EU Inc. could noticeably change the transaction market in Europe. This is because it changes central assumptions about social structures.
If shares are transferred digitally, notarial constraints are eliminated and companies can choose their registered office independently of their operating business, familiar processes in financing, M&A and structuring will shift. For investors and corporate groups, this creates the opportunity to standardize structures in a more targeted manner and align them across Europe.
With EU Inc., the European Commission has proposed a fully digital, flexible corporation that is aimed in particular at start-ups and growth-oriented companies with an international focus and opens up new scope for formation, capital structure and employee participation.
This is the impact we believe EU Inc. will have on VC, M&A and PE practices:
Thesis 1: The EU Inc. will replace the GmbH/UG in certain segments if Germany does not over-regulate.
The EU Inc. will establish itself in Germany as a genuine alternative to the GmbH and UG; in certain segments it could even replace the GmbH and UG. The prerequisite, however, is that national legislators do not over-regulate. The proposal certainly leaves scope for this. Although the planned EU regulation harmonizes key aspects, it deliberately leaves many detailed issues to national law – such as the organizational constitution, directors’ and officers’ liability or the effectiveness of provisions in the articles of association.
If the EU Inc. is strongly tied to the logic of the GmbH in German practice, the result is effectively just a “GmbH with an EU label”. If, on the other hand, the application remains functional and European in nature, the EU Inc. can become more attractive than the conventional legal forms, particularly for founder holding companies, VC-financed companies, international SPVs and acquisition vehicles.
Thesis 2: If EU Inc. becomes attractive, a wave of transformation and re-domiciliation will follow.
EU Inc. will also be strategically interesting for investors and corporate groups and open up considerable restructuring potential. This is because EU Inc. can also emerge from existing companies through a change of legal form, merger or demerger.
As soon as the legal form proves itself in practice – i.e. is accepted by registers and works in financing and transaction processes – there is a clear incentive to adapt existing structures. VC and PE investors in particular have an interest in standardizing their investments and creating comparable setups across Europe.
The result is movement in existing structures: investments are being reorganized, holding structures adapted and complex structures streamlined. In consulting practice, this will be reflected in particular in an increased demand for restructuring, post-investment structuring and the standardization of governance and reporting models.
Thesis 3: EU Inc. is fundamentally shifting the focus of due diligence.
EU Inc. will fundamentally change the focus of due diligence. This is because EU Inc. is to be completely digital – with digital shares and a digital, constitutive share register. No additional formal requirements are envisaged. In particular, notarization requirements for share transfers – as with a GmbH – are to be excluded.
This shifts the focus of due diligence: instead of formal questions of effectiveness, the quality and integrity of register management and due diligence documents take center stage. The reliability of proof of ownership, the documentation of changes, identity and signature procedures and the traceability of processes will then become decisive.
Thesis 4: EU Inc. intensifies location and regulatory competition.
EU Inc. is likely to increase competition between the Member States. As EU Inc. can operate throughout the EU, the location of the registered office will depend less on the Member State in which business is primarily conducted and more on where the regulatory and tax framework is most advantageous for the company.
This is particularly conflict-prone in the area of corporate co-determination. In principle, the EU Commission’s draft is linked to the registered office and contains fewer specific “anti-avoidance” mechanisms than SE law. From a German perspective, this increases the potential for structuring – and therefore also the risk of political backlash or downstream regulation.
In transactions, a reputational and stakeholder assessment is therefore regularly required in addition to the purely legal admissibility, particularly in the case of larger employers or in regulated sectors.
Thesis 5: EU Inc. brings efficiency gains, but only if the practice adapts its working methods.
With EU Inc., the Commission promises ambitious efficiency benefits: fast digital foundation, capped costs and digitized capital measures. However, these benefits can only be realized if market participants adapt their working methods and develop standards.
In practical terms, this means that companies would have to standardize articles of association and participation models, adapt contractual clauses and, in particular, clarify how digital proof of ownership, register management and liability risks can be properly mapped. At the same time, they would have to redesign their closing procedures and adapt them to digital processes.
If such standards become established, EU Inc. will actually be easier to use. Employee shareholdings and cross-border cap tables in particular can then be standardized more easily. This may become more important for growing companies when choosing a location and legal form.
Outlook
Even if EU Inc. still needs a few years before it is ready for practical use – availability is realistic from 2028 or 2029 at the earliest – preparations are already underway.
For companies and investors, the main thing is to identify possible use cases at an early stage: Which structures can be standardized in the future? Which financing, add-ons or exits could benefit from an EU Inc. And where is it worth making existing setups more flexible today?
EU Inc. is therefore less of a short-term issue than a structural development that could have a lasting impact on the European transaction market. The extent to which it will prevail will not be decided in the text of the regulation, but in its practical application, i.e. where market participants begin to work with it.
