Minority SAS President in France 2026: How to Secure Your Decision Power
Running an SAS without owning the majority exposes you to ad nutum dismissal and imposed collective decisions. Here are the statutory, contractual and wealth levers to secure your decision power without paralysing the company.
This topic is part of our service
Business law support in France | Corporate secretarialExpert note: This article was written by our chartered accountancy firm. Information is current as of 2026. For a personalised review of your situation, contact us.
Updated 1 June 2026.
Executive summary — Running a French SAS without majority ownership exposes the director to two structural risks: ad nutum dismissal (no notice, no severance by default) and imposed collective decisions by simple majority. Four levers secure power: (1) tailored bylaws with qualified majorities and veto rights, (2) shareholders' agreement clauses on inalienability, approval and anti-dilution, (3) wealth structuring via a personal holding to preserve leverage, (4) indemnified-dismissal clauses or parachute negotiated upfront. The SAS form offers vast statutory freedom (Commercial Code art. L.227-1), but that freedom cuts both ways: it protects or exposes depending on what bylaws provide.
At Series A or B, many founders become minority shareholders (often 25-40%). Without precautions, they keep the president title but lose effective control. This article complements our SASU vs EURL comparison and our shareholders' agreement analysis: it focuses on governance and decision power, not on remuneration or tax.
The two structural risks for a minority president#
Risk 1 — Ad nutum dismissal#
Absent a contrary statutory clause, an SAS president is dismissible ad nutum — at any moment, without ground, notice or severance. This regime mirrors SAS statutory freedom: everything is negotiable, nothing is granted by default. Case law (Cass. com., 14 May 2013, n° 12-15.119) sanctions only abusive dismissal (vexatious or honour-damaging conditions), not the dismissal itself.
Risk 2 — Imposed collective decisions#
Commercial Code art. L.227-9 mandates certain collective decisions (capital changes, mergers, dissolution, accounts approval) but leaves majorities to the bylaws. Without care, simple majority (50% + 1) applies. A founder at 35% of capital can therefore see a capital increase, merger or subsidiary sale decided against them.
Lever 1 — Tailored bylaws#
The SAS allows near-total statutory freedom. Three critical clauses to insert:
Qualified majorities#
Identify strategic decisions subject to enhanced majority (60%, 75%, even unanimity):
| Decision | Standard majority | Recommended enhanced majority |
|---|---|---|
| Accounts approval | Simple | Simple |
| Capital increase | Simple | 75% with founder veto |
| Object change | Simple | Unanimity or 80% |
| Asset sale > 20% balance sheet | Simple | 75% |
| Senior hire > €X | Simple | President veto |
| Investment > €X | Simple | President veto + board approval |
Presidential veto right#
Bylaws may grant a veto right to the president on certain decisions, provided that right does not make the president sole master of all decisions (otherwise abuse risk). Practical: limit veto to 5-8 strategic decisions, listed by name.
Designation and dismissal clause#
The president may be appointed for a fixed term (3 to 5 years renewable) with limited dismissal grounds: gross misconduct, criminal conviction, physical incapacity. Any other dismissal triggers severance set in the bylaws. This precaution radically changes the balance.
Lever 2 — Shareholders' agreement#
The pacte complements bylaws with contractual undertakings (privity only, but damages on breach). Five key clauses:
Inalienability clause#
Prevents shareholders (including investors) from selling their shares for a defined period (often 3 to 5 years). Limits governance changes imposed by a new shareholder.
Reinforced approval clause#
Commercial Code art. L.227-15 authorises approval clauses in SAS. The pacte can require president approval for any third-party share transfer, creating structural oversight on the cap table.
Anti-dilution clause#
On a future capital increase, the founder retains a reinforced preferential right or a full ratchet / weighted average mechanism to maintain percentage in case of a down round.
Disagreement-governance clause#
Escalation mechanism for deadlock between president and board or shareholders: mandatory mediation, advisory vote of an independent committee, joint expertise. Avoids deadlocks ending in dispute.
Drag-along with floor#
If majority shareholders want to sell (drag-along), the pacte can set a floor price guaranteeing the minority founder a minimum amount. This wealth protection is rarely negotiated, though technically simple to insert.
Lever 3 — Wealth structuring#
Holding shares through a personal holding offers several advantages:
| Advantage | Mechanism |
|---|---|
| Leverage | Re-invest dividends intra-group (parent-subsidiary regime, 95% exemption) |
| Transmission | Prep for Dutreil pact, dismemberment |
| Risk insulation | Professional and personal wealth separated |
| Exit flexibility | Contribution-cession (CGI art. 150-0 B ter) with deferral |
Holding creation must precede any major fundraising to avoid tax complications. See creating a holding.
Lever 4 — Indemnified-dismissal clauses#
Failing limited-ground dismissal, provide a severance for dismissal without serious cause. 2026 practices:
- 12 to 24 months of gross compensation for a Series A SAS founding-president.
- Acceleration of unvested shares or BSPCE on dismissal without cause.
- 24-month share parking after dismissal to allow personal refinancing.
These clauses must be in the bylaws or in a separate corporate-mandate agreement; the pacte alone is not enough (privity only).
Our chartered accountant's analysis#
1. The SAS is free, but freedom cuts both ways. Many founders create their SAS with standard bylaws (registry templates, online providers). These templates contain none of the protections described above. At funding, the investor imposes its own template, calibrated for minority-investor protection — not founder protection. The window to negotiate president protections is before funding.
2. Bylaws/pacte coherence is crucial. A protection in the pacte but contradicted by bylaws is ineffective: bylaws prevail. A president whose bylaws allow ad nutum dismissal and pacte requires limited grounds is dismissible ad nutum — investors can dismiss then settle damages later. Cross-audit both documents with expert counsel.
3. The balance of power changes with each round. A founding president at 60% pre-round has considerable negotiation room. The same president at 30% post-Series B has lost leverage. Preparing the protection framework at incorporation or at the first round is the only strategic window. Postponing this discussion to a later round amounts to giving it up.
The underestimated risk#
The underestimated risk is not dismissal — it is rare and visible. It is slow erosion of power: a founding president at 40%, without veto on hiring an operational CEO, watches their role gradually empty. The CEO has resources, budget, teams; the president keeps the signature but no longer the decision. This scenario is more frequent than abrupt dismissal and equally destructive to effective power.
Our recommendation: insert in the pacte an operational governance clause stating that any senior operational hire (CEO, COO, CRO) requires presidential approval and substantial org-chart change requires qualified board majority.
What the director must decide#
| Decision | Question | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Dismissal | Ad nutum or limited ground? | Determines mandate security |
| Qualified majorities | Which decisions? | Which cannot pass without the president |
| Ownership | Direct or via holding? | Optimises transmission and tax |
| Severance | How many months? | Secures exit on dismissal |
| Vesting | Bad-reason acceleration? | Protects wealth on unjustified dismissal |
| Supervisory committee | To set up? | Provides balanced counter-power |
2026 watch points#
-
CSRD and presidential reporting — 2026 sustainability reporting obligations increase personal president liability. Verify D&O insurance coverage.
-
PACTE law and raison d'être — A raison d'être stated in the bylaws binds the president. Any deviation can be invoked as dismissal ground. Calibrate drafting.
-
AI Act and governance — 2026 AI Act obligations directly concern presidents of companies using high-risk AI systems. Anticipate compliance.
-
SAS president social regime — The SAS president remains an assimilé-salarié (general regime) with high employer cost (~80% of net pay). Periodically benchmark with a SARL/EURL if personal tax allows.
-
Case-law evolution — The Cour de cassation continues to refine abusive-dismissal contours (2024-2025). Useful watch before any sensitive operation.
Frequently asked questions
Can the SAS president refuse to sign a simple-majority decision?+
No — when validly taken by shareholders, the president must execute the decision. However, if the bylaws grant a presidential veto on the decision, they can block. Signing an act they should not have signed engages personal liability (mismanagement). In major disagreement absent statutory veto, resignation is the last option — but may trigger bad-leaver clauses.
Can a limited-ground dismissal clause be circumvented?+
Hardly, but yes. Shareholders can vote a statutory amendment removing the limited-ground clause, subject to the majority required for amendment (often 75% or 100%). If the president holds a veto on statutory amendments, they block. Hence the importance of a veto on bylaw amendments themselves.
Difference between SAS president and SAS general manager?+
The SAS may have a president (mandatory statutory body) and one or more general managers (DGs, optional). The DG has in principle the same third-party powers as the president, except statutory limitation. For a minority founder, having an operational DG is useful for delegation; but it is also a risk if that DG becomes the investors' preferred contact and marginalises the president.
Is the minority president liable for majority-imposed decisions?+
Yes — civil and criminal liability extend to acts the president signs, even resulting from collective decisions. The only defence in case of action is to demonstrate formal opposition recorded in the minutes and, if needed, immediate post-vote resignation. Traceability of opposition is essential.
Long mandate or renewable mandate?+
A renewable 3-year mandate offers better security/flexibility than an indefinite mandate. Renewal allows renegotiating terms (compensation, severance, scope) as the company evolves. An indefinite mandate gives apparent security but exposes to surprise dismissal without prior renegotiation framework.
Official sources#
- Légifrance — Commercial Code art. L.227-1 (SAS, statutory freedom)
- Légifrance — Commercial Code art. L.227-9 (collective decisions)
- Légifrance — Commercial Code art. L.227-15 (approval clauses)
- Cass. com., 14 May 2013, n° 12-15.119 (ad nutum dismissal and abuse)
- BOFiP — SAS president social and tax regime
Want to secure your power before a round or a sensitive operation?#
Hayot Expertise advises minority SAS presidents on governance structuring: audit of existing bylaws and pacte, negotiation of protective clauses with investor counsel, structuring via personal holding, articulation with your legal counsel. For a complete review of your effective power, book a session with our strategy and governance team.
English practical addendum#
This English section is written for international readers who need to apply the French guidance to a real management decision. The key point for a minority president of a French SAS is not to memorise every technical rule, but to connect the rule to documents, deadlines, cash impact and governance. For founders who manage a company without holding majority capital, the right approach is to identify the decision to be made, collect reliable evidence, and only then choose the accounting, tax, payroll or legal treatment.
The practical decision is which statutory clauses, shareholder agreements and reserved matters protect operational authority. That decision should be documented before the year-end close, financing discussion, payroll run, transaction signing or tax filing concerned by the topic. When the matter is material, the file should include who decided, which assumptions were used, and which professional advice was obtained.
Evidence to keep#
- articles of association;
- shareholders agreement;
- delegations of authority;
- reserved matters;
- cap table;
Management title alone does not secure decision power if governance documents and voting thresholds say otherwise. A clean file also helps the company answer questions from banks, investors, auditors, tax authorities, employees or buyers. It is usually cheaper to prepare that evidence during the process than to reconstruct it after a dispute, audit or urgent financing request.
Article written by Samuel HAYOT
Chartered Accountant, registered with the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Regulated French accounting and audit firm based in Paris 8, built to support companies across France with a digital and decision-oriented approach.
Sources
Official and operational sources cited for this page.
- Légifrance — Code de commerce art. L.227-1 (SAS, liberté statutaire)
- Légifrance — Code de commerce art. L.227-9 (décisions collectives)
- Légifrance — Code de commerce art. L.227-15 (clauses d'agrément)
- Cass. com., 14 mai 2013, n° 12-15.119 — révocation ad nutum et abus
- BOFiP — Régime social et fiscal du président de SAS
This topic is part of our service Business law support in France | Corporate secretarial
Need a quote or personalised advice?
Our accountancy firm supports you through all your steps. Get a free quote to review your situation and receive a bespoke fee proposal, or contact us directly.