New European Regs Ease Company Registrations
EU Statute Allows Companies To Register As Single European Entities
January 31, 2005 at 07:00 PM
15 minute read
When GM Corp. recently announced it intended to cut $635 million in costs from its European operations by slashing jobs and closing plants, the workers' council at the company's Opel operations in Germany had a better idea.
The council argued the company could achieve its goals by merging its
100 European subsidiaries into a single SE (Societas Europaea), the new corporate creature created by the European Company Statute (ECS). The statute, which came into force in October 2004, allows a business incorporated in one member state to register as a single European entity with an SE designation.
Armed with estimates from the European Commission suggesting that SEs could save European businesses $40 billion annually, the Opel council maintained that an SE could save GM money by ending the duplication of work in human resources, finance, marketing and product planning. GM is currently considering the option.
EU officials also believe SEs will allow companies to better exploit cross-border opportunities and thereby boost their competitiveness.
“The SE will appeal to large corporations that want to present European credentials in their branding, and those engaged in cross-border joint ventures in the European Union,” says Martin Mendelssohn, a partner at CMS Cameron McKenna in London.
Despite those advantages, few companies are rushing to form SEs. In fact, at press time, only 12 had shown any interest. “There's no headlong rush to use the SE, that's for sure,” Mendelssohn acknowledges.
The primary barriers appear to be the patchy nature of the statute and the statutory requirements for worker involvement in the formation of an SE. “It's a tentative environment where both EU law and domestic laws haven't caught up with the SE concept,” Mendelssohn says.
Home Court Advantage
In its final form, ECS requires each member state to treat an SE as if it were incorporated in the country where it has its registered office, known as the “home state.” But this is a great deal more complex than it sounds.
In fact, the law allows the home states to determine many of the rules, including those relating to insolvency, directors duties, capital and capital maintenance, and the preparation, audit and publication of financial statements. This means that SEs will be subject to different company and tax laws depending on the state of registration–much like individual subsidiaries in different countries are subject to different laws.
The complexity of the jurisdictional rules governing SEs compounds the problem.
“The legal regime that applies to SEs is very confusing,” says Steven Turnbull, a partner at Linklaters' London office. “Business demands certainty and will be reluctant to submit to a structure that is so difficult to understand.”
The absence of EU-wide tax rules for SEs makes matters worse. Domestic tax rules will apply wherever an SE has permanent establishments.
“The silence of the European Company Statute on taxation issues creates double taxation problems with cross-border mergers and also with exit taxes,” says Luca Enriques, a professor of business law at the University of Bologna.
In other words, there's no clear fiscal advantage to an SE.
“Conforming tax law has not caught up with this new vehicle, so people won't be forming SEs in a hurry,” Mendelssohn says.
Still, many observers believe the major obstacle to the use of SEs lies not in the uncertainty of the laws but in the statute's requirement that employees participate in the structuring of the SE.
Employee Power
A registered SE may be subject to different employment laws than those that applied to each subsidiary, so the ECS requires a company to establish a “special negotiating body” of management and employees before creating an SE.
The purpose of this body is to give employees voice in a decision that will impact their job security, compensation, seniority and working conditions. If management and workers cannot agree on which country's employment laws will apply to the SE, the company must adopt laws of the country that offers the greatest rights to employees. So, if an American parent with operations in both Germany and the United Kingdom, for example, wanted to become an SE but couldn't reach an agreement with its workers about the employee participation rules, the company would have to adopt the German laws because they are the most favorable to employees.
“Why would anyone go to the highest common denominator when the British company could take over the German company and leave the UK employees under British law?” Turnbull asks.
In addition, employees in some European companies aren't as active in corporate decision-making as others.
“The greatest skepticism about the SE comes from the United Kingdom where employee participation in corporate decision-making is not high on the agenda, whereas countries such as Germany and France display much greater enthusiasm for such involvement,” Turnbull says.
Still, GM's European management has responded to SE proposals from unions by discussing restructuring with a “voluntary economic committee” comprising worker representatives from GM's European subsidiaries–Opel, Swedish car maker Saab, and the UK's Vauxhall.
This suggests that there may indeed be measurable advantages in the SE concept.
Shopping Around
“Most importantly, becoming a single entity may be a real administrative and operational advantage for some companies,” Mendelssohn says. That's why the companies that are considering SEs [see "The Pioneers"] are organizations with widespread European operations.
In addition, companies looking to establish a pan-European identity can gain a marketing foothold by forming an SE. Rather than marketing a collection of brands under separate domestic umbrellas, multinationals can now establish a single brand with pan-European credentials through an SE.
Another advantage is that SEs can “forum-shop” for a home state and change that home state in response to changing market conditions and regulatory environments. For example, an organization forming an SE for a cross-border venture can register in the jurisdiction with the laws most amenable to the particular venture. So long as the SE is registered and has its “administrative headquarters” in the home state, the joint venture need not even actually do business there.
If the laws of the home state change to the SE's disadvantage, the SE can change its home state with relatively little fuss and expense. Currently, companies in many European jurisdictions that wish to transfer their registered offices between states must undertake a costly and time-consuming liquidation process.
“There are and will be enthusiasts who will establish the SE as something that is successful and workable,” Turnbull says. “If just two or three high profile companies enjoy a successful practical experience with the concept, it could very well take off.”
But first the member states will have to do their part.
Getting On Board
Despite the October 2004 deadline, only six of the 25 member states–Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland–had implemented the ECS at press time. But all member states are obliged to do so, and Turnbull doesn't see the delay as a long-term problem.
“It's not unusual for countries to be late in passing legislation implementing EU measures,” he says. “In this case, it's certainly the intention of all countries to implement the ECS. The delay is not for lack of commitment to the European cause, but rather a matter of finding time on crowded legislative agendas.”
Indeed, the most powerful economic players in the European Union–the United Kingdom, Germany and France–are well on their way to implementation.
The European Commission's recent announcement that it will eliminate double taxation of SEs involved in cross-border mergers may induce countries to speed up those efforts.
Overall, the dominoes could well fall into place. And in that case, the most important question may be one posed by Mendelssohn: “Who will be brave enough to create the first SE while the environment for them remains so insecure?”
When GM Corp. recently announced it intended to cut $635 million in costs from its European operations by slashing jobs and closing plants, the workers' council at the company's Opel operations in Germany had a better idea.
The council argued the company could achieve its goals by merging its
100 European subsidiaries into a single SE (Societas Europaea), the new corporate creature created by the European Company Statute (ECS). The statute, which came into force in October 2004, allows a business incorporated in one member state to register as a single European entity with an SE designation.
Armed with estimates from the European Commission suggesting that SEs could save European businesses $40 billion annually, the Opel council maintained that an SE could save GM money by ending the duplication of work in human resources, finance, marketing and product planning. GM is currently considering the option.
EU officials also believe SEs will allow companies to better exploit cross-border opportunities and thereby boost their competitiveness.
“The SE will appeal to large corporations that want to present European credentials in their branding, and those engaged in cross-border joint ventures in the European Union,” says Martin Mendelssohn, a partner at
Despite those advantages, few companies are rushing to form SEs. In fact, at press time, only 12 had shown any interest. “There's no headlong rush to use the SE, that's for sure,” Mendelssohn acknowledges.
The primary barriers appear to be the patchy nature of the statute and the statutory requirements for worker involvement in the formation of an SE. “It's a tentative environment where both EU law and domestic laws haven't caught up with the SE concept,” Mendelssohn says.
Home Court Advantage
In its final form, ECS requires each member state to treat an SE as if it were incorporated in the country where it has its registered office, known as the “home state.” But this is a great deal more complex than it sounds.
In fact, the law allows the home states to determine many of the rules, including those relating to insolvency, directors duties, capital and capital maintenance, and the preparation, audit and publication of financial statements. This means that SEs will be subject to different company and tax laws depending on the state of registration–much like individual subsidiaries in different countries are subject to different laws.
The complexity of the jurisdictional rules governing SEs compounds the problem.
“The legal regime that applies to SEs is very confusing,” says Steven Turnbull, a partner at
The absence of EU-wide tax rules for SEs makes matters worse. Domestic tax rules will apply wherever an SE has permanent establishments.
“The silence of the European Company Statute on taxation issues creates double taxation problems with cross-border mergers and also with exit taxes,” says Luca Enriques, a professor of business law at the University of Bologna.
In other words, there's no clear fiscal advantage to an SE.
“Conforming tax law has not caught up with this new vehicle, so people won't be forming SEs in a hurry,” Mendelssohn says.
Still, many observers believe the major obstacle to the use of SEs lies not in the uncertainty of the laws but in the statute's requirement that employees participate in the structuring of the SE.
Employee Power
A registered SE may be subject to different employment laws than those that applied to each subsidiary, so the ECS requires a company to establish a “special negotiating body” of management and employees before creating an SE.
The purpose of this body is to give employees voice in a decision that will impact their job security, compensation, seniority and working conditions. If management and workers cannot agree on which country's employment laws will apply to the SE, the company must adopt laws of the country that offers the greatest rights to employees. So, if an American parent with operations in both Germany and the United Kingdom, for example, wanted to become an SE but couldn't reach an agreement with its workers about the employee participation rules, the company would have to adopt the German laws because they are the most favorable to employees.
“Why would anyone go to the highest common denominator when the British company could take over the German company and leave the UK employees under British law?” Turnbull asks.
In addition, employees in some European companies aren't as active in corporate decision-making as others.
“The greatest skepticism about the SE comes from the United Kingdom where employee participation in corporate decision-making is not high on the agenda, whereas countries such as Germany and France display much greater enthusiasm for such involvement,” Turnbull says.
Still, GM's European management has responded to SE proposals from unions by discussing restructuring with a “voluntary economic committee” comprising worker representatives from GM's European subsidiaries–Opel, Swedish car maker Saab, and the UK's Vauxhall.
This suggests that there may indeed be measurable advantages in the SE concept.
Shopping Around
“Most importantly, becoming a single entity may be a real administrative and operational advantage for some companies,” Mendelssohn says. That's why the companies that are considering SEs [see "The Pioneers"] are organizations with widespread European operations.
In addition, companies looking to establish a pan-European identity can gain a marketing foothold by forming an SE. Rather than marketing a collection of brands under separate domestic umbrellas, multinationals can now establish a single brand with pan-European credentials through an SE.
Another advantage is that SEs can “forum-shop” for a home state and change that home state in response to changing market conditions and regulatory environments. For example, an organization forming an SE for a cross-border venture can register in the jurisdiction with the laws most amenable to the particular venture. So long as the SE is registered and has its “administrative headquarters” in the home state, the joint venture need not even actually do business there.
If the laws of the home state change to the SE's disadvantage, the SE can change its home state with relatively little fuss and expense. Currently, companies in many European jurisdictions that wish to transfer their registered offices between states must undertake a costly and time-consuming liquidation process.
“There are and will be enthusiasts who will establish the SE as something that is successful and workable,” Turnbull says. “If just two or three high profile companies enjoy a successful practical experience with the concept, it could very well take off.”
But first the member states will have to do their part.
Getting On Board
Despite the October 2004 deadline, only six of the 25 member states–Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland–had implemented the ECS at press time. But all member states are obliged to do so, and Turnbull doesn't see the delay as a long-term problem.
“It's not unusual for countries to be late in passing legislation implementing EU measures,” he says. “In this case, it's certainly the intention of all countries to implement the ECS. The delay is not for lack of commitment to the European cause, but rather a matter of finding time on crowded legislative agendas.”
Indeed, the most powerful economic players in the European Union–the United Kingdom, Germany and France–are well on their way to implementation.
The European Commission's recent announcement that it will eliminate double taxation of SEs involved in cross-border mergers may induce countries to speed up those efforts.
Overall, the dominoes could well fall into place. And in that case, the most important question may be one posed by Mendelssohn: “Who will be brave enough to create the first SE while the environment for them remains so insecure?”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250