Every ownership-structure report produced by VLO Law Firm rests on a single discipline: no claim without a named source, no source without a retrieval date, and no date without a stated confidence level. Control — who actually controls the company and what a shareholder can enforce — is the central question. The answer is only as reliable as the chain of sources behind it.
This page explains how that chain is built, how each link is labelled, and where the chain stops.
What the report establishesThe ownership layer visible in official registers: registered shareholders, directors, and — where the register discloses it — the beneficial owner. Source: jurisdiction-specific company register · verified within 30 days of report delivery. Confidence labellingEvery factual claim is assigned one of three levels: EXACT (primary-source record with date), PROBABLE (corroborated but not primary-sourced), or MECHANISM (structure described, figure unavailable). No claim appears without its label. What the report does not establishLegal qualification of the facts found. Whether a disclosed shareholder exercises actual control is a factual finding; what that means for a buyer's legal position is outside the scope of this report. PricePrice tiers are stated before payment. No figure is given on this page because tiers depend on jurisdiction and scope; they appear on the jurisdiction-specific service page.VLO applies a three-level citation system to every factual statement in an ownership-structure report.
Level 1 — EXACT. A record exists in the primary official register, retrieved on a stated date, with a direct reference to the register entry. Claim, source, and date appear together. This level covers registered shareholders, directors, and — where the register makes it available — the beneficial owner on record.
Level 2 — PROBABLE. The fact is corroborated by more than one source, but no single primary-register entry is available. The claim is generalised: "in the range of" or "as of the most recent filing." No precise figure is stated at this level.
Level 3 — MECHANISM. The underlying number or identity is not available from any accessible source. The report describes the mechanism — how the register works, what it discloses, and what condition of access is not met — without inventing a figure.
A claim that cannot reach Level 1 or Level 2 is not written as a factual statement. The absence of a claim is itself information: it tells the reader that the source does not disclose this, and why.
Control, in the source layer, is not a legal conclusion. It is a factual pattern visible in official records: who holds the registered shares, who is named as director, who signed the most recent filed documents, and whether any of those names change across consecutive filings.
The report maps that pattern. It does not conclude whether the pattern constitutes legal control under the applicable company law. That conclusion requires legal advice and is outside the scope of this report.
Where the register shows a corporate shareholder rather than a natural person, the report traces the chain to the next register layer. It names the point at which the chain stops — because the next jurisdiction does not disclose shareholders, because access requires a national identifier not available to a foreign applicant, or because the register simply does not exist in a form accessible to third parties.
Naming the stopping point is part of the deliverable. A report that omits it is incomplete.
For any claim about ownership structure, VLO cross-references at least three independent sources where they exist:
Where fewer than three sources are available, the report states how many were consulted and which were not accessible. A single-source claim is labelled as such.
Where sources disagree — for example, where the shareholder list in the company register differs from the one attached to the most recent annual return — the discrepancy is reported as a finding, not resolved by choosing one source over the other.
Discrepancies between sources are a separate section in every report, not a footnote.
Common patterns include: a shareholder list in the register that has not been updated to reflect a transfer recorded in filed notarial documents; a director named in the register who does not appear in the most recent annual return; a beneficial-ownership register entry that names a different natural person than the shareholder register.
Each discrepancy is described with the two sources in conflict, the date of each record, and the nature of the difference. No resolution is offered. The discrepancy itself is the finding.
The ceiling of what the sources allow is stated before payment. This is not a disclaimer appended after delivery — it is part of the scope description on the jurisdiction-specific service page.
Specific limits that recur across jurisdictions:
Beneficial ownership. Following the CJEU ruling in joined cases C-37/20 and C-601/20, public access to UBO registers across EU member states is no longer the default. Access conditions vary by jurisdiction. Where a UBO register exists but requires a demonstrated legitimate interest, the report states what that condition requires and whether it can be met by a foreign applicant without a national identifier.
Nominee structures. A register that shows a nominee shareholder discloses the nominee, not the underlying principal. The report names the nominee and states that the principal is not disclosed by the register. It does not speculate on the identity of the principal.
Shelf companies and dormant entities. A company with no recent filings may have an ownership structure that has not been updated in the register. The report states the date of the most recent filing and flags the gap.
Jurisdictions without public registers. Some jurisdictions do not maintain a publicly accessible company register. The report names the jurisdiction, describes what official source exists, and states the access condition that prevents retrieval.
In each case, the limit is a stated fact, not an apology.
Every source carries the date on which the record was retrieved, not the date on which the underlying event occurred. A shareholder transfer recorded in the register on a given date may have been executed months earlier. The report states the retrieval date and, where the register records it, the date of the underlying filing.
Retrieval dates on this page are within 30 days of the publication date of the relevant report. A report is not delivered with sources older than 30 days unless the register itself has not been updated in that period — in which case the most recent available filing date is stated.
Tier details and fixed prices appear on the jurisdiction-specific service page for each report. The structure below describes scope; figures are on the relevant page.
| Tier | Scope | Not included |
|---|---|---|
| Signal | Registered shareholders and directors from the primary company register; retrieval date; confidence level for each claim | Beneficial-ownership register; filed financial statements; cross-border chain tracing |
| Standard | Signal scope plus filed financial statements or annual returns; discrepancy section where sources conflict; one additional jurisdiction layer if a corporate shareholder is identified | UBO register where access requires demonstrated legitimate interest; legal qualification of findings |
| Extended | Standard scope plus full chain tracing across all accessible register layers; beneficial-ownership register where accessible; discrepancy analysis across all sources; statement of each stopping point with reason | Facts not disclosed by any accessible official source; legal advice on the implications of findings |
Why does the report name the stopping point rather than trying to go further? A stopping point is a verifiable fact: this register does not disclose this information under these access conditions. Going further would require sources outside official registers. That is a different service with a different scope. Naming the limit is more useful than obscuring it.
What does "retrieved" mean on a source badge? It means the record was accessed from the official register on that date and the content was captured at that moment. Register entries can change. A retrieval date is not a guarantee that the record is current at the time of reading; it is a statement of when it was current for the purposes of this report.
If a register is free and public, what does the report add? This register is public and free of charge. What the report provides is the removed path: registration with the relevant authority, the national identifier required to query the system, language, electronic signature where required, and declaration of legitimate interest where the register demands it. It also provides the cross-referencing, the discrepancy analysis, and the confidence labelling — none of which the register itself supplies.
Can the report establish who actually controls the company? The report establishes the ownership pattern visible in official sources: registered shareholders, directors, signing authority on filed documents, and — where accessible — the beneficial owner on record. Whether that pattern constitutes legal control is a legal question outside the scope of this report.
What happens if the sources conflict? Conflicting sources are reported as a finding in a dedicated section. Both records are cited with their dates. No resolution is offered. The conflict itself is material information for a buyer.
Sources: Jurisdiction-specific company registers, beneficial-ownership registers, and filed financial statements — accessed per report; retrieval dates stated on each source badge within the report. No registry URL is listed here because the applicable register varies by jurisdiction; the relevant register is named and linked on each jurisdiction-specific service page.
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: Katharina Berg — Partner, Central Europe, VLO Law Firm