You live in London, New York, Dubai or Singapore and you want to sell, hire or invoice in France. The first legal question is always the same: should your French vehicle be a SAS (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e, simplified joint-stock company), a SARL (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e, limited liability company), or one of their single-member versions, the SASU (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e unipersonnelle) and the EURL (entreprise unipersonnelle \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e)? This choice shapes your liability, your social charges, your freedom to draft the articles, the way you bring in partners later and the way you leave. French founders argue about it endlessly. For a foreign founder who will run the company from abroad, the stakes are higher: distance magnifies every drafting mistake, and a clause that looks harmless in Paris can become a trap when the director boards a plane. This article compares the two vehicles point by point, with the exact statutes and three recent decisions of the Cour de cassation (the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters) that show where founders actually lose cases. It also explains each French acronym the first time it appears, so a business reader can follow without a law degree.<\/p>\n
The SAS was built for contractual freedom. The Commercial Code 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” (Article L227-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a>), which means one or more persons may form it and lose no more than their contribution. The SARL offers the same limited liability: “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” (Article L223-1 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). On liability, the two vehicles tie. Everything else separates them.<\/p>\n In a SAS, the organisation of power is whatever the articles say. One short sentence carries the whole regime: “Les statuts fixent les conditions dans lesquelles la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 est dirig\u00e9e” (Article L227-5 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). The founders decide how directors are appointed and removed, what majority applies, which decisions need a collective vote and what happens in a deadlock. The statute only reserves a short list of decisions that must always be taken collectively by the shareholders: “Les statuts d\u00e9terminent les d\u00e9cisions qui doivent \u00eatre prises collectivement par les associ\u00e9s dans les formes et conditions qu’ils pr\u00e9voient”, while matters such as capital increases and reductions, mergers, dissolution, transformation, the appointment of auditors, the annual accounts and profits must be exercised collectively under the conditions set by the articles (Article L227-9 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). For a foreign founder, this freedom is the main attraction: you can give a minority investor veto rights, create different classes of shares, organise remote voting from abroad, or lock the capital with approval and inalienability clauses. But freedom means responsibility. A SAS with two pages of articles is a car with no brakes, and the Cour de cassation has just reminded founders of that twice in one day.<\/p>\n On 9 July 2025, in a case about the dismissal of the general manager of a demolition company, the court held: “Il r\u00e9sulte de ces textes que les statuts de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e fixent les conditions dans lesquelles celle-ci est dirig\u00e9e, notamment les modalit\u00e9s de r\u00e9vocation de ses dirigeants. Si une d\u00e9cision des associ\u00e9s peut compl\u00e9ter les statuts sur ce point, elle ne peut y d\u00e9roger, quand bien m\u00eame aurait-elle \u00e9t\u00e9 prise \u00e0 l’unanimit\u00e9” (Cass. com., 9 July 2025, no. 24-10.428<\/a>). In plain terms, the shareholders’ vote can fill a gap in the articles but can never override them, even when every shareholder agrees. On the same day, the court drew the mirror consequence: where the articles are silent, the founders’ written bargain rules. In an earlier case about the Hubbard group, it had already approved the principle that “les conditions dans lesquelles les dirigeants d’une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e peuvent \u00eatre r\u00e9voqu\u00e9s de leurs fonctions sont, dans le silence de la loi, librement fix\u00e9es par les statuts, qu’il s’agisse des causes de la r\u00e9vocation ou de ses modalit\u00e9s”, so that a dismissal taken under an article allowing removal at any time “pouvait intervenir sans qu’il soit n\u00e9cessaire de justifier d’un juste motif” (Cass. com., 9 March 2022, no. 19-25.795<\/a>). Put the two rulings together and the message for a founder abroad is blunt: write the dismissal rules you want into the articles, because a later handshake, even a unanimous one, will not save you, and a well-drafted article will protect you without any proof of misconduct.<\/p>\n The SARL works the other way round. The statute provides a complete ready-made framework, and the founders can only adjust it at the margins. The company “est g\u00e9r\u00e9e par une ou plusieurs personnes physiques” (Article L223-18 of the Commercial Code<\/a>), meaning it is managed by one or more individuals, called g\u00e9rants, who may be chosen outside the shareholders. Amendments to the articles require shareholders “repr\u00e9sentant au moins les trois quarts des parts sociales” (Article L223-30 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). Transfers of shares to outsiders need the consent “de la majorit\u00e9 des associ\u00e9s repr\u00e9sentant au moins la moiti\u00e9 des parts sociales”, and “Si la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 n’a pas fait conna\u00eetre sa d\u00e9cision dans le d\u00e9lai de trois mois \u00e0 compter de la derni\u00e8re des notifications pr\u00e9vues au pr\u00e9sent alin\u00e9a, le consentement \u00e0 la cession est r\u00e9put\u00e9 acquis” (Article L223-14 of the Commercial Code<\/a>), so silence for three months after notification counts as approval. A foreign founder who wants simplicity and predictability often prefers this: the rules are in the statute, the local accountant knows them by heart, and there are fewer traps. The price is rigidity. You cannot create shares with double voting rights, you cannot freely reshape majorities, and any clause demanding a higher majority than the statute is deemed unwritten. If you plan to raise funds from business angels or to allocate different rights to different partners, the SARL will fight you at every step.<\/p>\n One practical consequence follows for founders living abroad. In a SAS, organise distance governance in the articles from day one: written consultation, videoconference votes, electronic signatures and clear deadlock exits. In a SARL, accept the statutory process and calendar it: formal meetings, registered letters, three-quarter majorities. Our step-by-step guide to setting up a company in France as a foreign founder, from bank account to Kbis, VAT and first hire<\/a> covers the registration mechanics; the Kbis is the official company identity extract issued by the greffe, the registry office of the commercial court, proving the company exists in the RCS (registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s, the trade and companies register). The filing itself goes through the official single online portal, the guichet unique (Service-public.fr, choosing the legal form of your company<\/a>), with legal announcement and beneficial-owner declaration handled alongside registration. The vehicle you choose on that portal determines the rules you will live under for years, so decide on substance, not on filing speed.<\/p>\n The second great divide is the director’s social status, and it hits the wallet directly. The president of a SAS is treated like an employee for social security, without being one: the Social Security Code lists among the persons subject to general-scheme affiliation “Les pr\u00e9sidents et dirigeants des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s par actions simplifi\u00e9es et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s d’exercice lib\u00e9ral par actions simplifi\u00e9es” (Article L311-3 of the Social Security Code<\/a>). The official business portal confirms the divide in plain language: the president of a SAS or SASU and the minority or non-shareholder g\u00e9rant of a SARL are affiliated to the general scheme “as an employee equivalent”, while the majority g\u00e9rant of a SARL and the sole shareholder of an EURL fall under the self-employed scheme (Service-public.fr, choosing the legal form of your company<\/a>). Concretely, a SAS president who pays herself a salary bears contributions close to an executive’s, roughly three quarters of the net on top in employer and employee charges combined, but pays nothing at all if she takes no salary. A majority g\u00e9rant of a SARL belongs to the self-employed scheme run through URSSAF (the network of agencies collecting social contributions), with lower rates but minimum flat contributions due even in a loss-making year. For a founder abroad who will not draw a French salary in year one, the SAS often costs zero in social charges while the SARL still bills minimums. For a founder who will draw a large salary, the comparison reverses and needs a year-by-year calculation.<\/p>\n Representation powers look similar but the details matter when you sign from another country. In a SAS, “La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 est repr\u00e9sent\u00e9e \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard des tiers par un pr\u00e9sident d\u00e9sign\u00e9 dans les conditions pr\u00e9vues par les statuts”, and “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” (Article L227-6 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). The company is bound even by presidential acts outside the corporate purpose unless the third party knew. The articles may add general managers with the same powers toward third parties. In a SARL, the g\u00e9rant holds mirror powers toward third parties. The operational difference is appointment and removal. A SAS president is appointed and removed exactly as the articles provide, which can mean removal at any time without compensation if the articles say so, as the Hubbard ruling confirms. A SARL g\u00e9rant can be removed by shareholders holding over half the shares, but “Si la r\u00e9vocation est d\u00e9cid\u00e9e sans juste motif, elle peut donner lieu \u00e0 des dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats” (Article L223-25 of the Commercial Code<\/a>), so removal without a genuine reason can cost damages, and any shareholder can also ask the courts to remove the g\u00e9rant for lawful cause. A non-resident founder who appoints a local manager should therefore prefer the SAS clausebook: define the removal trigger, the notice, the non-compete and the price of the shares on exit, in the articles themselves, because the July 2025 rulings prove that side letters and later unanimous votes cannot contradict the articles.<\/p>\n Taxation of the director’s income completes the picture. A SAS president’s salary is taxed as employment income with the standard employee allowance. A majority g\u00e9rant’s earnings are taxed under the self-employed rules with different deductions. Dividends from either vehicle face the same personal tax menu, so the vehicle choice rarely turns on dividend tax alone. What does turn on it is the combination: salary level, dividend policy, and the social-charge base attached to each. Founders who plan to pay themselves mostly in dividends to escape social charges should read our analysis of how a foreign-owned SAS pays its director from abroad, between salary, dividends and URSSAF risk<\/a>, because URSSAF auditors recharacterise disguised salaries, and the penalties accrue while you are on another continent.<\/p>\n Both vehicles can be formed with one euro of capital, and both let a single foreigner hold everything through the SASU or the EURL. The capital mechanics then diverge. In a SARL, “Les parts repr\u00e9sentant des apports en num\u00e9raire doivent \u00eatre lib\u00e9r\u00e9es d’au moins un cinqui\u00e8me de leur montant”, and “La lib\u00e9ration du surplus intervient en une ou plusieurs fois sur d\u00e9cision du g\u00e9rant, dans un d\u00e9lai qui ne peut exc\u00e9der cinq ans \u00e0 compter de l’immatriculation de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 au registre du commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s” (Article L223-7 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). Cash shares must be paid up by at least one fifth at formation, with the balance callable by the g\u00e9rant within five years of registration. In a SAS, cash shares must be paid up by at least half at formation with the same five-year horizon for the rest, a detail the articles must organise. Either way, plan the cash calls before the bank asks: French banks opening an account for a foreign shareholder routinely freeze the file until the released capital is deposited and the beneficial owners, declared in the RBE (registre des b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaires effectifs, the beneficial-owner register), are identified. Our guide to the French RBE declaration, bank freezes and the fines that follow when it is missed<\/a> explains why the account stays blocked until that filing is complete.<\/p>\n Bringing in a partner later is where the SAS earns its reputation. Approval clauses, inalienability for up to ten years, pre-emption rights, tag-along and drag-along, exclusion for cause: all of it can be written into SAS articles and shareholders’ agreements, with suspension of voting rights and forced sale as sanctions. The SASU converts into a multi-shareholder SAS the day a second shareholder arrives, with no transformation procedure. The SARL is narrower by design. New shareholders from outside need the approval of shareholders holding at least half the shares, with deemed approval after three months of silence, as Article L223-14 provides, and the price of a refused transfer is set by expert appraisal. Between spouses, heirs and existing shareholders the articles can add or waive approval, but the statutory skeleton stays. There is one hard limit on SAS flexibility that foreign investors sometimes discover late: “La soci\u00e9t\u00e9 par actions simplifi\u00e9e ne peut proc\u00e9der \u00e0 une offre au public de titres financiers ou \u00e0 l’admission aux n\u00e9gociations sur un march\u00e9 r\u00e9glement\u00e9 de ses actions” (Article L227-2 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). A SAS cannot list or publicly offer its shares, which only matters if a public listing is the plan, but then the whole vehicle must change anyway.<\/p>\n Buying into an existing French company rather than creating one raises the same choice in reverse. An acquirer of SAS shares inherits bespoke articles that must be read line by line: approval, exclusion and exit-price formulas decide what the shares are really worth. An acquirer of SARL shares inherits the statutory process plus whatever the articles add. Either purchase needs the same foreign-buyer reflexes: verify the Kbis at the greffe, the RBE filing, the leases and the employment contracts, and price the social liabilities. Our review of buying SAS shares from abroad, from approval clauses to the deed and registration duty<\/a> walks through that checklist.<\/p>\n Distance does not suspend the annual calendar. In a single-member SARL, “L’associ\u00e9 unique approuve les comptes, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant apr\u00e8s rapport des commissaires aux comptes, dans le d\u00e9lai de six mois \u00e0 compter de la cl\u00f4ture de l’exercice” (Article L223-31 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). In a SASU the parallel rule applies: the single shareholder approves the accounts within six months of year-end, and cannot delegate the power (Article L227-9 of the Commercial Code<\/a>). With several shareholders, the SAS follows the meeting rules written in its articles, while the SARL follows the statutory meeting and majority rules, with accounts approval by shareholders holding over half the shares. A founder abroad should diary three dates every year regardless of vehicle: the six-month approval deadline, the one-month filing of the approved accounts at the greffe after approval, and the corporate tax payment schedule. Late approval blocks dividend distributions, late filing draws fines and flags the company at the greffe, and both stain the Kbis counterparties check. Our full annual legal calendar for running a French company from abroad<\/a> lists every deadline in order.<\/p>\n Minority protection is the last comparison, and the one founders negotiate least and litigate most. In a SARL, the majority can legally impose its will within the statutory framework, but systematically starving a minority of dividends crosses the line into abuse of majority. The Cour de cassation applies a settled two-part test, recently restated when it upheld a finding of abuse against majority shareholders who had pushed through a capital operation on misleading figures: “l’op\u00e9ration litigieuse, qui avait \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9cid\u00e9e dans le seul dessein de favoriser les majoritaires au d\u00e9triment des minoritaires, n’\u00e9tait pas conforme \u00e0 l’int\u00e9r\u00eat de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 et caract\u00e9risait en cons\u00e9quence un abus de majorit\u00e9” (Cass. com., 26 Nov. 2025, no. 24-15.730<\/a>). A decision taken for the sole purpose of favouring the majority at the minority’s expense, against the company’s interest, is an abuse of majority. The remedy can be damages and, in serious cases, annulment of the decision. A foreign minority investor in a French SARL therefore has real weapons, but they are slow and Paris-based: evidence must be gathered, an expert appointed, and the case argued before the commercial court while the majority keeps running the company.<\/p>\nB. President of a SAS or G\u00e9rant of a SARL: Pay, Social Charges and Removal When You Live Abroad<\/h3>\n
II. Setting Up and Running Your French Company From Abroad: Capital, Shares, Accounts and Minority Risk<\/h2>\n
A. Releasing Capital, Transferring SAS Shares and Bringing in New Partners From Abroad<\/h3>\n
B. Approving the Accounts Each Year and Protecting a Minority Partner Against Majority Abuse<\/h3>\n