Control is the first question in any cross-border transaction. Before a buyer commits to a counterparty, the relevant question is not whether the company exists — it is who directs it, who owns it, and what a shareholder can actually enforce. Official registers answer part of that question. This page describes what a single-jurisdiction order covers, where the record ends, and what the sources cannot show regardless of the tier ordered.
The angle here is control: not the company's legal existence, but the chain of authority behind it and the rights attached to each position in that chain.
What a single-jurisdiction order establishesRegistered directors, filed ownership data, and — where the register discloses it — the shareholder structure at the date of the last filing. Source: national commercial register of the target jurisdiction · verified 2026-09-30 Condition of accessAccess conditions vary by jurisdiction: some registers are open without registration; others require a national identifier, a declaration of legitimate interest, or a licensed intermediary. No single access path applies across all 35 jurisdictions covered. What the record does not showBeneficial ownership behind a nominee, undisclosed shareholder agreements, and any change in control that occurred after the last filed document. These gaps are structural, not retrievable by any tier of report. Registry facts for this rowNo exact tariff or fee data is available for this configuration. Mechanisms are described; monetary figures are not stated.A counterparty report ordered for one jurisdiction draws from that jurisdiction's primary commercial register, insolvency register, and — where publicly accessible — the beneficial ownership register or its equivalent.
The report establishes:
Each item is sourced from the official register of the target jurisdiction. The extraction date is stated on every item. No item is carried forward from a prior extraction without a fresh pull.
The report does not synthesise, interpret, or qualify the facts established. That distinction is deliberate: the report is a factual compilation. What the facts mean for a specific transaction is a separate matter, addressed separately.
Registers record formal control — the names on the filing. Actual control may differ. The gap between the two is the central limitation of any register-based report.
Formal control is established when the register names a director or shareholder and records the date of that appointment. A report can confirm that a named individual holds a directorship as of the extraction date.
Actual control is not established by the register when:
None of these gaps are jurisdiction-specific failures. They are structural features of register-based disclosure. A report at any tier names the point where the chain stops and states the reason.
Shareholder rights are established from two sources: the constitutional documents filed with the register (articles of association, statutes, or equivalent) and the jurisdiction's company law as it applies to the registered entity type.
A single-jurisdiction report extracts the filed constitutional documents where the register makes them available. It identifies the share classes, the voting rights attached to each class, and any filed restrictions on transfer.
What the sources do not allow:
The report states which documents were extracted, which were not available, and which are structurally absent from the register regardless of access tier.
Every counterparty report has a ceiling. That ceiling is stated before payment, not discovered after delivery.
The ceiling is determined by three factors.
Filing currency. Most registers record what was filed, not what is current. A directorship change takes effect on the date of the board resolution. It appears in the register on the date the filing is processed — which may be weeks or months later. The report states the extraction date and the date of the most recent filed document. The gap between them is visible.
Jurisdictional disclosure rules. Some jurisdictions do not disclose beneficial owners in any public register. Others disclose them subject to a legitimate interest test that a foreign applicant may not satisfy. Where the register does not disclose, the report names the level at which the chain stops and the rule that stops it.
Document availability. Filed documents are not always digitised. In some jurisdictions, older filings exist only in paper form at the registry office. A report covers what is available in the format accessible to the analyst. Where a document is known to exist but is not accessible, that is stated.
The ceiling is not a failure of the report. It is the accurate description of what official sources contain.
When two official sources for the same jurisdiction return conflicting data — for example, the commercial register names one director while the insolvency register names a different administrator — the report presents both records without resolving the conflict.
The conflict itself is a result. A discrepancy between the commercial register and the insolvency register may indicate a filing delay, a contested appointment, or an error in one of the registers. Identifying the discrepancy is within scope. Determining which record is correct is a legal qualification and falls outside the scope of a factual compilation.
The report names the source, the extraction date, and the specific field in which the records differ.
A single-jurisdiction counterparty report is ordered by jurisdiction and entity. The order specifies:
Where the jurisdiction requires a declaration of legitimate interest or a national identifier to access the register, that requirement is communicated at the point of order. The report is not initiated until access conditions are confirmed.
Delivery time depends on the jurisdiction. Registers that provide electronic access return data faster than those requiring a physical request. The expected delivery window is stated at the point of order.
Price is not stated on this page because it depends on the jurisdiction selected, the access conditions that apply, and the scope of documents requested. Price is communicated in response to a submitted request.
Does a single-jurisdiction report cover the full ownership chain, including holding companies in other jurisdictions? No. A single-jurisdiction report covers the target entity in the target jurisdiction. If the registered shareholder is a holding company incorporated elsewhere, that company's ownership is not established by this report. A multi-jurisdiction order is required to trace the chain across entities in different registers.
What if the register in the target jurisdiction is not publicly accessible? Access conditions are assessed before the order is accepted. Where a register requires a licensed intermediary, a national identifier, or a declaration of legitimate interest, those requirements are communicated. Where access is not achievable for a foreign applicant under any available mechanism, that is stated before payment.
Can the report confirm that no insolvency proceedings have been filed? The report confirms the state of the insolvency register at the extraction date. A negative result means no record was found on that date. It does not confirm that no proceedings have been filed since extraction, and it does not confirm that a filing made shortly before extraction has been processed by the register.
What is the difference between a director search and a full counterparty report? A director search establishes the names and appointment dates of current and historical directors from the commercial register. A full counterparty report adds the shareholder structure, constitutional documents, and insolvency register check. The scope is defined at the point of order.
How is the extraction date determined? The extraction date is the date on which the analyst retrieves the data from the official register. It is stated on every item in the report. Where a register provides a timestamp on its output, that timestamp is reproduced. Where it does not, the analyst's extraction date is recorded.
National commercial registers of the target jurisdiction — accessed via official register portals; no single URL applies across all 35 jurisdictions covered · extracted 2026-09-30
National insolvency registers of the target jurisdiction — accessed via official register portals · extracted 2026-09-30
Beneficial ownership registers where publicly accessible — access conditions and availability vary by jurisdiction · extracted 2026-09-30
Disclaimer: This report is a factual compilation from official registers and public sources. It is provided for informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and contains no legal qualification of the facts established. VLO Law Firm assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vlolawfirm.com.
Author: Elena Moretti — Partner, Continental Europe, VLO Law Firm