Since 2010, the Global Law Experts annual awards have been celebrating excellence, innovation and performance across the legal communities from around the world.
posted 4 hours ago
When an international group weighs acquiring a French subsidiary directly vs through an intermediate holding company, the answer is never one-size-fits-all, it depends on the interplay of tax efficiency, financing needs, liability ring-fencing and eventual exit strategy. At abci Avocats, I advise cross-border buyers on exactly this decision, and I have seen how the wrong French M&A structure can erode deal value long after closing. This guide sets out a practical, side-by-side comparison, covering legal control, the participation exemption in France, acquisition financing, employee liabilities and exit planning, so that M&A teams, CFOs and in-house counsel can make the right structural call before signing a letter of intent.
There is no universally superior route. A direct acquisition in France is simpler and cheaper when a single buyer acquires one target with no plans to bolt on further European assets. An acquisition through a holding company is typically better when the buyer plans to centralise financing, benefit from the participation exemption on future dividends and capital gains, or add further subsidiaries within the EU. Private equity sponsors almost always favour the holding route for leveraged structures and clean exit mechanics.
| Buyer profile | Recommended structure | Primary driver |
|---|---|---|
| Single-asset trade buyer (one French target, no European expansion) | Direct acquisition | Simplicity, speed, lower set-up costs |
| Strategic acquirer building a European platform | Holding company (French or EU) | Tax consolidation, centralised governance, bolt-on flexibility |
| Private equity / financial sponsor | Holding company (leveraged) | Debt push-down, participation exemption on exit, clean sale of HoldCo shares |
The sections below unpack each variable in detail. If you need a tailored recommendation for a live transaction, you can reach cross-border M&A specialists through the Global Law Experts lawyer directory.
Before comparing direct and holding structures, it helps to understand the two principal deal mechanics available under French law. The vast majority of mid-market and large-cap transactions in France proceed as share purchases (cession de titres), where the buyer acquires all or a controlling block of shares in the target entity, typically a société par actions simplifiée (SAS) or a société à responsabilité limitée (SARL). Share deals preserve the target’s contracts, permits and employment relationships by operation of law, because the legal entity itself does not change.
Asset purchases (cession de fonds de commerce) are less common but serve specific purposes, for example, when the buyer wants to cherry-pick assets and avoid inheriting hidden liabilities. Asset deals trigger different tax consequences (registration duties on the purchase price, VAT considerations) and require individual consent or novation for each commercial contract and lease.
A direct acquisition in France means the parent company, wherever it is incorporated, holds the target’s shares on its own balance sheet with no intermediate entity between them. This is the simpler route and, in many cases, the fastest to execute.
When the buyer acquires shares directly in a French SAS, it becomes the sole or majority shareholder and appoints the président (and, optionally, a directeur général). The SAS offers substantial contractual freedom: its articles of association can be drafted to mirror the governance preferences of the foreign parent. A SARL is more rigid, decisions above certain thresholds require qualified majorities set by law, but is sometimes retained for smaller targets. Under both forms, the foreign parent exercises legal control immediately upon closing.
Key characteristics of the direct route:
The direct structure works well for trade buyers focused on a single French target with no immediate plans to expand their European footprint. It avoids the cost of forming and maintaining a holding company and eliminates the additional transfer-pricing documentation that an interposed entity would require.
An alternative, and, for many cross-border acquirers, the preferred, approach is acquiring a French subsidiary through a holding company. The holding sits between the ultimate parent and the French target. It can be incorporated in France itself (a French HoldCo, often an SAS) or in another EU jurisdiction such as Luxembourg or the Netherlands, depending on the group’s wider structure and tax treaty network.
A French holding company benefits from the domestic régime mère-filles (parent-subsidiary regime) and the participation exemption under the Code général des impôts (CGI). It can also form a tax-consolidated group (intégration fiscale) with the French target, offsetting profits and losses across the group. A holding established in Luxembourg or the Netherlands may offer additional treaty benefits, but post-BEPS and post-ATAD, the substantive advantages of purely treaty-driven structures have narrowed considerably. In my view, a French HoldCo is now the default recommendation unless the buyer’s group already has an operational presence in another EU jurisdiction that justifies a different location.
| Feature | French HoldCo | Luxembourg / Netherlands HoldCo |
|---|---|---|
| Participation exemption on dividends | Yes, 95% exemption under régime mère-filles (effective tax of approx. 1.25% on dividends received) | Available under local law, subject to substance requirements and anti-abuse rules |
| Tax consolidation with French target | Yes, intégration fiscale possible | Not available (holding is outside France) |
| Withholding tax on dividends up to parent | EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive: 0% if conditions met; domestic rate otherwise 25% | EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive: 0% if conditions met; treaty rates apply if outside EU |
| Substance requirements | French-domiciled directors, office, activity, typically straightforward | Increasingly strict; ATAD anti-abuse provisions apply |
| Set-up and maintenance cost | Moderate | Higher (dual jurisdiction compliance) |
Tax is the single most decisive factor for many buyers when choosing between a direct acquisition and an acquisition via holding. Below is a detailed comparison of the principal tax issues that arise in each structure, grounded in the Code général des impôts and guidance published by the French Tax Administration.
| Tax issue | Direct acquisition | Acquisition via holding |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate income tax on target’s profits | Standard rate of 25% applies to the French subsidiary; no consolidation with a foreign parent | Same 25% rate, but if French HoldCo is used, intégration fiscale allows offset of holding losses against target profits (and vice versa) |
| Participation exemption on dividends | Not available at the French level, dividends flow directly to the foreign parent and are taxed under the parent’s home rules (minus treaty-reduced withholding) | French HoldCo benefits from the régime mère-filles: 95% of dividends received are exempt, resulting in an effective tax burden of approximately 1.25% |
| Participation exemption on capital gains (sale of target) | Capital gain on share sale is taxed in the parent’s jurisdiction; no French participation exemption available | French HoldCo can claim the long-term capital-gains exemption on qualifying shareholdings held for at least two years, only a 12% quote-part de frais et charges is taxable, yielding an effective rate of approximately 3% |
| Withholding tax on dividends paid out of France | 25% domestic rate, reduced by applicable tax treaty (commonly to 5–15%) or eliminated under the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive for qualifying EU parents | If HoldCo is French, dividends from target to HoldCo are intra-France (no withholding). Dividends from HoldCo up to ultimate parent are subject to 25% or treaty/directive reduction |
| Registration duty / stamp tax on share transfer | 0.1% on transfer of SAS shares; 3% (with abatement) for SARL shares, paid once, at acquisition | Same duties apply to the holding’s purchase of target shares; no additional duty on formation of a new French SAS HoldCo |
| Transfer pricing obligations | Fewer related-party transactions to document (only parent ↔ French subsidiary) | Additional intercompany relationships (parent ↔ HoldCo ↔ subsidiary) require robust transfer-pricing documentation and compliance with Article 57 CGI |
| Interest deductibility / thin-cap | Acquisition debt sits on parent’s balance sheet, no French deduction for interest | Acquisition debt at HoldCo level: interest deductible subject to ATAD-compliant French thin-cap rules (Article 212 bis CGI) and net interest limitation (30% of EBITDA or €3 million safe harbour) |
The participation exemption in France is the single most important tax advantage of the holding route. It allows a qualified holding to receive dividends and realise capital gains on the sale of subsidiaries with minimal French tax. In my practice, this exemption alone often tips the balance for buyers who anticipate meaningful dividend flows or a medium-term exit.
Acquisition financing in France is heavily influenced by the structural choice. When a buyer acquires directly, the acquisition debt typically sits on the foreign parent’s balance sheet. Interest on that debt is deductible under the parent’s home-country rules, but France provides no corresponding tax shield, there is no French entity carrying the borrowing.
By contrast, when a French holding company is used, the acquisition debt can be housed at the HoldCo level. Interest is then deductible against the HoldCo’s French taxable income (which, under intégration fiscale, includes the target’s profits). This debt push-down is a central feature of leveraged buyout (LBO) structures in France.
For further background on how international commercial law principles interact with cross-border financing, the Global Law Experts guide provides useful context.
Employee liabilities in a France acquisition deserve careful attention regardless of structure. Under Article L. 1224-1 of the Code du travail, when there is a transfer of an autonomous economic entity that retains its identity, all employment contracts in force at the date of transfer are automatically continued with the new employer. In a share deal, whether direct or via a holding, the employing entity does not change, so this provision does not technically apply. However, the practical consequences differ:
In all cases, works-council (CSE) information and consultation obligations apply before the acquisition closes. Failure to consult does not invalidate the deal but exposes the buyer to damages claims. Redundancy plans post-acquisition must follow the strict procedural requirements of French law, including the plan de sauvegarde de l’emploi (PSE) for large-scale layoffs.
Cross-border buyers must navigate two regulatory gatekeepers when acquiring a French subsidiary directly vs through a holding structure:
The structural choice at entry has a profound impact on the buyer’s options at exit. Here is how the two approaches compare when the time comes to sell, list or reorganise:
In my experience, buyers who acquire directly and later want to introduce a holding for exit purposes face additional costs, share transfers, potential registration duties and transfer-pricing re-documentation. Planning the right structure at entry is almost always cheaper than restructuring mid-way.
Before committing to a structure, run through this ten-point checklist:
Based on these considerations, here are three representative profiles and the structure I would typically recommend:
| Buyer profile | Structure | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| German industrial group buying a single French component manufacturer, long-term hold, no leverage | Direct acquisition | Simplicity; Germany’s own participation exemption covers inbound dividends; no need for a French HoldCo layer |
| US technology company establishing a European hub, plans to add targets in France, Germany and Spain over three years | French or EU HoldCo | Tax consolidation potential; centralised governance; clean bolt-on pathway; participation exemption on intra-group flows |
| UK-based PE fund, five-year hold, leveraged acquisition | French HoldCo (NewCo SAS) | Debt push-down and interest deductibility under intégration fiscale; long-term capital-gains exemption on exit; clean sale of HoldCo shares to next buyer |
The choice between acquiring a French subsidiary directly vs through a holding company ultimately comes down to the buyer’s complexity tolerance, tax position, financing needs and exit horizon. Direct acquisitions win on simplicity and cost when the deal is straightforward and standalone. A holding company wins when the buyer seeks participation exemption benefits, acquisition debt deductibility, platform-building flexibility and a tax-efficient exit. In my practice, the majority of cross-border acquirers investing more than €10 million in France opt for a holding structure, the upfront cost of an intermediate entity is modest relative to the tax savings and operational flexibility it unlocks.
Whichever route you choose, the key is to make the structural decision early, ideally at term-sheet stage, rather than retrofitting a structure after closing.
For specialist advice on this topic, contact Prof. Dr. Jochen Bauerreis at abci Avocats.
Author
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Sign up for the latest advisor briefings and news within Global Advisory Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.
Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.
Global Advisory Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional advisory services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced advisors, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
