called objet social. Sign every early document with the full formula: first name and surname, acting in the name of and on behalf of the future SAS or SARL in formation with its planned name, form and office. Keep one running list of every early act with date, counterparty, amount and formula used. Annex that list to the statutes at signature. Add a mandate clause for the interim period naming who may sign what up to which amount. After the Kbis arrives, hold the takeover decision for any act outside the first two routes, notify each counterparty, collect written acknowledgements, and file the minutes. The whole chain can be handled with powers of attorney, called procurations, and electronic signature, but the list must be exact. A counterparty omitted from every route stays the founder’s personal creditor.<\/p>\nI. Why do acts signed before the Kbis bind you personally under French law?<\/h2>\n
A. When does your French company start to exist and who can act for it?<\/h3>\n
B. What wording saves your early acts and what does the Cour de cassation really require?<\/h3>\n
II. How do you transfer early acts to the company and fight claims from abroad?<\/h2>\n
A. Which takeover route should your SAS or SARL use after the Kbis arrives?<\/h3>\n
B. How do you unblock the money, the lease and the suppliers when each one says no?<\/h3>\n