Creation, Running of Societas Europea (European Company)

A Practical and Financial Critique on the Formation and Running of
the Societas Europaea (SE).

Philip Pentaliotis
December 2011
Word Count: 14,887
DECLARATION
I declare that the work in this Practice-Focused Dissertation was carried out in accordance with the Regulations
of The College of Law. The work is original except where indicated by acknowledgement or special reference in
the text, and no part of this Practice-Focused Dissertation has been presented to any other University or body for
examination either in the United Kingdom or overseas.
Contents
Part 1: The Setting up and Running of the Societas Europaea
1.Introduction ............................................................................................................................................Page 4
1.1 Overview of the Societas Europaea
1.2 Legal Regime
1.3 Historical Progress
2.Formation ................................................................................................................................................Page8
2.1 Overview
2.2 Registration
2.3 Practical Problems Regarding Formation
3.Positive Drivers ....................................................................................................................................Page 12
3.1 Mobility
3.2 The European Image
3.3 Legal Certainty
3.4 Flexibility in Corporate Governance
3.5 Organisation and Simplification of Group Structures
3.6 Benefits Linked to Financial Activities
3.7 Employee Involvement
3.8 Taxation
3.9 Conclusion to Positive Drivers
4.Negative Drivers ..................................................................................................................................Page 20
4.1 Cost
4.2 Overly Complex
4.3 Lack of Awareness of the SE Form
4.4 The "Real Seat" Theory
4.5 Employee Involvement Regime
4.6 Practical Application of SE Regulation and National Law
4.7 Common Practical Problems
5.Distriubtion of SEs .................................................................................................................................Page24
5.1 Distrubition in relation to Specific Sectors
6.Conclusion to Part 1 ..............................................................................................................................Page30
Part 2: Finance and Trends

7.Introduction to Statistics ....................................................................................................................Page31
8.Methods of Analysis ...........................................................................................................................Page 31

8.1 Overview
8.2 Hypothesis
8.3 Ratios
8.4 Methodology
9.Result ......................................................................................................................................................Page36
9.1 Overview
9.2 Mining and Quarrying
9.3Manufacturing
9.4 Electricity, Gas and Water
9.5 Construction
9.6 Transport and Storage
9.7 Information and Communication
9.8 Finance and Insurance Activities
9.9 Real Estate
9.10 Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities
9.11 Human Health and Social Work Activities
9.12 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
10. Conclusion to Part 2 .........................................................................................................................Page 60
11. Bibliography........................................................................................................................................Page 61
12. Annex 1 - Individual Company Research........................................................................................Page 66
13. Annex 2 - Individual Industry Research .........................................................................................Page 75
Part 1: The Setting up and Running of the Societas Europaea

1.Introduction
The common perception of companies no longer reflects the developments of corporate
needs and company law. Company models are being stretched beyond their original intention to
better suit individual corporate needs.1 Public companies no longer necessarily consist of a large
groups of shareholders, while small private companies can be seen with a high number of employees
and generating substantial turnover. The distinction between small and large companies has boiled
down towards companies whose shares are listed and those whose are not.
Regulation for the Societas Europaea ("SE") provides for a uniform corporate form across the EU,
providing all European companies with additional options and opportunities. The reasoning behind
the creation of SE had been with a view of greater commerce and harmonisation within the
European Economic Community ("EEC"). European developments in company law have been
implemented through the European Company Directives2, the SE has being the first true practical
application of the European legal theory.
The following paper provides a thorough analysis of the setting up and running of the SE, from a
theoretical, practical and financial perspective. This consists of a comprehensive review of the
developments in the overall use of the SE and analysing the performance of listed SE's in relation to
their respected industry.
1.1 Overview of the Societas Europaea
The European Commission's objective with the SE were to provide companies, with a panEuropean dimension3, the option of forming a tailor made European company which benefits from
complete freedom of establishment across the Economic Community in a cost-effective manner,45
providing for "...unequalled freedom and movement..." around the European Community. 6
The SE resembles a public limited-liability company 7 with a separate legal personality and may be
listed or unlisted, therefore applying to any size and type of company 8. For the purposes of
transparency, the name of every SE has include the abbreviation "SE", cited as an important
marketing tool and an additional a motive for becoming an SE, providing for a "prestigious look".9
Such as John Lewis Partnership; bought by the John Lewis Partnership in 1953, consisting of 76,500 partners who are also staff.
(http://www.johnlewis.com/Shops/DSTemplate.aspx?Id=36 , http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about.html)
2 See Annex 3 for further info.
3 Directive 2157/2001; Article 2. Therefore an SE cannot be formed directly by an individual legal entity..
4 Vaughan and Robertson, Law of the European Union. Issue 15,pp22.1001.
5 Lenoir, Noelle, The Societas Europaea in Europe: A Promising Start and an Option with Good Prospects, , Utrecht Law Review.
6 ibid.
7 Article 10, Council Regulation 2157/2001 on the Statue for a European Company OJ L294/21, 8th October 2001. Sets out that "...an SE
shall be treated in every MS as if it were a Public Limited-Liability company formed in accordance (with its national laws)...", Article 61, 62;
Annual accounts of the SE are subject to the rules applicable to public limited liability companies in the MS of its registered office.
8
Eidenmuller/Engert/Hornuf, Incorporating Under European Law: The Societas Europaea as a Vehicle for Legal Arbitrage. Their study
demonstrates how the SE is frequently utilised by small and medium sized enterprises They defined "small" as up to nine employees and
under 1 million Euros turn over, and "medium " as 10-499 employees and generating between 1-50 million Euros.
9 Study on the operation and the impacts of the Statute for a European Company (SE)- 2008/S 144-192482, Final Report, 9/12/09. Report
drawn up following call for tender from the European Commission.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2010/se/study_SE_9122009_en.pdf
The SE provides for a monistic or dualistic governance structures in addition to effective internal
restructuring, especially for groups of companies. These options have been made available for the
first time to a number of companies, depending on which MS they are registered in.10
1.2 Legal Regime
The SE is governed by Council Regulation 2157/2001 on the statute for a European Company
[2001] OJ l294/21 (hereby know as " regulation or " directive") and complimented by a separate
directive regarding employees, Directive 2001/86/EC.
SE Regulation sets out a "hierarchy" of laws which will apply to the SE if the regulation has no
relevant provision.11 The importance of this is demonstrated by SE regulation containing 65
references to national law in the place of necessary provisions which should be included in the
regulation. This link between the SE and national law is a fundamental theme of the SE, with the
regulation not addressing certain company law areas, such as taxation,12 accountancy requirements,
bankruptcy rules and other critical regulatory requirements, leaving them up to the individual MS to
determine. Some academics have described the SE as being "only partly" European, given the
frequent references. 13 However, all national corporate forms are directly influenced by the
underlying principles of the European Company Directives.
Figure 1: Pyramid chart depicting hierarchy of regulation applying to SE's; taken directly from E&Y Study.14
10
Such as Germany who have strict governance and co-determination rules; Vaughan and Robertson, Law of the European Union. Issue
15.
11 Directive 2157/2001, Article 9
12 European Newsletter, The European Company: Overview and Outlook. Tim Veen, 2007.
13 Vaughan and Robertson, Law of the European Union. Issue 15 [pp22.1001+] Overview of the SE
14 Ernest & Young. Study on the operataion and the impacts of the Statute for a European Company (SE)- 2008/S 144-192482, Final Report,
9/12/09. Report drawn up following call for tender from the European Commission. Also see Directive 2157.2001 Article 9 para 1 lit. (c)(
1.3 Historical Progress

The original concept of a 'European Company' was purportedly proposed in 1926 in the form
of a Supranational Limited-Liability Company.15
Since the beginning of the European Community, the SE was a highly prioritises project. The
progression of SE regulation was long drawn and went through a number of revisions as early drafts
gave rise to controversies of creation and design. 16 The SE as a legal entity was originally and
officially proposed to the European Commission during the late 1950's.17
The first proposal only took its first significant steps following the entry of the Treaty of Rome
1957,18 following the creation of the Common Market.19 It was adopted by the Commission in 1970
but subsequently withdrawn due to a series of criticism and stalled negotiations. 20 A revised second
proposal was put forth in 1975, similar to the first draft and it too was met with criticism and
deemed in need of review. 21
Notable criticism from which prompted review;
Netherlands: insisting that the proposed SE lacked flexibility and that it not meet the needs
of all countries, as well as describing it as being too similar to the strict German model.
UK and Ireland Due to taxation issues on the exchange of shares, criticisms from the UK and
Ireland ultimately had all regulation relating to tax permanently removed from SE regulation.
Germany raised concerns towards the employee provisions, worrying that the SE would be
used to escape their co-determination principles.22
These concepts were taken into consideration and required two further revised versions in 1989 and
1991, these drafts were inundated with difficulties relating to political consensus.23
SE regulation took its final and current form with the publication, in October 2001, of Directive
2157/2001, which was implemented in 2004.24 25 The statute applies directly to each MS, as
described in Article 70,26 by being "...binding in its entirely and directly applicable...".
iii), Article 5,15 Abstracts. 1,18,51,53,Article 6, Reichert, Jochem. Experience with the SE in Germany, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 4, Issue
1, March 2008.
15 Schriftffuher-Amt der Standigen Deputation des Deutschen Juristentages (ed.), Verhandlungen des 34. Deautschen Juristentages, Berlin
1927, vol. 2 p 789 (resolution no. 4) ,48th German Jursts Forum , 192. As explained by Jessica Schmidt in reference 16.
16 Schmidt, Jessica (2010), The European Company (SE): Practical Failure or Model for Other Supranational Company Types?, Asian Journal
of Law and Economics: Vol. 1: Issue 2, Article 4.
17 Proposal for a Council Regulation Embodying a Statute for European Affairs; former Justice of the 'Conseil Constitutionnel"
18 Treaty Establishing the European Community, as Amended by Subsequent Treaties, Rome, 25 March 1957 - The creation of the
European Economic Community (EEC)
19 Lenoir, Noelle, The Societas Europaea in Europe: A Promising Start and an Option with Good Prospects, , Utrecht Law Review.[FIX]
20 Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on a Modern Regulation Framework for Company Law in Europe (2002), pp113.
21 Rose, Casper. The New Corporate Vehicle Societas Europaea (SE): Consequences for European Corporate Governance, Volume 15,
Number 2, March 2007.
23
European Commission, Internal Markets and Service: Report of the Reflection Group On the Future of EU Company Law, Brussels, 5th
April 2011. "The following are the views of the Reflection Group; not be interpreted as representing the views of the European
Commission"
24 Directive 2157/2001; Article 70.
26 Article 70, *** Reference to actual SE directive
While drafting the current SE regulation, the Commission attempted to mirror the fundamental
principles of the European Economic Community, 27 with a lot of focus given to mobility, facilitation
of mergers, creation of subsidiaries, encouragement of grouping and joint initiatives and general
ease of into European Markets. 28 The number of reforms, criticism and the input of principles and
experience from all MS's demonstrate how the SEs has been used as for testing for newly created
principles and legislation, all created in the view of a harmonised and uniform Europe.
To avoid resembling any national laws too closely, the regulation takes advantage of "renvoi
provisions" 29 utilising references to national law in the regulation in replace of fully drafted
regulations.30 31 The SE regulation therefore provides for specific derogatory provisions from each
individual Member State, therefore creating a "Hybrid" company, half European and half National. 32
However, the European Company Law Directives set basic corporate rules which apply to all
companies, as they are required to be implemented in every MS. Indicating that a number of
references are actually Diverted to a national law which has been heavily influenced by the Company
Law Directives.
The Commission was expecting the SE to provide growth in trade and commerce, especially for intracommunity trade. However, the SE regulation was expected to meet with difficulties, as
demonstrated in Article 69 of the regulation, requiring that the directive itself must be reviewed
after 5 years.33
European Developments Post SE Creation
In 2005, the EC implemented a number of new directives34, most notably on cross-border
mergers, in addition to establishing a number of groups and committees in relation to the
development of company law, further demonstrating the prioritised place of company law
developments in the EC. 35 36 See Annex 5 and 6 for further info.
27
Article 220, The Treaty of Rome, 25th March 1957 states "..Member States shall...(have a)... mutual recognition of companies or firms
within the meaning of the ...(article)... the retention of legal personality in the event of transfer of their seat from one country to another,
and the possibility of mergers between companies or firms governed by the laws of different countries..."
28 European Commission, Internal Markets and Service: Report of the Reflection Group On the Future of EU Company Law, Brussels, 5th
April 2011. "The points made are the views of the Reflection Group; not be interpreted as the views of the European Commission"
29 "Renvoi Provisions" are references to national law.
31 The application of Council Regulation 2157/2001 of October 2011 on the Statute for a European Company (SE), COM(2010) 676,
Brussels, 17.11.2010
33 Directive 2157/2001,,Article 69.
34 Directive on the Statutory Audit, Council Directive 2006/43 ([2006] OJ L157/87, Directive reforming the Second Directive on legal
Capacity- Council Directive 2006/68 ([2006] OJ L264/32), Directive on reforming corporate disclosures- Council Directive 2006/43 ([2006] OJ
L224/1, Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 11th July 2007 on the exercise of shareholders rights.
35 European Corporate Governance Forum, Advisory Group on Corporate Governance and Company Law, the Standards Advice Review
Group and the Accounting Regulatory Group; the latter two bodies are central to the operation of the International Accounting Standards
and the International Financing Reporting Standards financial reporting regime; key groups relating to the Finance Sector; From Vaughan
and Robertson, The Law of the European Union; Volume 4, Oxford University Press, 2009.
36 Further Developments- Accounting - Directive 2006/46/EC, Limitation of the Civil Liability of Statutory Auditors and Audit Firms, Reports
on the implementation of the Directive on Takeover bids, Transparency Directive - 2007/14/EC, 2004/109/EC, Amendments to the Third
and Sixth Directive on mergers and divisions..ibid
2. Formation
2.1 Overview
SE formation is governed by the laws applicable to limited liability companies in the MS, in
which the SE is to establish it's registered office. 37 The SE acquires it's separate legal personality on
the date on which it is registered as an SE. 38
Total Number of SE's

2011
993
2010
692
2009
483
2008
315
2007
144
2006
59
2005
24
2004
7
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Figure 10: Total number of SE's by total number of SE by the end of each year, as of 14th December 2011.39 40
The number SE registrations has been growing at rapid rate, with an almost 50% rise from year to
year. The popularity in the number of SE's can be connected a variety reasons, as discussed below in
section 5.
The SE directives provides for four mechanisms to form an SE, namely by merger, through the
creation of a holding company, establishing subsidiaries or by transformation, in addition to a fifth
"indirect" method of formation known as "secondary formation". (For practical and procedural
details on these types of formation see Annex 8.)
An underlying principle of all four methods, is the requirement for two pre-existing companies, with
a pan-European dimension, which have existed for at least two years in different MS's. In addition to
this is a minimum subscribed capital of 120,000 EUR and the mandatory employee negotiation
period.41 42 43
37
Directive 2157/2001, Article 15(1).

Directive 2157/2001, (Article 16(1).
39 European Worker Participation, http://www.worker-participation.eu/
40 Eidenmuller, Engert, Hornuf. How Does the Market React to the Societas Europaea?
38
SE By Method of Incorporation
Unknown, 1%
Subsidiary,
30%
Conversion,
44%
Merger, 22%
Holding, 3%
Figure 11: SE by method of incorporation, based on the 5 different methods of Article 2.3 as of June 2011 44
A criticism of formation has been that the stringent formation requirements can be bypassed, as
legal entity can simply purchasing a shelf SE and tailoring it to their needs. The regulation has
indirectly created a niche business of specialist providers of shelf SE companies. 45
In at least 40 cases; SEs have been formed as shelf companies and sold to end users. Interviews with
personnel involved in such cases stated that this method is being used to employ a company with a
pan-European Dimension as an 'incorporation vehicle' to comply with the cross-border
requirements. 46 The registration of a shelf SE for the purposes of being sold to avoid formation
requirements demonstrates that there is a demand for easier methods of formation. 47
2.2 Registration
SE registration is published in the Official Journal of the European Union, which defines itself as
"...the gazette of record for the European Union...", publishing all announcements of companies
reincorporating as an SE in its weekly editions. 48 SEs only need to be registered in the MS in which it
maintains its administrative offices. An official register of the SE would be useful for transparency
purposes, though it would provide for further administrative burdens. It could be debated that the
lack of an SE registered could be due to the EC wanting the SE to be maintained by each individual
MS as just another corporate form.
42
Directive 2157/2001: Merger- Article (2)1, Holding Company- Article 2(2), Conversion- Article (2)(3), Transformation- Article 2(4).
...must be located within two or more MS
44 Eidenmuller/Engert/Hornuf, Incorporating Under European Law: The Societas Europaea as a Vehicle for Legal Arbitrage
46 "...Some of the 37 mergers and the 40 formations of common subsidiaries likely did not serve a business purposes except that of
accomplishing an SE incorporation..." Eidenmuller/Engert/Hornuf, Incorporating Under European Law: The Societas Europaea as a Vehicle
for Legal Arbitrage
48 The Official Journal of the European Community, http://www.ojec.com/WhatIsTheOJEC.aspx, Official Journal of the European
Community (OJEU).
43
2.3 Practical Problems Regarding Formation

A survey was conducted to understand the practical problems regarding formation. Most
respondents considered the formation process to be complex, time-consuming, expensive and
containing legal uncertainty, stemming from the 65 references to national.49 Common criticisms
include:
-
The cross border multinational requirement of having a subsidiary or a branch for at least
two years in a different MS prior the creation of an SE.
Limited methods of creation; especially not being able to create an SE directly or by way of
division.
High minimum capital requirements
Mandatory employee negotation and involvement rules have the potential to severely
hinder, or ultimately halt formation.50
Respondents identified several problems in converting an SE back into a national company
form.51
General lack of knowledge and experience regarding the SE legal form from both the
personnel of company and in relation to certain MS's methods of carrying out the formation
process. 52
SE regulation fails to properly define "subsidiairy", which has lead to issues in the diverse
definition found within different MS. This problem is also apparent in the article relating
National authorities having the right to oppose a registration of an SE, if by way of merger or
the transfer, on the grounds of public interest". 53
The real seat doctrine, entrenched in Recital 27 of the regulation, is the requirement for the
registered and head offices of a company to be located within the same MS.54 Effectively, binding
the SE to the MS it is has its head offices in. The real seat doctrine is deemed to be a sufficient
system for "ensuring effective supervision of the SE" and to avoid areas of misconduct such as tax
avoidance or money laundering. 55 56
Lastly, these early stages in European cross-border mobility have the potential for a MS to replicate
the success of the "Delaware effect". Delaware being a small state which has dominated the US
49
European Commission, Synthesis of the Comments on the Consultation Document of the Internal Market and Services DirectorateGeneral on The Results of the Study on the Operation and the Impacts of Statute for European Company (SE), July 2010.
50 Report from the Commission to The European Parliament and The Council; The Application of Council Regulation 2157/2001 of 8
October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE), COM(2010) 676 final, 17.11.2010.
51 ibid.
52 European Commission, Synthesis of the Comments on the Consultation Document of the Internal Market and Services DirectorateGeneral on The Results of the Study on the Operation and the Impacts of Statute for European Company (SE), July 2010.
53 EU Project on Baseline Measurement and Reduction of Administrative Costs, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/smartregulation/files/abst09_companylaw_en.pdf; Based on results of the European Policy Studies on the administrative costs of SE regulation,
they estimated 5.2 million EUR were spend annual on administrative burdens.
54 Directive 2157/2001, Article 7.
55 Vaughan and Robertson, Law of the European Union. Issue 15 [pp22.1001+] Overview of the SE, The Commission's report in 2005
demonstrated their concerns towards the real seat doctrine, as it could potentially breach the rulings of the Court of Justice in terms of
freedom of establishment.
56 For further detail on the Real Seat Doctrine see Annex 6.
10
market in terms of incorporation. 57 The benefits of Delaware stem from its pro-company tax regime
and its extensive case law which provides legal certainty. 58
57
Eidenmuller, Engert, Hornuf. How Does the Market React to the Societas Europaea?
Ryan, Patrick S. Will There Ever Be A Delaware of Europe? Columbia Journal of European Law, Vol. 11, p 187, Winter 2004/2005.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=763164
58
11
3. Positive Drivers
The SE provides for a corporate form closely linked to domestic company laws while
benefiting from simplified cross-border mobility and enhanced pan-European trade and mergers . It
seems that the SE model would attract large companies looking to take advantage of intercommunity commerce.59
The European Commission has recently conducted a survey to understand the motives and drivers
behind companies choosing the SE form and to gain insight into practical and regulatory issues. They
gathered information from a number of professionals who work closely with SE's, the results show
eight commonly mentioned drivers behind the choice to reincorporate into a SE; the mostly
frequently quoted being Mobility and the European Image. 60
3.1 Mobility
The SE combines different techniques of corporate mobility, providing options unlike any
other company form. SE's can transfer their registered office without losing its legal identity and
there without liquidating, in addition to avoiding any taxes in relation to exiting an MS.61 62 The
transfer regime is complemented by a detailed procedural framework. 63 The directive aalso provides
an attractive option catering for pan-European mergers and the possibility for simplified expansion
in the EEC.64 Prior to the SE, cross-border mergers were a costly, complex, time-consuming, legally
uncertainty and for a number of MS, could not be completed without the presence of a third party. 65
Conversely, the directive restricts SE's from "complete" mobility through the real-seat principle. 66
The registered office and head office of the SE must be located within EU and within the same MS.
In additional to MS having the discretion to require that both offices are located in the same
building. 67
The transfer of the registered office is considered an essential driver and a comparative
advantage over other corporate forms. However, there have only been 49 transfers of registered
office as of 25th June 2010. 68 Despite the SE providing, for the first time in many European countries,
the option to transfer the registered office without first having to go through liquidation, 69
additionally the transfer of registered office being a commonly stated reason for selecting the SE
model. This demonstrates that companies merely having the option of cross-border mobility
provides for an additional option for the company. Acting as an "exit scheme" depending on any
circumstances which may arise in relation to both the country and industry the SE is located within.
59
Vaughan and Robertson, Law of the European Union. Issue 15 [pp22.1001+]

61 Directive 2005/19/EC, OJ2005 l 58/19; in addition to the Merger Directive also providing that a tax regime is not allowed to be imposed
on the exiting of a company from a country. However a company may have to pay taxes if it does not transfer both its registered office and
its real seat.
65 As demonstrated with the merger of Diamler Benz AG with American Chrysler Corporation.
66
Directive 2157/2001; Article 7.
67 Synthesis of the Comments on the Consultation Document of the Internal Market and Services Directorate-General on The Results of the
Study on the Operation and the Impacts of Statute for European Company (SE), July 2010.
69 Such as Germany; Reichert, Jochem. Experience with the SE in Germany, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 4, Issue 1, March 2008.
60
12
Number of SE which Transfered Registered

Office
Number of Transfers
25
20
20
15
15
10
5
7
6
1
1
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 2: Transfers of Registered Offices between 2005-2011 70
Creation of Subsidiaries
The SE provides for mobility in terms of pan-European Group restructuring through the
creation of "branches", "subsidiaries", or structural organization around product lines. As adopted by
Allianz SE 71, recentralizing its management by acquiring all of the share capital and voting rights in
its subsidiaries and transforming them into branches.
3.2 The European Image
The SE provides a European face to enterprise, with the majority of companies that have
chosen the SE model, publicly citing the European nature of the SE amongst their reasons behind the
choice. 72 73 The European Commission were aware that the creation of the SE would be
accompanied by a "European Image." Their image was a pan-European company which can react
quickly to market developments and to take advantage of business opportunities as they develop
across the EEC. 74 75 The directive states in Article 11 that an SE is required to display its "SE" status
within the company name as a means of identification, which could be debated to enhance the SE
image.76
The importance of the European identity varies from one MS to another.77 The SE image has been
cited as useful tool and driver for those who seek to stress their European affiliation78. In addition to
70
Eidenmuller/Engert/Hornuf, Incorporating Under European Law: The Societas Europaea as a Vehicle for Legal Arbitrage
The attractiveness of the SE model is demonstrated in the merger between Allianz and Riunione Adriatica di Sucrta, in which they
stated that the cross border mobility feature was a predominant motive for them choosing the SE.
72 Reichert, Jochem. Experience with the SE in Germany, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 4, Issue 1, March 2008.
73 Porsche; explicitly describes the SE as a modern and internationally orientated corporate form. BASF; stressed that it was the pioneer of
European chemical industry when it transformed into an SE, and that the SE was the corporate form for a global enterprise having its home
market in Europe. http://www.porsche-se.com/pho/en/investorrelations/mandatorypublications/annualreport-09-10/download/
74 European Commission, The European Company - Frequently Asked Questions, http://european.eu.int/rapid
76Directive 2157/2001;Article 11. Describes how all companies must use the abbreviation "SE" in their name.
71
13
examples of the SE image helping reduce national concerns by overcoming cultural sources of
tensions between countries. 79 80However, for specific sectors and industries, having a national
identity may prove to be more beneficial if there are strong ties to a product or service.81 Based on a
number of press releases relating to management teams involved in the creations SE's, the use of
the European Image was a motive for groups wanting to confirm their European identity. 82
A study was conducted to understand the effect of market value of a company on the day, the
preceding and following days in which a company announces their intentions to reincorporate as an
SE. Providing insight into how shareholders and investors react and view the SE model. The results
were insignificant, the authors conclude by stating that "...reincorporation does not affect market
valuations..." see figure 3 below.
Cumulative Average Abnormal Returns on Announcement of Reincorporation
Figure 3: Cumulative Average Abnormal Returns on day of announcment of reincorporation as an SE 83
The findings in Figure 3 demonstrate a change over a 60 day period. However, the market reaction
on and around the event day demonstrate that the SE is just a corporate form and will not ignite
changes in the market as there is no correlation between company model and success in busness.
The later will depend on how the individual company is performing, being run in addition to a whole
array of situations and circumstances, however some of these areas can be enhanced by the SE.
78
Notably in Eastern European countries and in export orientated countries, such as Germany. Report from the Commission to The
European Parliament and The Council; The Application of Council Regulation 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European
Company (SE), COM(2010) 676 final, 17.11.2010.
79 Examples include EADS, Airbus. Lenoir, Noelle, The Societas Europaea in Europe: A Promising Start and an Option with Good Prospects, ,
Utrecht Law Review.[FIX]
80
As demonstrated in the merger of Hoechst and Rhone-Poulene, formerly involving partners from France, Spain and Germany; found an SE
in the Netherlands. Reichert, Jochem. Experience with the SE in Germany, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 4, Issue 1, March 2008.
81 i.e. such as Switzerland -chocolates....
82 GDF-Suez and Arcelor highlighted the pre-eminence of its European identify over the national identities that make up the group (aka
French, Spanish and Luxembourg) that made up the group".
83 Eidenmuller, Engert, Hornuf. How Does the Market React to the Societas Europaea?
14
In relation to the drivers found by the European Commission's survey, other frequently mentioned
drivers include legal certainty, flexibility, organisation of group structures, employee involvement
and tax. 84
3.3 Legal Certainty
The SE is said to provide further legal certainty through uniformity and detailed procedure. A good
example is in its procedures regarding mobility, in which alternatives do not provide as
comprehensive solutions or procedures (further info on mobility see annex 8). The value of the
procedures provided by the SE have been demonstrated by some MS's implementing similar
regulation into their own laws. 85
Legal certainty has also been cited as a negative driver, as the SE still has room for improvement in
procedures and regulations in other areas, as explained in section 4.2 below.
3.4 Flexibility in Corporate Governance

Choice of board governance was an essential aspect in the creation of the SE regulation.
Recital 14 of the regulation describes that the SE is to be "...efficiently managed and properly
supervised." 86
SE regulation provides flexible management structures compared to certain national forms,87 as SE's
are given the choice between a one-tier and a two tier management structure.88 SE regulation
provides for well drafted rules governing both structures by clearly setting out all necessary terms in
relation to organisation and management.89 Companies can choose between the models to best
suits their individual needs, in addition to having the option to change system at any time.90 Studies
have revealed that a number of two-tier firms used reincorporation as an SE as a method of reducing
the number of directors on their supervisory board. 91 See Annex 7 for further information on both
tiers.
84
85 Reichert, Jochem. Experience with the SE in Germany, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 4, Issue 1, March 2008. German Transformation Act
now provides a procedure for cross-border mergers identical to that of the SE regulation. However the SE remains a vehicle for legally
certain cross-border transactions.
86 Recital 14; SE Directive
87 Such as the German Aktiengesetz which traditionally adheres to the two tier system); Schmidt, Jessica (2010), The European Company
(SE): Practical Failure or Model for Other Supranational Company Types?, Asian Journal of Law and Economics: Vol. 1: Issue 2, Article 4.
88 Article 38; SE Directive, European Commission, Synthesis of the Comments on the Consultation Document of the Internal Market and
Services Directorate-General on The Results of the Study on the Operation and the Impacts of Statute for European Company (SE), July
2010.
89 Directive 2157/2001, Articles 39-45.
91Especially in publicly traded companies; Eidenmuller/Engert/Hornuf, Incorporating Under European Law: The Societas Europaea as a
Vehicle for Legal Arbitrage
15
Board Structure of SE's

Number of SEs
500
386
400
300
200
158
100
0
One-Tier
Two-Tier
Figure 4: Choice of Board Structure for SE's; based on available information as of July 2010
The Commission demonstrated that corporate governance alone, is not a strong enough driver to
attract companies. Reinforcing the wide scope of companies needs, which cannot be provided for by
a "one-size fits all" company model, but could be facilitated for by further flexible corporate forms. 92
The use of dual-class voting rights shares and also the option for different classes of voting rights
provide further flexibility.93 The regulation gives leeway to each individual MS to specify key issues,
such as shareholder protection, 94 resulting in an array of different policies. 95
3.5 Organisation and Simplification of Group Structures
Groups have used the SE for the purposes of group reorganization, allowing uniform
governing of structures around the EEC, allowing for foreign subsidiaries to become simple branches.
The overall group structure becomes less dissected and complicated and the company runs more
efficiently. 96 As seen with the formation of 3 seperate SE by SCOR97; creating two SE's through crossborder mergers (SCOR Global P and C) and one by transformation (SCOR itself). Acheiving a group
structure of subsidiaries which best suit its needs. The process of structural simplification enabled
greater overall control systems within the groups.98
Companies have strategically used the SE model for reincorporating their group to achieve a
unilateral organisation and overall control through one single company. 99 There have been a high
number of companies in the financial sector using these methods to streamline their operations.
Companies have stated the regulation provides for simplicity for one supervisory authority and
easier compliance with capital markets, for further info see section 5.
92
Report from the Commission to The European Parliament and The Council; The Application of Council Regulation 2157/2001 of 8
93 Which address the variety of needs of investors, "...Some investors value private benefits of control more than cash flow rights. Others
may be interested in pure cash flow rights..." Rose, Casper. The New Corporate Vehicle Societas Europaea (SE): Consequences for
European Corporate Governance, Volume 15, Number 2, March 2007.
94 Article 60 provides limited protection, stating that where a SE has two or more classes of share, every decisions shall be subject to a
separate vote by each class, providing minimum SH protection of SH.
95 La Porta et al. 1997
97 SCOR SE; http://www.scor.com/en/investors/financial-reporting/annual-a-interim-reports.html
98 Lenoir, Noelle, The Societas Europaea in Europe: A Promising Start and an Option with Good Prospects, Utrecht Law Review.
99 Directive 2157/2001; Articles 39-4 5.
16
According to the European Commission, a key benefit of the SE is that it allows companies already
established in more than one MS to merge their different establishment and operate across the EC
through a single set of rules. Avoiding the costs and complexities of running separate multinational
establishment and subsidiaries. 100 SE regulations provides well strucutred reporting systems,
rationalised board and management structures and significant reductions in adminstrative and legal
costs. 101 102 103 These features allow EU groups to operate more efficiently compared to similar
national forms.
However, this method not been widely used, for example in 2008, from almost 100 newly registered
SEs, only 1 had been formed in this manner. 104
3.6 Benefits Linked to Financial Activities: due to organisation and by offering a stronger market
position, see section 5.1 for further detail.
3.7 Employee Involvement
The SE regulation takes the interests of employees into consideration. Requires for
employees located in every MS to be sufficiently represented in the supervisory body of the SE.
Statute requires the negotiation of an employee involvement model within the company. Creating a
tailored agreement between employer and employees. In addition, the regulation provides for a
"special negotiating body" to represent the employees of the company. Negotiations allow for a six
month negotiation period, which can be extended to a year. If the negotiations are unsuccessful,
regulations provide a standardised set of rules which will apply.105 It can be debated that companies
can avoid agreeing to anything above the standardised terms of the SE. The inclusion of further
standardised rules would provide for further flexibility.
The level of participation of the employees in the organs of the SE depends on the method of
formation. If by transformation, the rules previously applicable to the national LLC will apply ("codetermination continuity.") In all other cases, employee participation depends on whether there was
any form of employee participation in the founding companies. Which has been debated as reason
as to why a large number of German companies adopted the SE model, as the model allows to
"freeze codetermination." 106
100
such as Germany; European Commission, Synthesis of the Comments on the Consultation Document of the Internal Market and
Services Directorate-General on The Results of the Study on the Operation and the Impacts of Statute for European Company (SE), July
2010.
101 European Commission, The European Company - Frequently Asked Questions. MEMO/04/235
102 Ciampi Competitiveness Advisory Group of Industrialists (1995)
103 Vaughan and Robertson, Law of the European Union. Issue 15.
104 Matmar SE. Lenoir, Noelle, The Societas Europaea in Europe: A Promising Start and an Option with Good Prospects, , Utrecht Law
Review.
105
Directive 2157/2001; Article 3.
106 German companies which reach 500, or 2000 employees have to adjust their level of employee participation, requiring that 1/3 of
supervisory board members to be employee representatives if the company has more than 500 employees and 1/2 of the supervisory board
if the company has more than 2000 employees. Reincorporating into an SE can freeze there level of co-determination, even if the number
of employees later rises. Schmidt, Jessica (2010), The European Company (SE): Practical Failure or Model for Other Supranational
Company Types?, Asian Journal of Law and Economics: Vol. 1: Issue 2, Article 4.
17
No. of Employees at Time of Formation

Number
56
Unknown
50-249
10
10 until 49
0-9
240
50
100
150
200
250
0
300
Number of Companies
Figure 5: Number of Employees in SEs at the time of incorporating as an SE.107
The SE has forced a number of MS's, for the first time, to begin considering new aspects of employee
involvement. 108 109 While certain MS's already have co-determination rules, in which once a
company passes a certain threshold of number of employees, companies are required to reflect this
by appointing a relative number of employees to the supervisory board.110 111 The SE provides for a
number of companies the option to reduce the number of members on their supervisory board,
which has been a strong incentive for large companies in such MS's.112 There have been cases were
the main driver for incorporation as SE was to prevent crossing the threshold for stricter MS rules of
co-determination, as was the case with the creation of Surteco SE, expressly stating that they were
using the SE to "freeze" their co-determination. 113
3.8 Taxation
A detailed tax regime is beyond the scope of SE regulation,114 some academics debated that
the absence of tax rules work against the potential cost savings and harmonisation.115 116 However it
107
Only 6 SEs have more than 10,000 employees group wide; 4 Are German based, (Allianz SE, BASF, Fresenius and Porcshe Automobil
Holding SE); 2 are Austrian based- (Strabag Bauholding SE) and Luxembourgian (Elcoteq SE) 107 for statistics on each company see Annex 1
and 2.
October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE), COM(2010) 676 final, 17.11.2010."...there have been a number of paper on
employment law, which lead to the Commission to state that "... there is no need for further comparative studies to illuminate the many
different forms for employee representation that are currently being used throughout the Union as these studies have been already done,
and the differences well known...."
110 ibid.
Commission"
112
Allianz, Fresenius, and in particular BASF. Reichert, Jochem. Experience with the SE in Germany, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 4, Issue 1,
March 2008.
113 ibid
114Directive 2157/2001; Recital 20.
115 J McCahery, E. Vermuelen, Does the European Company Prevent the Delaware Effect?"
18
still an important factor when choosing in which MS a company will reincorporate or transfer,
therefore this advantage is closely tied with mobility. 117
The Court of Justice stated that MS's need to give special attention in securing adequate taxation
rules and for the prevention of fraud. The European Commission on Internal Markets and Services
have also stated that national tax should not be used a barrier to cross-border transfers.
Furthermore, they expressed how tax should play a role in the harmonisation of mobility, with a goal
of striking a balance between MS rights to ensure freedom to move within the Union. This
demonstrates the EC's objective of enhancing pan-European commerce by facilitating companies,
and also to the infancy of the SE. 118
3.9 Conclusion to Positive Drivers

The wide scope of positive drivers demonstrates how companies can "cherry pick" between
these benefits and can create an efficient structure and skeleton for their company to be run.
The positive drivers discussed above have a direct connection to the European Commission's view on
modernising company law, 119 which was released one year prior the SE, setting out an almost
identical agenda compared to the positive drivers of the SE above. The Company Law Action Plan
was directed at global efficiency and competitiveness of the EC business, promotion of pan-EC
economic growth, corporate responsibility SH protection and investor confidence. Their action plans
included the follow topics, the main contents include in full;
Corporate governance
Capital Maintanance
Corporate Restructuring
Mobility
The 2003 paper has been praised as it "...radically changed the direction of EC company law."
The SE can be seen as a "testing ground" for new companies and legislation, as the SE deals directly
with the topics mentioned above while neglecting other areas as respresented with the numerous
references to national law. If the SE regulation remains how it is, new company models based on and
exanding on the findings of the SE's will eventually overtake it. Unless the SE regulation is updated to
reflect the developments in European company law.
The SE is by no means a conclusion to European company law, however it has demonstrated new
methods of providing for coroprate growth and in some area providing for regulation and
procedures which will benefit a number of national regimes and overall enhancing corporate law.
117
Schmidt, Jessica (2010), The European Company (SE): Practical Failure or Model for Other Supranational Company Types?, Asian Journal
April 2011.
119 European Commission, Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union - A Plan to Move
Forward COM (2003) 284.
19
4. Negative Drivers
Based on the same study regarding the positive drivers, the most frequently negative drivers stated
by the respondents were Cost, Complexity and Legal Uncertainty 120
4.1 Cost
The minimum subscribed capital for an SE must be no less than 120,000 Euros, with the option for
individual MS's to raise the minimum as they see fit.121 This standard can be considered high when
compared to the relatives costs of establishing a LLC in the majority of national countries.122 The
minimum subscribed capital for an SE is, on average, almost five times higher than that required of a
national LLC, indicating that the SE is aimed towards larger companies 123. However, this has not
discouraged small and medium sized companies as is demonstrated by their high level of use of the
SE model. 124 Additionally, this high level of capital may contribute towards the "prestigious European
Image", as described above. 125
Subscribed Capital at Time of Formation

23
25
120,000 EUR
18
120,001 EUR - 3M EUR
3M EUR - 10M EUR
50
10M EUR - 100M EUR
238
100M+ EUR
Figure 6: SEs by Subscribed Capital in Euros, at the time of formation. From all SE's, only 3 show a subscribed capital
exceeding 1 billion EUR; (Allianz, BASF and SCOR SE) for further information on each company see Annex 1. 126
The overall costs of setting up an SE can range between 100,000 - 4,000,000 EUR.127 128 The
Commission estimate the average set up costs is approximately 784,000 EUR, which includes the
120
122 For German "AG" there is a minimum of 50,000 Euros; (cf7 AktG.),
Commission": They state how the high threshold of the minimum capital requirement (EUR 120,000) is a disincentive and, in particular, for
SMEs
125 2nd Company Law Directive;Vaughan and Robertson, Law of the European Union. Issue 15 [pp22.1001+] Overview of the SE.
127 As seen with the reincorporation of Allianz SE and BASF SE.
20
high cost of advice due to the recent implementation of the SE directive, translation costs,
registration costs and taxation. 129 130
Academics have identified a number of issues relating to the legal uncertainty of the capital regime.
131 However, as every MS must base their laws relating to subscribed capital on the Second Company
Law Directive132, once again the European Company Law Directives provide for a "...common
denominator with respect to the most important questions..." 133
4.2 Overly Complex
The SE is described by the Commission as time consuming with an overly complex
procedure, due to a lack of hindsight, practical expertise of advisers and the level of competence of
public authorities, especially in MS with very different legal regimes. 134 135
The High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens (HLG) state that
future reform of SE statute should take into account the aspect of reducing administrative burden. In
particular relating to the reduction for the disclosure of information associated with reporting,
mandatory publication requirements, the use of independent experts and the overly-frequent
requirement for calling meeting.136 The time required and legal uncertainties may outweigh the
positive aspects of the SE for some companies when deciding whether to use the SE model.137
4.3 Lack of Awareness of the SE Form
The SE has been promoted a considerable amount in some countries while it is almost
unheard of in others. An example of the lack of awareness can be demonstrated from a survey
directed at personnel involved in the management of newly formed SE. A majority of which
described how they often had to explain the nature of the SE to both partners and employees. 138
4.4 The "Real Seat" Theory
The requirement for a SE to be registered and running its headquarters from within the
same MS. The real seat theory has been implemented for transparency purposes, but has been
considered by some as a deterrent to cross-border mobility. For further information see Annex 6 and
section 2 on formation.
129
131 Directive 2157/2001; Article 5. As regulation leaves Issues relating to capital maintenance, increases and reductions to shares and
other securities up to the individual MS.
132 Second Company Law Directive, 77/91/EEC, 1974 on the raising of maintenance and alteration of capital
Commission"
136 (HLG opinion of 20May 2010, paragraph 30), Report from the Commission to The European Parliament and The Council; The Application
of Council Regulation 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE), COM(2010) 676 final, 17.11.2010.
Commission"
130
21
4.5 Employee Involvement Regime

The employment regime has also been considered a negative aspect for companies located
within a MS that does not have, or more relaxed, co-determination rules.139 Additionally, creating
uncertainty in relation to negotiations, particularly for large listed companies with a high number of
employees and have no previous dealings with co-determination. 140
Employee procedures in relation to setting up are seen as particularly complex and time-consuming.
Namely, the requirement to have concluded the negotiations on employee involvement before the
SE can be registered. 141 This aspect was heavily criticised by several respondents because it could
potentially lead to substantial delays and create uncertainty or even put an end to the registration
process. 142 143 144 With the added issue of coordinating between different laws, languages and social
standards of all MS the SE has a presence in,145 which may lead to tensions.146
A niche business has arisen from the creation of an SE Shelf company SE, intended for
parties interested in creating an SE while bypassing the co-determination The SE directive does not
require employee negotiations where the shelf SE has no employees at the time it is being registered
as an SE. 147 One further practical problem being if none of the employees are eligible, or willing to
take the lead during the negotiations period. Which would leave no competent body to open and
terminate negotiations with the employers.148
139
Including Italy and the United Kingdom; European Commission, Synthesis of the Comments on the Consultation Document of the
Internal Market and Services Directorate-General on The Results of the Study on the Operation and the Impacts of Statute for European
Company (SE), July 2010.
140 ibid
141 Directive 2157/2001; Article 12. SE Directive states that once a shelf company actively takes up operation employee negotiations must
be conducted, however companies can escape this by not hiring employees to the new SE with the timeframe of article 12, allowing it to
create any terms.
Commission"
144 Ernest and Young Report; Business have described the negotiation period as "complex, cumbersome, costly and substantially delaying
the foundation process."
148 ibid.
22
4.6 Practical Application of SE Regulation and National Law

The high frequency of references to national law and the varying legal regimes of each MS
has effectively created a hybrid European Company. The differences in national laws has given rise
to legal uncertainty and acts as deterrent towards harmonisation.149
Academics have identified the possibility to transfer the registered office as a method of escaping
certain national provisions, through "regulatory shopping". 150 151
Personnel of SE's were surveyed in relation to the strength of national legislation and governance as
a motivator for selecting in which country to establish as an SE. Participants generally agreed, nine
out of ten participants, that the content of national legislation is not an actual driver. Some
mentioned that their country choice of board system is already sufficient and that "...the choice of
board system provided for by the SE is not interesting for companies as it is available in national
law... (France, Italy, Denmark)..." 152
4.7 Common Practical Problems

-
The SE regulations raises the levels of the voting requirement for approval in meetings, while the
regulation in most MS where the management has more discretion in regards to changing
aspects of the company. 153 Indicating how the SE regulation takes consideration of shareholder
interest.
Lack of investor protection: The SE relies on Article 55154, allowing for one or more shareholders
who own 10% of all company shares the option to request an item be placed on the agenda of a
General Meeting. All other protections are those available to the LLC of each individual state.
There have been criticisms in regards to unclear regulation on the removal of members from the
management board and an unclear definition of "votes validly cast".155
Legad uncertainty due to lack of taxation rules 156
149
In addition to limited available case law to clarify issues. Schmidt, Jessica (2010), The European Company (SE): Practical Failure or Model
for Other Supranational Company Types?, Asian Journal of Law and Economics: Vol. 1: Issue 2, Article 4.
152 ibid.
153 Such as a takeover defence; Rose, Casper. The New Corporate Vehicle Societas Europaea (SE): Consequences for European Corporate
Governance, Volume 15, Number 2, March 2007.
April 2011.
23
5. Distribution of SEs
SE formation increased in an exponential way from 2004 to 2008, the trend slowed down in
2009, but in 2010 continued to increase at a rapid pace. SEs are registered in 21 out of the 30 EU MS,
with the vast majority (70%) in the Czech Republic or Germany. Very few SEs were registered in
Southern European Member states, with the exception of Cyprus which has the lowest tax regime in
Europe. 157
Distribution of Registered SEs by Country

Portugal
Lithuania
Spain
Poland
Denmark
Latvia
Hungary
Estonia
Liechtenstein
Norway
Sweden
Belgium
Ireland
Cyprus
Austria
Luxembourg
France
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Solvakia
Germany
Czech Republic
1
2
2
2
4
4
5
5
5
5
7
9
11
13
18
19
22
22
32
37
Distribution of Registered SE by
Country (As of September 2011)
175
509
0
100
200
300
400
500
Figure 7: SE distribution among countries as of September 2011. Additionally; by June 2008, one of every two SEs
had its registered office in either Germany or the Czech Republic. While only Austria and Netherlands had more than 10 SE's
at the time and Italy, Spain, Poland and 12 other MS not having a single SE registered. 158
157
October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE), COM(2010) 676 final, 17.11.2010., E&Y Study.
24
The European Commission outline stakeholders views in relation to distribution of SE's to

understand the current distribution of SEs, the following subheading are the most commonly
mentioned reasons;
1. The Size of the Members States Economy: Including the size of the domestic companies and the
scope of their market. It has been debated that MS with few pan-European Companies have
corresponding low levels of SEs, such as Portugal, Greece, Poland, Lithuania. Additionally, the
increased costs and complexity of setting up an SE is more of a hurdle for countries were
national companies are mainly small and medium sized enterprises, examples include Greece,
Poland, Spain, Portugal, Italy. 159
2. The flexibility of certain aspects of the SE form compared to national legal forms. The
popularity of the SE form in the Czech Republic and Germany could have been considered to be
partly due to limitations in their national company law.
Furthermore, there are less registrations in countries that allow only the one tier. 160 This
correlates to companies picking the SE model for a variety of reasons, corporate governance
being one. 161
Some consider the low number of the SE in the majority of MS, are due to a low or no demand in
a new corporate form. 162
3. The High Number of Shelf SEs163 in certain MS, Czech 44, Germany 22, further helps explain the
high number of SEs in these two MS, the bulk of the shelf SEs have eventually been activated. As
they are available for sale is common there and meets specific business needs. Furthermore
shelf companies are new concept to certain MS legal regime, such as in France and Italy. 164
159
160 ibid.
161 ibid.
162
Such as Italy: due to Italian company law being more flexible than the SE in most aspects; Report from the Commission to The European
Parliament and The Council; The Application of Council Regulation 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company
(SE), COM(2010) 676 final, 17.11.2010.
163 Shelf SE: companies without employees and without operational activity.
25
Current Operational Status of SE's
Operational,
273
Unclassified,
458
Shelf, 86
Figure 8: 349 of the 458 unclassified SE (those with no information available) are registered in the Czech
Republic Note: that many unclassified Czech SE are thought to be shelf companies, as demonstrated on a
number of Czech based multilingual websites offering Shelf SE's; http://www.eurospoleecnosti.cz,
http://www.czechcompanies.cz/en, http://www.smartcompanies.cz) 165
4. Tax Regimes; Companies are attracted to countries in which they will pay lower corporation
costs.166
5. European Label; particularly of importance for companies seeking to reinforce their European
Image. (See Section 3.2)
6. Publicity and Information on the SE: Respondents stated the correlation between information
available and the availability of advice given to companies by legal practitioners and consultants
contribute towards the distribution of SEs. Certain MS were the SE has been actively promoted,
such as Czech Republic and Germany, as opposed to Italy or Spain, where information and
advice on SE form is not easily accessible 167, as reflected in Figure 7. Demonstrating the strength
of knowledge and information and how a lack of these aspects negatively affect incorporation
and general growth.
7. Differing Set-up and Transaction Costs between MS, including those of setting up a new
national corporate form to create an SE. It is easier for a company to set up in a country with
flexible incorporation rules, or buying a shelf company and then utilise cross-border mobility to
re-establish in the country of their choice.
8. Geographical Position of the Member States; in relation to other countries and relevant
markets in around EU.
165
as demonstrated in Norwegian based company "Songa Offshore SE" transferring their registered office to Cyprus, which has a
corporation tax of under 11%, the lowest rate in Europe. http://www.songaoffshore.no/index.php?id=426
166
26
9.
Late Implementation of the SE Directive in Certain MS. The implementation of the SE directive
was delayed until 2006, namely for Slovenia, Greece, Luxemburg, Ireland, Bulgaria and Romania.
168 Which provides further insight into their low numbers of SEs incorporated.
This array of motives demonstrate the many needs of companies and the demand for
further flexible corporate bodies . Also demonstrating individual companies "cherry picking" to find a
corporate combination best suiting the needs of their company. Additionally showing the impractical
appliance of a inflexible "one-size fits all" company model, as reflected in the general perception of
company..
The uneven distribution of SEs across the EU shows that the statute is not adapted to cater for every
situation relating to companies in all MS. The European Commission, in a recent official report with
an underlying theme of unification and harmonisation, state they are currently reflecting on
amendments with a view of proposing amendments in 2012.169
5.1 Distrubition in relation to Specific Sectors
168
27
Number Of SE's by Field of Activity

Activities of Extraterritorial Organisations and 0
Activities of Households as Employers, 0

Education
Public Administration and Defense, Compuslory 0

Water supply, sewerage, waste management and 0
Mining and Quarrying
Agriculture, forestry and Fishing
Arts, Enterntainment and Recreation
Human, Health and Social Work Activities
Accomodation and Food Service Activities
Construction
Administrative and Support Service Activities
Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities
Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
Transporting and Storage
Information and Communication
12
Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor
24
Manufacturing
26
Real Estate Activities
32
Other Service Activities
60
Financial and Insurance Activities
70
Shelf Company
139
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Figure 9: Based on Information on357 SEs (Industry classification: NACE Rev.2) 170 171
Finance and Insurance

As of 2008, a third of SEs were classified as part of the financial and insurance sector. Approximately
around half of these registered financial SEs are investment funds, trusts or similar financial
entities.172 The remaining half are actively providing financial or insurance services. This may have a
correlation with legal arbitrage173 due the SE's low cost of relocating financial assets to a more
favourable jurisdiction.
SEs working in the financial and insurance industry benefited from the simplification of overall
control of group structures, in addition to being coordinated with the requirements of the banking
170
Ernest & Young. Study on the operation and the impacts of the Statute for a European Company (SE)- 2008/S 144-192482, Final Report,
9/12/09.; Page 186.
171
NACE Rev. 2 classification, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-RA07-015
172 Ernest & Young. Study on the operation and the impacts of the Statute for a European Company (SE)- 2008/S 144-192482, Final Report,
9/12/09.
173 Legal Arbitrage defined as "...taking advantage of differences between legal regimes governing the same economic activities..."
Eidenmuller/Engert/Hornuf, Incorporating Under European Law: The Societas Europaea as a Vehicle for Legal Arbitrage;
28
sector "Basel II" requirements174, or "Solvency" requirements of the insurance sector.175 These
groups of SEs can avoid dealing with the relevant national authorities and only have to deal with the
national supervisory authority competent to supervise the parent company and its branches. 176
Further advantages of the SE form in terms of financing include a stronger negotiation position with
banks and bids for EU financial support.177 For financial further information relating to all industries
see Annex 1 and 2 .
Other Sectors
A significant number of non-financial service providers have incorporated under the SE
Regulation.178 The second largest group of SEs operate in Manufacturing. Each company has
demonstrated their own reasons for reincorporating into an SE. The need for new corporate models
and options is demonstrated by the conversion of a number of companies from a variety of
sectors.179
174
Basel II International Capital Framework, http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsca.htm. Solvency;

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/About/What/International/solvency/index.shtml
175SE Directive Article 62: provides that particular disclosure requirements' applicable to credit institutions and insurance companies in
accordance with the relevant sector-specific directives apply to SEs in these forms - Council Directive 2000/12 ([2000] OJ L126/1) and
Council Directive 91/674 ([1991] OJ L374/7)
176
Lenoir, Noelle, The Societas Europaea in Europe: A Promising Start and an Option with Good Prospects, , Utrecht Law Review.
29
6. Conclusion to Part 1
The SE operates as a viable alternative to most MS's national company law regimes
depending on industry. Harmonisation and the support of an open and unified market has been a
fundament issue within the development of the EU, with a specific focus on corporate law. As
demonstrated with the growing list of Company Law Directives which are required to be
implemented into national legislation, indirectly applying to all national companies and also SE's.180
However, the SE regulation will remain incomplete until all references to national law are
supplement with regulations which have been well developed. The European Report on the Future
of EU Company Law demonstrate this by stating "...If the SE is to become a viable alternative to
national companies, the commission has to prepare a reform of the SE regulation, as is required, and
take into account inspiration from the flexibility available for national companies..." 181 New company
forms should be vetted against the findings in the development of the SE.
Recent developments in the European Parliaments demonstrates a focus on promoting trade and
commerce, as can be seen in a number proposals from various non-corporate Europeans branches.
As are the views from committee on the future of public procurement 182 in which "...one of the
foremost objectives ... is to enable economic operators to compete effectively for public contracts in
other Member State..." with an emphasis of access to these public markets by small and mediumsized enterprises. The European Commission's Green paper described small and medium-sized
enterprises as "...the backbone of the EU economy..." which demonstrates the level of involvement
in company law issues and caling for legal certainty, an open effective market and further
developments in European commerce and company law.183
Developments in the uses of the SEs structures has shed light on important aspects of regulation,
allowing for improved future legislation. The SE has taken a large step for harmonisation with the
EEC by attempting to, and mostly successfully, tackling problems that have never been addressed on
a European-wide scale.184
The SE has also demonstrated that although it may take time, it is possible to overcome the political
and cultural hurdles and sensitivities. The success of the SE is demonstrated by the current
developments in European company law, of a similar corporate model being developed, the Private
European Company.185
180
See Annex 1
European Commission, Internal Markets and Service: Report of the Reflection Group On the Future of EU Company Law, Brussels, 5th
Commission"
182 Green Paper on the Modernisation of the EU Public Procurement Policy.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/consultations/index_en.htm
183
Green Paper on the Modernisation of the EU Public Procurement Policy Towards a more Efficient European Procurement Market,
COM(2011) 15 final, Brussels, 27.1.2011.
Commission"
185 see Annex 5
181
30
Part 2: Finance and Trends

7. Introduction to Statistics
The SE can arguably be considered a success; pioneering cross-border mobility and assisting
in harmonisation across Europe. As well as enriching national corporate law by offering an
alternative186 to all European based companies, it also allows them to "cherry pick" between all
Member States and the SE regulation to create a more efficient and confident corporate mode.
As demonstrated through Part 1, there is no single benefit which attracts a company to
reincorporate into an SE. On the contrary, each company will assess for itself whether it is
worthwhile to become an SE.187 The following analytical study will be based on an individual
company basis, testing key financial ratios relating to profits and investment against historical data
prior and post incorporation as an SE, in addition to being compared to European industry trends for
their relative sector.188
8. Methods of Analysis
8.1 Overview
By its launch in 2004, the SE was already a heavily debated topic among academics, which
has lead to a number of surveys, reviews, debate and a host of company law recommendations
from a number of highly regarded groups and committees across Europe.
8.2 Hypothesis
Companies which have reincorporated into the SE model have done so with the intention of
taking their company forwards, utilising the SE's array of positive drivers. The benefits of the SE have
outweighed the negative aspects brought by the costs of formation and legal uncertainty, as can be
seen with the rising incorporation rate.
It is hypothesised that the beneficial elements of the SE will eventually lead to at least a more
efficient or streamlined model, ultimately saving time and money, which will manifest into the
profits of the company. It is expect that for companies who adopted the SE model to demonstrate
some level of positive effects in terms of the profitability following the years of reincorporation. In
comparison to the way the company would be run, without the beneficial features of the SE in which
they selected.
Even if a company has chosen the SE model for one single benefit, the fact that the company would
be willing to go through the long and complex process of reincorporation for one aspects of the SE,
leads us to expect that the SE model has a degree importance for the company. The SE model has
been used to by each company to enhance at least one189 or more areas of their company, it may be
to enhance their image, or stream line operations, overall these changes should translate into a rise
186
Reichert, Jochem. Experience with the SE in Germany, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 4, Issue 1, March 2008.
European Newsletter, The European Company: Overview and Outlook. Tim Veen, 2007.
188 Provided by Eurostat; Official provider of European Statistics; http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
189 Such as the Allianz, who named freezing of co-determination to be a major driver. Which lead to downsizing of their supervisory board,
resulting in a streamlined and organised supervisory board to run all operations of the pan-European insurance provider.
187
31
profit, significant or not, as it is the same company but running, but from their view, with an updated
company model.
The process of analysing turnover of the SE's has provided the opportunity to study further
financial areas for each company. Which will provide further insight into financial trends and a
greater understanding of general trends relating to the SE model which are yet to be explored.
Each company will be analysed through ratio analysis, with a focus on profitability, liquidity,
efficiency, gearing and quality of investment. All findings will compared historical figures as
published in the individual companies annual accounts against industry trends which are taken from
official European sources.190
8.3 Ratios
Ratio analysis is extremely useful for understanding whether a business is being run effectively and
provides insight into the trends which can be compared to other companies and their respective
industry. The following is a description of the type of ratios used;
Profitability: Measurement of how much profit a business generates from its activities.
Ratio: Return on Capital Employed: ("ROCE") A measure of a company's input against its output.
ROCE is a fundamental measure of business performance and demonstrates the relationship
between the net profit and long-term capital investment in the business. 191
Efficiency: Indicator as to the appropriateness of the level of debt compared to sales.

Ratio: Sales to Capital Employed: ("StCE")will demonstrate how effective the long-term capital
employed in the business is in generating revenues. 192
190
Eurostat; Official provider of European Statistics; http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat

Return on Capital Employed also provide for Net Profit - NP (Profit and Loss Account): Once total expenses (salary, interest,
depreciation, etc.) have been deducted from total revenue (total inflow of assets generated from trading). Quick performance measure.
Can be compared with previous financial years. Net Profit - NP (Profit and Loss Account): Once total expenses (salary, interest,
depreciation, etc.) have been deducted from total revenue (total inflow of assets generated from trading). Quick performance measure.
Can be compared with previous financial years.
192 Sales Figures : Can be compared for each year to assess how well the business is achieving its sales targets, and if they need
improvement.
191
32
Liquidity: indicator of a business's ability to meet its debts, if a company cannot meet its short term
liabilities it may be in danger of insolvency.
Ratio: Current Ratio: compares a company's liquid assets with its current liabilities. A ratio of 1
would cover current liabilities exactly. An ideal situation being a ratio of 2, in which liabilities are
covered two-fold. However, some business depending on the industry, such as those selling on
credit, will keep a lower ratio due to the practicalities of their profession. A high current ratio may
mean that a business is not being run efficiently, by keeping unnecessary amounts of liquid assets
which could be applied for better purposes.
Investment: indicator as to whether the business is a safe, productive place to invest.

Price/ Earnings Ratio (Investment): Relates market value of a share to the earnings per share (higher
value, greater confidence in future earnings of company) If information is unavailable for P/E ratios,
then Earnings per Share is employed to provide insight into each companies market performance.
Gearing:
The level of gearing demonstrates the extent of financing by an external party. When the level of
gearing is too high, a business may struggling to meet its repayments, possibly due interest rates but
each company will have its own reasons.
33
8.4 Methodology
Company Selection Process
A number of selected companies have been selected, heavily influenced by recent studies
testing for significant changes in the market value of listed companies around the announcement of
their decision to become an SE. 193 The studies focused on the day before, the day of and the day
after announcement of reincorporation as an SE. However, they found no significant results and
concluded by stating that this was "...due to so many factors in the running of a company, the
company model is just one of a wide variety of factors..."194 Their findings are significant, but leaves
begging the fundamental question as to how the companies actually perform after becoming an SE.
Those choice of 30 companies was in order to gain an accurate depiction of general trends in
SEs, which demonstrate a sufficient number for parametric tests to have a power of 98% to detect
changes in return.195
A range of European companies have been selected based on two criteria, firstly being a listed
company, as these companies can be measures due to the publication requires imposed on listed
companies. Secondly to represent the SE's in relation to their distribution among industry. As can be
seen by more companies from the Financial and Insurance Activities and the Manufacturing Industry
being selected, as these industries represent a large proportion of total SE's.
The companies have been grouped together based on their respective markets, under the
principles of the NACE Rev. 2 industry classification system.196
Process
All company data was obtained from the each company's most recently published accounts.
In regards for the 2011 data , they too are based on the most recent accounts, however only the first
three quarters are available.
To represent an accurate interpretation of SE's final accounts, the progress of each company in their
latest 2011 accounts are compared to the progress from the same period in 2010. The difference
was turned into a change in percentage, which was then applied to the previous years, providing an
accurate reflection of the companies progression. The calculation used:
193
Eidenmuller/Engert/Hornuf, The Socieatas Europea: Good News for European Firms. Utrecht Law Review
"... Including human error, social and global events, innovation, creativity, organisation, developments in industry, poor management,
corruption, execution of plans, efficiency of people working together and the amount of dedication, in addition to unforeseen
circumstances... all these factors and many more are what make a business strong..."
195 MacKinlay, Craig, Event Studies in Economics and Finance," J. Econ. Lit 35, 13-39, 1997.
196 NACE Rev. 2 classification, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-RA07-015
194
34
Industry data is based on Eurostat, the official European statistics website,197 and also based on any
relevant reports from official European reports. Additionally, some information was taken, where
available, from independent providers of industry information, such as Reuters198.
The information is grouped together on an industry basis, providing insight into each SE in relation to
its peers and compared its overall European industry. Detailed analysis as to the reasoning behind
the events of each company is beyond the scope of this paper. The results are used as an indicator
towards trends of SE's, however the information can be further utilised for further analytical study.
Further Considerations
Consideration needs to be given to the financial and economic recession which has
negatively affected most European markets between 2007-09. The recession has "...shaken a
number of received truths about the functioning of markets..." As each SE should have been directly
effect by the developments in the recession, therefore being reflected in their accounts. 199 The
drop in markets is demonstrated in all industries and needs to be considered with the following
analysis. The short lifespan of the SE combined with the recession, has provided difficulties in
analysis of statistics and trends, as the SE's cannot be analysed against the backdrop of a stable
market. 200
A problem which has raised striking concerns are those relating to lack of publicly available
information relating to industry statistics. This problem has been coupled with scarse availability of
information for companies in specific sectors, especially for those involved in the Finance and
Insurance industry.
The level of this lack of information is demonstrated in the official European statistics offered by
Eurostat, which only accounts for industry statistics up to 2008. To demonstrate the effect of this
lack of information, all recent official European Reports have been based on the statistics for 2008.
Including Eurostat's "Key Figures on European business, 2011 edition" and other industry related
reports201, in which projections are made for all statistical developments in industries following 2008,
despite these reports being conducted in 2011. Due to this hurdle, the only available official industry
information mentioned above have been combined to demonstrate a degree of trends in all relevant
industries.
197
Eurostat; Official provider of European Statistics; http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat

Reuters. www.reuters.com
Commission"
200 ibid "...As sustainable growth is one of the objectives of the EU, it should be considered whether imperfections in EU company law have
played a role in the crisis or whether improvements can ... prevent such course of events in the future..."
201
20th July 2011; http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-ET-11001,"Annual Report on EU Small and Medium Companies"; http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figuresanalysis/performance-review/index_en.htm.
198
35
9.Results
9.1 Overview
The ratios for each SE are demonstrate in the charts below, the SE's are divided by industry
classification. Included under each classification is a chart demonstrating the trends of the relevant
industry, which is followed by a discussion on any trends. For all equations and information relating
to the data, see Annex 1 and 2.
Note that for each chart individual chart, the year of reincorporation as an SE has been highlighted in
yellow.
9.2 Mining and Quarrying (NACE Rev.2 Classification B);
SEs Analysed: Songa Offshore SE
Industry Overview:
2
Mining and Quarrying (NACE Rev. 2; B)
Turnover Ratio relative to the

previous year
Volume index of production
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Financial Overview of
Songa Offshore SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Gearing
Earnings per Share
-1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
36
2011
Overview
The manufacturing industry has seen a rise and drop during the years of the recession and has yet to
fully recover to the previously enjoyed levels. Consequently, Songa Offshore was reincorporated into
an SE during the recession. After reincorporating , the general ratios in Songa dropped slightly,
followed by a substantial rise and currently seeing drops in their ratios. Correlation can be drawn as
to a period of readjustment, which will be further demonstrated below with a general drop in ratios
after adopting the SE model and possibly to a new MS, occurring irrelevant of which year the
company was reincorporated.
37
9.3Manufacturing (NACE Rev.2 Classification C)

SEs Analysed: Elcoteq SE, Surteco SE, Porsche Automobil Holding SE, Betbull Trading SE, Klockner &
Co. SE, SGL Carbon SE, Q-Cells SE, Solon SE, MAN SE, Wacker Neuson SE,
Industry Overview:
2
Manufacturing (NACE Rev. 2; C)

previous year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
13
12
11
Financial Trends of
2011
2012
Elcoteq SE
10
9
8
Return on Capital
Employed
7
6
5
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
2
1
0
Gearing
-1
-2
-3
Earnings per Share
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
38
17
Financial Oveview of
16
Surteco SE
15
14
13
Return on Capital
Employed
12
11
Sales To Capital
Employed
10
9
Equity Ratio*
8
7
6
Gearing
5
4
Earnings per Share
3
2
1
0
-1
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Betbull Trading SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Earnings per Share
-1
-2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
39
2011
Porsche Automobil Holding SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Earnings per Share
0
-1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Klockner & Co. SE
8
7
6
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
4
3
Current Ratio
Gearing
1
0
Earnings per Share
-1
-2
-3
-4
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
40
2011
SGL Carbon SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
1
Gearing
0
Earnings per Share
-1
-2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Q-Cells SE
Return on Capital
Employed (relative to
2006)
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
-1
Gearing (relative to
2006) for sake of data
normalization
-2
-3
-4
2006
2007
2008
2009
41
2010
Solon SE
Financial Overviewof
7
6
5
Return on Capital
Employed
4
3
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
1
0
Earnings per Share
-1
-2
-3
(-21.68)
-4
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
10
2010
2011
MAN SE
8
7
Return on Capital
Employed
6
5
Sales To Capital
Employed
4
3
Current Ratio
Earnings per Share
1
0
-1
-2
-3
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
42
2010
Financial Overviewof
Wacker Neuson SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
0
Gearing
-1
-2
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Overview
The trends in the Manufacturing industry demonstrate a drop during the year of the
recession, followed by recovery to similar levels. These figures show how the manufacturing industry
reacted positively to the economic events but is yet to reach the previous levels enjoyed.
Furthermore, most companies demonstrated a distinct change in most ratios after the year of
reincorporation as an SE. Reinforcing the idea of an adjustment period to adopt and implement the
changes brought by the SE.
The majority of SEs demonstrate lower ratios compared to before reincorporating, while the
majority of manufacturing SE's enjoy a rise in Sales to Capital Employed, which could be an effect of
the streamlined operations of the SE. The general drop in return on capital employed could be
related to the reincorporation costs, subscribed capital and all other costs as previously mentioned
in Section 4.1.
43
9.4 Electricity, Gas and Water (NACE Rev.2 Classification D)

SEs Analysed: Prosafe SE, Interseroh SE.
Industry Overview:
2
Electricity, gas and water (NACE Rev. 2; D)

previous year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Prosafe SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
3
Gearing
2
Earnings per Share
-1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
44
2011
16
Interseroh SE
15
14
13
12
11
10
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
7
6
Current Ratio
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Overview
The electricity, gas and water industry has been fluctuating since 2005, reaching a decade-low during
the recession in 2008.
In regards to specific ratios, there is once again changes in most ratios in the year of and following
reincorporation as an SE. For both companies tested we have seen mainly positive changes in ROCE
and significant rises in Sales to Capital Employed straight from the year of reincorporation as an SE.
Prosafe SE ratio's are relatively stable, followed by rises in all ratios, especially Current Ratio,
following their reincorporation as an SE.
Interseroh have only released accounts for one year following their reincorporation,
however they have seen significant changes, especially with a rise in ROCE and StCE. The company's
performance reinforces the hypothesis of Section 8.2, however as this trend is not a re-occurring
theme, we can see once again how company model does not play a significant role in the success of
the company, but has the potential to enhance the company's performance through fundamental
corporate principles. The results once again demonstrate a transitional period when reincorporating
into an SE.
45
9.5 Construction (NACE Rev.2 Classification F)

SEs Analysed: Bauholding Strabag SE
Industry Overview:
2
Construction (NACE Rev. 2; F)

previous year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Bauholding Strabag SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
1
Gearing
-1
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Overview
The construction industry shows a slow decline leading up to the recession with a substantial drop in
2009, followed by a steady rise. Bauholding Strabag are one of the few SE's working in construction
in addition to being one of the first companies who reincorporating into an SE during the year the SE
regulation was released. Unfortunately there publicly available annual accounts begins from 2005.
46
The results demonstrate a change in all ratios, mostly positive, following their reincorporation into
an SE. Once again StCE rising sharply and then stabilising the following year and continuing until its
present state. The long-term findings of Bauholdings Strabag demonstrate the effect the SE could be
having on a company, through proper utilisation of the SE model and its benefits, as hypothesises in
Section 8.2.
47
9.6 Transport and Storage(NACE Rev.2 Classification H)

SEs Analysed: Odfjell SE, I.M. Skaugen SE
Industry Overview:
2
Transport, and Storage (NACE Rev. 2; H)

previous year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Odfjell SE
Return on Capital
Employed
2
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Earnings per Share

0
-1
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
48
I.M. Skaugen SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
1
-1
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Overview
The transportation and storage industry trend demonstrate what could be expected from
the recession. As it demonstrates a stable trend, followed by a dip during the recession and ending
with a return to the general trends seen prior to the recession.
Once again both SE's demonstrate significant changes prior and post reincorporating as an SE, with
both companies seeing a drop in ratios the year following reincorporation. However, consideration
needs to be taken to the fact that both reincorporation's occurred the year before the recession.
Both companies are currently performing a reasonable level compared to prior reincorporating as an
SE, demonstrated in both their StCE. However, there is still a correlation between the drop in ratios
and re-incorporation as explained above.
Odfjell demonstrates erratic ratios in relation to earnings per share and current ratio, the
later improving over the past year. While ROCE and StCP following a stable trend throughout the
past decade.
Skaugen seems to be improving since their reincorporation, but it is unclear as to how the
company will perform in the following years, as the trends as unclear.
Generally both companies have followed the industry trends and the transitional phase into
becoming an SE.
49
9.7 Information and Communication (NACE Rev.2 Classification J)

SEs Analysed: Mensch und Maschine SE, Catalis SE, Aixtron SE
Industry Overview: Unavailable

11
10
Mensch und Maschine SE
9
8
7
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
5
4
Current Ratio
3
2
1
0
-1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Catalis SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Earnings per Share
-1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
50
2011
Aixtron SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Earnings per Share

0
-1
-2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Overview
The only official industry information available from Eurostat only account for two years and
therefore not bearing enough information to identify trends, for the available date on the industry
see Annex 2.
Based on the performance of the companies, we once again see significant changes following the
year of reincorporation into an SE, which is highlighted in the ratios of Aixtron SE and Catalis SE.
The accounts of all companies are conflicting, with Aixtron seeing generally lower ratios and Catalis
seeing improvement in both Current Ratio and EPS and Mensch and Maschine SE showing stability
and improvement. These companies demonstrate how the SE is only a company model and the
success of the company depends on a larger number of factors.
51
9.8 Finance and Insurance Activities (NACE Rev.2 Classification K)

SEs Analysed: Blackstar Group SE, SCOR SE

8
Blackstar Group SE
7
6
5
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital Employed
Current Ratio
2
1
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
-1
SCOR SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Current Ratio / Liquidity

2
Earnings Per Share
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
52
2011
(23.01)
(27.67)
DVB SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Earnings Per Share
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
13
12
11
2011
Fotex Holdings SE
10
9
8
7
Return on Capital
Employed
6
5
4
Sales To Capital
Employed
3
2
1
Current Ratio
0
-1
Earnings per Share
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
2006
2007
2008
(Dec)
2009
(Dec)
2010
(Sept)
53
2011
(Sept)
Allianz SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Overview
For the majority of financial and insurance related SEs, there is an equal level of rises and
drop in various ratios. Blackstar Group and SCOR have seen a substantial rise in current ratio
following the year of reincorporation. However, Blackstar Group, DVB, Fotex Holdings, and Allianz all
have a general drop. Unfortunately, detailed official information on both industry and each
company is scarce.
54
9.9 Real Estate (NACE Rev.2 Classification L)

SEs Analysed:
Industry Overview:
2
Real Estate, Renting & Business activity (NACE Rev. 2; L)

previous year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Catalis SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Earnings per Share
-1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
55
2011
Aixtron SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Earnings per Share

0
-1
-2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Overview
The real estate industry trends demonstrate the pattern as expected from the recession. The SEs
involved in the real estate industry demonstrate mix results, however once again there is a general
trend of a drop in most ratios following re-incorporation as an SE.
56
9.10 Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities (NACE Rev.2 Classification M)202
SEs Analysed: Eurofins Scientific SE, GfK SE, Navigator Equity Solutions SE.

3
Eurofins Scientific SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Gearing
Earnings per Share
-1
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
GfK SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Gearing
1
Earnings per Share

0
-1
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
202
Official Industry Information only available for two years, therefore not representative of trend, see Annex for available
information.
57
Financial Trends of
Navigator Equity Solutions SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Earnings per Share
-1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
9.11 Human Health and Social Work Activities (NACE Rev.2 Classification Q)
SEs Analysed: Fresenius SE
5
Fresenius SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
2
Gearing
Earnings per Share
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
58
9.12 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation (NACE Rev.2 Classification R)

SEs Analysed: Betbull Trading

5
Betbull Trading SE
Return on Capital
Employed
Sales To Capital
Employed
Current Ratio
Earnings per Share
-1
-2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Overview
The only official information for industries R, Q and M from Eurostat only account for two years and
therefore not bearing enough information to identify trends, for the available date on the industry
see Annex 2. However in all individual SE's we can see substantial changes around the time of
reincorporation as an SE.
59
10. Conclusion to Part 2

Once a company becomes an SE, it will go through a transitional period to adapt to its newly
adopted SE model. This is reflected in the general disruption of ratios on and during the year
following reincorporation into an SE, with limited examples of ratios remaining stable during this
period. The changes in ratios on incorporation demonstrate the practical issues stated as negative
drivers, as being overly complex and containing legal uncertainty, pointing towards the need for
clearer procedures as to smoothen the transition period. The transitional period can also be
attributed to the complex method of formation, requiring two companies which are located within
two different MS's to form an SE.
A general theme can be seen in a the rise of sales to capital employed, and other specific
ratios, however the trends in the rise of a single ratio have a common theme only within a specific
industries. The trends in the rise of sales to capital employed can be correlated to the organisational
benefits of the SE. However, the SE regulation indirectly neglects other industries, as regulation only
truly deals a number of specific regulatory issues, while referring other important regulations to
national law, therefore not fully providing for all industries. However, each company provides for its
own reasons as to its current financial position.
A truly "uniform" European model to satisfy the requirements of all MS's will require a
great deal of development in European company law. However, the areas dealt with in the SE
directive can generally be considered a success in terms of harmonisation. As developments in the
SE have influenced the progression of company law principles and developments in Europe. The SE
has been directing European corporate law through the practical application of legal theory,
providing for unprecedented developments in company law. Reinforced by the rapid rate of
companies reincorporation into an SE to take advantage of its unique benefits, demonstrating the
need new corporate models which can adapt to the developments in commerce. An indisputable
indicator as to the success of the SE is demonstrated in the development of a new company form
based on SE, the upcoming Private European Company.
60
11. Bibliography
Websites
- John Lewis; http://www.johnlewis.com/Shops/DSTemplate.aspx?Id=36
/http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about.html
- European Worker Participation, http://www.worker-participation.eu/

- The Official Journal of the European Community,
http://www.ojec.com/WhatIsTheOJEC.aspx, Official Journal of the European Community
(OJEU).
- Basel II International Capital Framework Requirements http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsca.htm.
- International Solvency Requirements;
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/About/What/International/solvency/index.shtml
- NACE Rev. 2 classification,

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-RA-07015
- Eurostat; Official provider of European Statistics; http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat

- Reuters. www.reuters.com
- Eurostat; Key Figures on European Business - with a special feature on SME's,
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-ET-11001,
- Eurostat; Annual Report on EU Small and Medium Companies, 20th July 2011;
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/index_en.htm.
Legislation
- Council Regulation 2157/2001 on the Statue for a European Company OJ L294/21, 8th
October 2001
- Directive 2005/19/EC, OJ2005 l 58/19 on Cross Border Mergers
- Treaty of Rome, 25 March 1957.
- Council Directive 2006/43 ([2006] OJ L157/87);Directive on the Statutory Audit;
- Council Directive 2006/43 ([2006] OJ L224/1; Directive on reforming corporate disclosures.
- Council Directive 2006/68 ([2006] OJ L264/32); Directive reforming the Second Directive on
legal capacity.
61
Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 11th July 2007 on the
exercise of shareholders rights.
- Directive 2006/46/EC; Further Developments in Accounting.

- Directive 2007/14/EC.
-
Directive 2004/109/EC.
Books
- Vaughan and Robertson, Law of the European Union. Issue 15
Academic Articles
- Lenoir, Noelle, The Societas Europaea in Europe: A Promising Start and an Option with
Good Prospects, , Utrecht Law Review.
- Eidenmuller, Engert, Hornuf. Incorporating Under European Law: The Societas Europaea
as a Vehicle for Legal Arbitrage.
- Eidenmuller, Engert, Hornuf. How Does the Market React to the Societas Europaea?
- Veen, Tim.The European Company: Overview and Outlook. European Newsletter,2007.
-
Reichert, Jochem. Experience with the SE in Germany, Utrecht Law Review, Volume 4,
Issue 1, March 2008.
- Schmidt, Jessica (2010), The European Company (SE): Practical Failure or Model for
Other Supranational Company Types?, Asian Journal of Law and Economics: Vol. 1: Issue
2, Article 4.
- Rose, Casper. The New Corporate Vehicle Societas Europaea (SE): Consequences for
European Corporate Governance, Volume 15, Number 2, March 2007.
- Ryan, Patrick S. Will There Ever Be A Delaware of Europe? Columbia Journal of European
Law, Vol. 11, p 187, Winter 2004/2005.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=763164
- Ciampi Competitiveness Advisory Group of Industrialists (1995)

- J McCahery, E. Vermuelen, Does the European Company Prevent the Delaware Effect?"
- MacKinlay, Craig, Event Studies in Economics and Finance," J. Econ. Lit 35, 13-39, 1997.
62
European Articles
- European Commission, Internal Markets and Service: Report of the Reflection Group On
the Future of EU Company Law, Brussels, 5th April 2011.
- European Commission, Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate
Governance in the European Union - A Plan to Move Forward COM (2003) 284.
- European Commission, Synthesis of the Comments on the Consultation Document of the
Internal Market and Services Directorate-General on The Results of the Study on the
Operation and the Impacts of Statute for European Company (SE), July 2010.
- Green Paper on the Modernisation of the EU Public Procurement Policy Towards a more
Efficient European Procurement Market, COM(2011) 15 final, Brussels, 27.1.2011.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/consultations/index_en.htm
- European Commission, The European Company - Frequently Asked Questions,

http://european.eu.int/rapid
- EU Project on Baseline Measurement and Reduction of Administrative Costs,
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/smart-regulation/files/abst09_companylaw_en.pdf
- European Commission, Internal Markets and Service. Report of the Reflection Group On
the Future of EU Company Law, Brussels, 5th April 2011.
- European Commission, Synthesis of the Comments on the Consultation Document of the
Internal Market and Services Directorate-General on The Results of the Study on the
Operation and the Impacts of Statute for European Company (SE), July 2010.
- Report from the Commission to The European Parliament and The Council, The
Application of Council Regulation 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a
European Company (SE), COM(2010) 676 final, 17.11.2010.
- Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on a Modern Regulation
Framework for Company Law in Europe, 2002.
- Ernest & Young, Study on the operation and the impacts of the Statute for a European
Company (SE)- 2008/S 144-192482, Final Report, 9/12/09.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2010/se/study_SE_9122009_en.pdf
63
Company Accounts
- Aixtron; http://aixtron.com/index.php?id=2061&L=1, http://aixtron.com/index.php?id=524&L=1
- Allianz; https://www.allianz.com/en/investor_relations/reports_and_financial_data/interim_report/page1.html,
https://www.allianz.com/en/investor_relations/reports_and_financial_data/annual_report/archive/page1.html
- BASF; http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/investor-relations/news-publications/reports/index
- Bauholding Strabag;
http://www.strabag.com/databases/internet/_public/content.nsf/Navigation?OpenAgent&docid=79E200B4108F278F
C125736A0046758E&urldocid=7DC135FF015443A7C125736A0044F62C,
http://www.strabag.com/databases/internet/_public/content.nsf/Navigation?OpenAgent&docid=79E200B4108F278F
C125736A0046758E&urldocid=7DC135FF015443A7C125736A0044F62C
- Betbull Trading; http://www.betbullse.com/cgibin/show.ssp?id=2311&companyName=betbull&language=English
Blackstar; http://www.blackstar.lu/publications.htm
Catalis; http://www.catalisgroup.com/index.php?id=127
Conwert Immobilien Invest;

http://www.conwert.at/web/en/view.php?MENUEID=52&USERNAME=&TEMPID=
DVB Bank; http://www.dvbbank.com/en/investor_relations/publications/archive/index.html
Elcoteq; http://www.elcoteq.com/financial-information-0, http://www.elcoteq.com/financial-statements-bulletinsinterim-reports-and-presentations
Elster; http://investors.elster.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=227678&p=irol-reportsOtherAGM
Eurofins Scientific SE; http://www.eurofins.com/en/investor-relations/shares-in-issue.aspx,

http://www.eurofins.com/en/investor-relations/reports--presentations.aspx
- Fotex Holding; http://www.fotex.eu/page/report/archive

-
Fresenius; http://www.fresenius.com/553.htm
GfK; http://www.gfk.com/group/investor/key_figures_and_publications/index.en.html
IM Skaugen; http://www.skaugen.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82&Itemid=108
IMW Immobilien; http://www.imwag.de/_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=168&Itemid2=168&focus=03.5%20Financial%2

0Reports
Interseroh; http://www.interseroh.com/en/corporate/investor-relations/financial-reports/annualreports/archive/
Klockner & Co; http://www.kloeckner.de/en/investor-relations/reports-2481.php
MAN;
http://www.man.eu/MAN/en/Investor_Relations/Factsheet/Interactive_Factsheet/Interactive_Factsheet.html,
http://www.man.eu/MAN/en/Investor_Relations/Factsheet/Interactive_Factsheet/Interactive_Factsheet.html
64
Mensch und Maschine;

http://www.mum.de/EN_Mensch_und_Maschine_Investor_Relations_Reports.CAD?ActiveID=9962
- Navigator Equity; http://www.navigator-equity.com/index.php?id=567&L=1

- Odfjell;h ttp://www.odfjell.com/PressRoom/OdfjellQuarterlyMagazine/Documents/ODF3Q11.pdf
- Porsche; http://www.porsche-se.com/pho/en/investorrelations/mandatorypublications/annualreport-0910/download/
- Prosafe;
http://www.prosafe.com/category.php?categoryID=14
Q-Cells; http://www.q-cells.com/en/investor_relations/reports_and_presentations.html#4953
Scor; http://www.scor.com/en/investors/financial-reporting/annual-a-interim-reports.html
- SGL Carbon; http://www.sglgroup.com/cms/international/investor-relations/financialreports/index.html?__locale=en
Solon; http://www.solon.com/global/investor-relations/financial-publications/financialreports/index.html#__content__1305179617958
Songa; http://www.songaoffshore.no/index.php?id=426
Surteco; http://www.surteco.com/index.php/eng/EN/Investor-Relations/Publications/Annual-reports
Wacker Neuson; http://corporate.wackerneuson.com/en-history.php
Word Count: 14,882
65
12. Annex 1 - Individual Company Research

Due to submission regulations of the PFD, the organisation of the following data has been altered to fit into a
Word document. To access the data below in "Excel" formatting, double click on the relevant table.
66
Blackstar Group SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
-0.20
-8.527
42.521
-0.05
-3.734
74.291
-0.09
-7.827
84.943
0.24
22.464
92.313
0.05
4.198
77.222
489%
208.101
42.521
87.722
45.201
208%
154.206
74.291
99.755
25.464
-8%
-6.576
84.943
93.173
8.23
28%
26.271
92.313
92.313
5%
4.1
77.222
77.222
1.61
72.803
45.201
3.90
99.405
25.464
2.26
18.606
8.237
-3.33
-10.34
25.49
9.14
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2003
2002
2001
2000
Based on most recent 2011 Accounts
Return on Capital Employed

Net Profit
Capital Employed

Net Sales / Operating Value
Capital Employed
-0.29
-9.680117438
32.83198268
644%
211.5813661
32.83198268
66.53264794
Total Assets
33.70066526
Current Liabilitites
Current Ratio
Current Assets
1.800365615
60.67351894
Current Liabilities
33.70066526
2008 Net Sales due to loss on investments

1.21
7.07
1.591
1.053
1.311
0.149
Price/Earnings Ratio
Market Value per Share
Earnings per Share
Gearing
SCOR SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
418
10.20%
370
10.20%
315
9%
407
14%
314
14.10%
131
75
2.37
1.27
1.66
3.71
2.05
1.24
8.50
17.5
2.06
9.30
16.37
1.76
6.29
17.5
2.78
6.87
22.4
3.26
106.00
15.9
0.15
121.11
10.9
0.09
37.6
0.22
8.26
19
2.3
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2003
2002
2001
2000
2011 based on latest released accounts
Net Profit (Mil EUR)


Net Sales
Capital Employed
Total Assets (in EUR million)
Current Ratio / Liquidity

Earnings Per Share
Gearing
DVB SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
0.139
0.094
0.131
0.204
241.1
?
256.7
?
266.1
?
19,316.80
17,268.60

Net Profit
Capital Employed

307.3
Net Sales / Operating Value (EUR Mill.)

Capital Employed
Total Assets (EUR Mill.)
n/a Short a nd Current Li a bi l i ti es Li s ted Togethor
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
1.96
10.96
25
2.28
13.04
21
1.61
10.70
26.1
2.44
2011 (Sept)

Earnings per Share
10.19
282
27.67
8.96
206.25
23.01
Gearing
Fotex Holding SE
2010 (Sept)
2009 (Dec)
2008 (Dec)
2007
2006
0.015
2.74
177.74
0.033
5.05
154.06
0.027
3.69
137.65
0.106
3.13
29.63
0.043
1.43
33.28
0.038
1.24
32.59
Capital Employed
16%
29.20
177.74
18%
27.63
154.06
5%
1.40
29.63
2%
0.75
33.28
-0.3436
-0.11
32.59
Total Assets
31.94
35.28
35.65
2.30
2.00
3.05
4.00
9.21
2.30
6.62
13.24
2.00
4.51
13.76
3.05

Net Profit
Capital Employed
186.16
161.17
8.42
7.11
20%
27.22
137.65
147.48
9.83
Current Ratio
3.80
31.98
8.42
3.90
27.75
7.11
2.86
28.166
9.833
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.08
0.06
12.57
8.23
-7.23
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
1.81
2103.809
1163.52
1.67
1941.572
1161.984
1.36
1581.811
1159.808
3.99
4593.641
1152.384
3.63
4017.237
1106.304
1.38
1431
1039.462
1.72
1703
987.584
0.99
978
984.88
268%
3124
1163.52
328%
3810.701
1161.984
297%
3449.077
1159.808
308%
3543.84
1152.384
396%
4385.797
1106.304
466%
4849
1039.462
533%
5265
987.584
558%
5493 (Dip in 2005 due to excessive expenses)
984.88
Current Assets (EUR Mil.)

Current Liabilities
Earnings per Share
Gearing
Allianz

Net Profit (EUR Mil.)
Capital Employed

Capital Employed
Total Assets
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
Earnings per Share
Gearing
67
Elecoteq SE
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
-8.25
-153.6242308
18.61950863
2011
0.13
15.825
120.656
-0.75
-108.966
145.151
-0.21
-64.017
300.163
-0.28
-106.511
382.621
0.03
14.586
488.138
0.09
40.904
457.465
0.11
40.563
353.416
2003
2002
2001
2000
3038%
887%
1069.9
120.656
475.319
354.663
1036%
1503.2
145.151
515.268
370.117
1147%
3443.2
300.163
955.429
655.266
1057%
4042.9
382.621
1092.251
709.63
878%
4284.3
488.138
1163.618
675.48
911%
4169.046
457.465
1167.39
709.925
827%
2921.834
353.416
907.645
554.229
210.5549322
1.05
371.762
354.663
0.91
336.34
370.117
1.05
687.532
655.266
1.10
784.025
709.63
1.25
844.187
675.48
1.20
851.155
709.925
1.14
629.535
554.229
1.21
596.681
491.678
1.22
515.657
423.094
Earnings per Share
-1.09
0.45
-3.22
-2.02
-3.37
0.38
1.34
1.01
0.7
0.54
Gearing
0.29
0.1
5.8
1.8
0.7
0.4
0.30
0.4
0.1
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
10.7
4.9
3.8
15.8
82
5.1
3.9
11.3
45.70%
44.30%
39.80%
36.80%
36.70%
Earnings per Share
-41%
1.96
0.83
0.61
2.87
Gearing
60%
64%
58%
95%
76%
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2003
2002
2001
2000
-0.02
-454.0
21691.0
-0.03
-3563.0
135612.0
0.28
6392.0
22824.0
0.28
4197.0
15051.3
0.13
1393.0
10391.7
0.12
779.0
6730.2
3.27%
709.000
21691.00
28152.00
6461.00
0%
57.081
135612.00
213565.00
77953.00
33%
7466.403
22824.00
45577.00
22753.00
49%
7367.876
15051.29
23332.39
8281.10
69%
7122.677
10391.73
14640.50
4248.77
93%
6255.771
6730.22
9710.06
2979.84
54,234
54,586
48,797
5,409
2,892
2,205
0.17
1126.00
6461.00
1.13
87959.00
77953.00
1.37
31203.00
22753.00
1.80
14893.00
8281.10
1.57
6670.32
4248.77
1.77
5268.47
2979.84
23.98
0.5420434
73.66
1.665009042
44.24
1
39.63
2004
2002
2001
2000

Net Profit
Capital Employed
565.698
18.620
Net Sales / Operating Value (EUR Mil.)

Capital Employed
Total Assets
229.1744409
210.5549322
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
0.87
183.137369
0.07
0.06
20.834
16.055
310.795
286.715
(very high production materials; eating approx 80% of sales
719%
642%
2235.668 1840.214
310.795
286.715
802.473
709.809
491.678
423.094
Surteco SE
2011 based on latest released accounts (Quarter 3)

Equity Ratio*
No Available Records Prior 2007
* Demonstrates equity to finance; in replace of current
Porsche Automobil Holding SE
2011
2004

Capital Employed

Net Sales / Operating Value (EUR Mil)
Capital Employed
Total Assets (EUR Mil.)
Current Ratio
Current Liabilities
-34.84
-0.787522604
Earnings per Share
-0.75
35.94
-0.01695298 0.81238698
Gearing
Klockner & Co. SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
48.01627216
3661.249972
0.03
80
2651.095
-0.09
-186
2050.762
0.13
384
2978
0.08
156
1997
0.13
206
1543.708
0.10
121
1245.008
197%
7202.561429
3661.249972
4845.592177
1184.342205
196%
5198
2651.095
3491.095
840
188%
3860
2050.762
2713.762
663
227%
6750
2978
3804
826
314%
6274
1997
2966
969
358%
5532
1543.708
2551.708
1008
319%
3968
1245.008
2256.008
1011
1.27
1502.320328
1184.342205
1.29
1,082
840
1.29
858
663
0.60
496
826
0.55
530
969
0.14
142
1,008
0.01
15
1,011
0.60
1.17
-3.61
8.11
2.87
4.44
11%
-14%
53%
88%
46%

Capital Employed

Net Sales / Operating Value / Net Income
Capital Employed
Current Ratio
Current Assets (EUR Thou.)
Current Liabilities (EUR Mill.)
0.013
Earnings per Share
Gearing
68
2003
SGL Carbon SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
1,881.60
3%
52.2
1,806.70
-4%
-60.8
1,655.50
13%
189.6
1,455.50
11%
133.5
1,206.60
4%
40.7
986.10
3%
28.2
874.20
1,119.50
1,881.60
76%
1,381.80
1,806.70
74%
1,225.80
1,655.50
111%
1,611.50
1,455.50
114%
1,373.00
1,206.60
121%
1,190.80
986.10
122%
1068.8
874.20
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
3%
56.9
Net Profit
Capital Employed
59%
Net Sales / Operating Value (EUR Mill.)

Capital Employed
2,170.50
2113.40
1891.00
1795.90
1473.60
1260.80
1190.50
288.9
306.7
235.5
340.4
267
274.7
316.3
288.9
3.29
1010.30
306.7
4.07
959.00
235.5
2.64
897.80
340.4
2.47
660.10
267
2.49
684.70
274.7
1.91
603.00
316.3
Current Ratio
Current Assets (EUR Mill.)
3.59
1037.30
Earnings per Share
0.86
0.68
-0.93
2.95
2.1
0.66
0.5
-1.66
Gearing
0.44
0.47
0.49
0.44
0.47
0.51
0.82
1.21
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2003
2002
2001
2000
2003
2002
2001
2000
Q-Cells SE
2011
Return on Capital Employed (relative to 2006)

Net Profit
Capital Employed

Capital Employed
Total Assets
2010
2009
2008
2007
0.107462687 -0.01746235 0.340298507 0.808955224
7.2
-1.17
22.8
54.2
X
-1342.9
X
X
1151.10
1147.80
1227.00
455.40
2006
1
67
X
271.70
118%
1354.20
1151.10
2179.40
69%
790.40
1147.80
2227.70
97%
1195.10
1227.00
189%
858.90
455.40
199%
539.50
271.70
2.30
1096.20
475.60
1.96
1011.40
515.80
1.93
745.80
386.70
4.42
888.50
201.10
3.04
357.80
117.57
0.32195122
-6.6
1
-20.5
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
4.16
329.60
79.23
Earnings per Share
Gearing (relative to 2006) for sake of data normalization
Solon SE
2011
-1.829268293
37.5
-3.33170732 -0.84390244
68.3
17.3
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
-3.10
-237.561
77
-0.06
-19.80
324.65
-0.82
-271.65
329.65
0.06
32.73
594.07
0.04
22.20
601.20
0.09
14.40
161.20
0.06
7.90
124.90
0.05
2.40
44.60
720%
551.325
77
466
390
191%
619.93
324.65
667.54
342.90
107%
353.23
329.65
642.70
313.05
137%
815.10
594.07
903.06
308.99
84%
503.10
601.20
764.00
162.80
215%
346.40
161.20
326.90
165.70
161%
201.20
124.90
181.40
56.50
232%
103.50
44.60
58.00
13.40
0.719553313
280.42
389.714
1.18
405.87
342.90
1.01
314.79
313.05
1.57
484.53
308.99
3.10
504.80
162.80
1.32
218.70
165.70
1.89
106.90
56.50
2.71
36.30
13.40
-1.31
-21.68
2.46
2.16
1.56
0.95
0.4
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
17%
9%
40%
32%
28%
19%
13%
10%
1035
10445.00
5%
504
9402.00
10%
1729
16521.71
20%
1551
7651.00
13%
1105
8707.00
674
557
Total Assets (EUR Mil.)
17431.00
15895.00
16530.00
16161.00
15246.00
6986.00
6493.00
8.29
8510.00
6539.00
Current Ratio
1.08
7520.00
6986.00
1.23
7972.00
6493.00
1.27
10520.00
8289.00
1.09
9270.00
8510.00
1.26
8248.00
6539.00
5.3
-2.69
7.76
7.27
5.05
2.75
2.08

Net Profit
Capital Employed

Capital Employed
Total Assets
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
Earnings per Share
Gearing
MAN SE
2011
23.40%
Net Profit
Capital Employed

Capital Employed

Current Liabilities
1539.70467
Earnings per Share (EUR)
Gearing
69
Wacker Neuson SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
31.272
2004
2003
2002
2001
Based on most recent 2011 Accounts (9 Month Review)

Net Profit
Capital Employed
0.062
59
957.165
0.045
23.9
531.3
-0.198
-106.553
538.9
0.070
37.4
537.4
0.053
54.126
1019.862
0.130
48.548
372.479
76%
727.6
111%
597
538.9
971.738
90.936
162%
870.3
537.4
1178.661
166.67
73%
742.1
1019.862
1214.51
194.648
166%
619.3
372.479
475.013
102.534
2.40
245.783
102.534
203.074
143%
757.9
531.3
1030.217
110.837
Current Ratio
2.23
453.4
203.074
3.21
356.3
110.837
3.73
339
90.936
2.57
428.6
166.67
2.66
517.474
194.648
0.84
0.34
-1.57
0.53
1.1
957.165
1160.239
Capital Employed
Total Assets

Current Liabilities
503.191
Earnings per Share
Gearing (EUR)
Conwert Immobilient Invest SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2.13
1.99
8.15
13.19

Net Profit (EUR Mill.)
Capital Employed

Net Sales / Operating Value Revenue
Capital Employed
Current Liabilitites (EUR Mill.)
Current Ratio
0.0021
0.014
0.004
-0.011
0.018
-0.001
5.63
41.90
9.31
-29.90
44.89
-0.90
2643.05266 2972.50 2586.00 2645.77 2527.59 1584.01
4%
1.78%
2.18%
1.99%
1.87%
2.70%
97.7373913
52.8
56.5
52.6
47.2
42.8
2643.05
2972.50 2586.00 2645.77 2527.59 1584.01
3150.17
3550.80 2962.50 3016.21 2948.43 1921.58
507.11
578.3
376.5
370.44 420.84 337.57
1.26
639.753
507.114
1.22
702.9
578.3
1.42
533.6
376.5
1.56
577.97
370.44
1.39
585.37
420.84
1.56
526.45
337.57
138.34%
152%
115%
115.17% 85.81%
94.70%
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
Earnings per Share
Gearing
IMW Immobilien Invest SE

Capital Employed

Capital Employed
Total Assets
Current Ratio
Current Liabilities
0.049
18
366
-0.054
-14
257
-0.033
-16
484
-0.015
-11.06
752.704
0.001
0.477
747.586
0.012
2.57
206.31
-0.057
22
-387.23
11%
41
366
384
18
16%
41
257
376
119
11%
54
484
704
220
8%
60.2
752.704
975.957
223.253
6%
41.3
747.586
936.992
189.406
6%
11.7
206.31
275.57
69.26
-1%
2.55
-387.23
8.77
396
1.28
23
18
0.22
26
119
0.07
15
220
0.53
117.52
223.253
0.14
26.82
189.406
0.82
56.61
69.26
0.00
0.707
396
Earnings per Share
Gearing
70
2000
Prosafe SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2001
2000
Based on most recent 2011 Accounts ( Quarter 3 Accounts)

Net Profit (USD Mil.)
Capital Employed
Sales To Capital Employeed

Net Sales / Operating Value (USB 1 000)
Capital Employed
Total Assets
Current Ratio
Current Assets (USB Mil.)
0.14
143.13
1,048
0.18
0.10
198.50
127.20
1,101.61 1,275.17
0.17
202.80
1,201.20
0.06
0.07
143.70
128.10
2,319.70 1,813.40
0.05
46.40
915.60
38%
395
1,048
1168.861481
121
40%
442.40
1101.606
1226.4
124.794
31%
397.90
1275.17
1355.5
80.33
41%
491.10
1201.2
1313.9
112.7
16%
376.70
2319.7
2624
304.3
20%
365.60
1813.4
2145.9
332.5
32%
295.30
915.6
1060.7
145.1
0.77
93.16
120.77
1.87
136.40
73.10
1.84
210.40
114.60
2.08
255.00
122.70
0.95
288.30
304.30
0.68
226.40
332.50
2.48
359.50
145.10
0.89
0.57
0.72
0.63
0.64
6.77
1.14
0.45
0.2
0.64
0.74
0.65
2003
2002
Earnings per Share (USD)
Gearing
Interseroh SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
9.5
34.1
196.22
2.6
X
217.72
2.4
X
331.93
10.3
X
326.41
10.4
X
10.7
X
16
X
946.90
1040.20
317.7
n/a
311.5
n/a

31.0642315
Net Profit
Capital Employed
9.886352 5.817564 6.22390263 5.3567599

1939.90 1266.60
2065.90
1748.50 1238.80
196.22
217.72
331.93
326.41
656.5
659.5
729.4
658
446
460.28
441.78
397.47
331.59
n/a

Capital Employed
Current Ratio
0.88
406.97
460.28
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
0.85
376.98
441.78
1.11
439.78
397.47
1.38
458.71
331.59
Select Results Prior 2007 in German
Earnings per Share
Gearing
Odfjell SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
0.13
277.00
2,099
0.01
X
2,129
0.04
X
2,381
0.10
X
2,261
0.12
X
2,036
0.10
X
1,933
0.12
X
1,701
0.08
X
1,628
0.06
X
1,531
0.06
X
1,520
0.10
X
1,498
4%
86.42
2,099
2,697
598
-3.71%
-79
2,129
2,580
451
5.08%
121
2,381
2,699
318
7.21%
163
2,261
2,585
324
-0.49%
-10
2,036
2,379
343
6.00%
116
1,933
2,189
256
7.52%
128
1,701
1,956
255
5.84%
95
1,628
1,872
244
1.44%
22
1,531
1,715
184
3.03%
46
1,520
1,630
110
4.01%
60
1,498
1,601
103
1.4
585.33
598
0.9
X
X
1.4
X
X
1.1
X
X
1
X
X
1.5
X
X
1.2
X
X
1.1
X
X
1.3
X
X
2.9
X
X
2.9
X
X
-0.17
-9.32
9.23
-0.99
6.36
9.03
1.42
3.19
6.22
1.95
-137.25
16.47
-0.12
13.29
18.34
1.38
13.78
20.26
1.47
16.09
17.54
1.09
22.16
5.54
0.25
7.75
3.95
0.51
6.13
3.74
0.61
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
-0.08
-10428.99
123346.1539
-0.08
-14,967
193,820
-0.04
-10,145
279,689
0.04
7,948
182,164
0.06
16,622
282,630
0.06
10,636
173,396
0.13
20,507
159,331
9,947
117%
144295.38
123,346.153864481
60%
116,953
193,820
275,800
81,980
39%
108,035
279,689
336,206
56,517
76%
138,650
182,164
330,362
148,198
84%
236,137
282,630
345,447
62,817
119%
206,649
173,396
202,649
29,253
116%
185,214
159,331
185,214
25,883
1.37
112,538
81,980
3.11
175,706
56,517
1.89
280,163
148,198
4.45
279,387
62,817
4.93
144,363
29,253
4.60
118,938
25,883
-0.55
-0.37
2000

Net Profit (USD Mill.)
Capital Employed/Net Assets

Net Sales / Operating Value (USD M)
Capital Employed
Total Assets (USD Mill.)
Current Liabilities (USD Mill.)
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
Earnings per Share
Gearing
I.M. Skaugen SE
2000

Net Profit
Capital Employed

Net Sales / Operating Value / Revenue
Capital Employed
Total Assets (Mill.)
189,062
65715.43
Current Ratio
0.9989
65644.1823
Current Assets (Mill.)

Current Liabilities
65715.43
148,633
X
2.39
46,879
19,610
96
119.76

Earnings per Share
206,649
Gearing
71
Mensch und Maschine SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
0.044
1.55472
34.96653
-0.01
-0.316
35.359
-0.13
-4.778
36.791
0.19
5.76
29.602
0.22
6.029
27.203
0.15
3.205
21.106
0.04
0.544
13.819
609%
212.967018
34.96653
95.64555
60.67902
553%
195.562
35.359
105.105
69.746
444%
163.326
36.791
101.153
64.362
754%
223.099
29.602
84.986
55.384
783%
212.935
27.203
80.327
53.124
807%
170.338
21.106
71.811
50.705
1065%
147.211
13.819
61.431
47.612
Current Assets
0.705
42.78339
Current Liabilities
60.67902
0.76
52.819
69.746
0.78
50.161
64.362
0.93
51.615
55.384
0.89
47.331
53.124
0.84
42.573
50.705
0.72
34.439
47.612
Net Profit
Capital Employed

Capital Employed
Total Assets
Current Ratio
Considerable Discrepancies between 2006 and 2005 accounts in relation to Net Profit; 2005-2006 based on Accounts while incorp as an SE
Earnings per Share
Gearing
Catalis SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000

Capital Employed

Capital Employed
-0.046
0.221
-4.782
-0.18
-2.37
12.924
-0.02
-0.279
15.792
0.11
2.075
18.827
0.09
1.83
20.156
0.12
2.45
20.36
0.20
1.896
9.582
-5.739
27.443
-4.782
200%
25.793
12.924
203%
32.005
15.792
201%
37.891
18.827
172%
34.619
20.156
54%
10.988
20.36
82%
7.904
9.582
6.576
22.65
24.004
21.297
23.233
23.717
10.654
11.357
9.726
8.212
2.47
3.077
3.357
1.072
Current Ratio
0.821
0.47
3.874
8.212
4.51
11.132
2.47
3.64
11.198
3.077
5.56
9.326
0.46
4.49
9.726
4.00
Current Assets
13.424
5.964
3.357
1.072
16
11
Total Assets
Current Liabilitites (EUR Mill.)
11.357
Earnings per Share
-0.06
-0.01
0.08
0.07
0.11
0.1
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
Gearing
Aixtron SE
2011
2011 accounts based on percentage drop beween most recent 2011 and 2010;

Net Profit
Capital Employed

Capital Employed
0.19
133.0972931
683.1114909
0.32
192.496
601.364
0.11
44.766
415.728
0.11
22.994
215.011
0.21
17.25
83.333
0.03
5.857
187.031
-0.28
-53.458
187.875
97%
660.0610429
683.1114909
130%
783.775
601.364
73%
302.857
415.728
128%
274.404
215.011
258%
214.815
83.333
92%
171.685
187.031
74%
139.402
187.875
838.9002945
823.432
573.094
314.827
179.361
263.482
237.317
155.7888036
222.068
157.366
99.816
96.028
76.451
49.442
Current Ratio
4.07
634.251288
2.95
2.89
655.736
454.409
155.7888036
222.068
157.366
1.98
197.368
99.816
1.87
179.361
96.028
1.77
135.507
76.451
1.87
92.632
49.442
-1.86
1.93
0.49
0.26
0.2
0.07
-0.65
Total Assets
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
Earnings per Share
Gearing
72
Eurofins Scientific SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2001
2000
2001
2000

Net Profit
Capital Employed

Capital Employed
Total Assets
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
0.074
53.288
715.987
0.05
25.3
527.6
-0.02
-11.3
481.5
0.03
17.7
544.5
0.04
17.6
431.1
0.05
17.5
331.5
0.07
12.4
172.46
0.06
7.8
126.4
113%
806.790
715.987
865.994
150.006
129%
680.3
527.6
133%
640.1
481.5
116%
632.8
544.5
115%
497.2
431.1
111%
368
331.5
135%
233.1
172.46
139%
175.5
126.4
736.2
659.3
734
612
460
266.2
190.1
208.6
177.8
189.5
180.9
128.5
94
63.7
0.939
140.818
150.006
1.42
295.8
1.30
231.7
1.65
312
1.29
232.6
1.55
199.2
208.6
177.8
189.5
180.9
128.5
1.29
115.9
90
1.38
83.4
60.3
1.60
1.65
-0.79
1.26
1.27
1.27
0.91
0.58
0.7
0.9
72.10%
50.40%
73%
-41%
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
Earnings per Share
Gearing
GfK SE
2011

Net Profit
Capital Employed

Capital Employed
Total Assets
Current Ratio
Current Liabilities
4%
109.958333
2590.51173
14.10%
X
X
9.70%
X
X
12.80%
X
X
12.50%
X
X
12.00%
X
X
10.60%
X
X
17.20%
X
X
14.30%
X
X
11.30%
X
X
54%
1386.39491
2590.51173
3519.84845
929.336722
111%
1294.2
1162.4
111%
1164.5
1052.9
129%
1220.4
948.66
120%
1162.1
967.774
101%
1112.2
1103.77
83%
937.3
1125.558
188%
669.1
356.15
595.3
559.4
1649.9
1521.4
1446.6
1470.8
1496.2
1495.8
563.2
502
469.6
487.5
468.5
497.94
503.026
392.43
370.242
207.05
n/a
n/a
0.33580989
312.080466
929.336722
0.86
417.7
487.5
0.78
363.5
468.5
0.73
361.6
497.94
0.76
382.5
503.026
0.96
375.4
392.43
0.001
391.466
370,242
1.04
215.623
207.05
210.7
200.9
4.35
1.99
1.42
2.04
1.98
1.86
1.77
1.35
1.06
0.82
63.20%
90.40%
96.20%
92.80%
116.30%
122.60%
15.30%
12.20%
21.80%
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
Gearing
Navigator Equity Solutions SE
2011
Based on most recent 2011 Accounts (1st Half)

Net Profit
Capital Employed

Capital Employed
Total Assets
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
-0.001
-0.0081
15.62986842
0.02
0.371
16.852
-0.03
-0.489
18.819
-0.19
-4.911
26.326
-0.01
-0.381
29.089
0.06
1.641
28.766
0.12
0.721
6.092
71%
11.0277117
15.62986842
18.63537016
3.005501744
60%
10.071
16.852
64%
12.099
18.819
83%
21.885
26.326
42%
12.186
29.089
10%
2.921
28.766
2%
0.11
6.092
18.858
24.592
33.832
35.215
34.336
6.804
2.006
5.773
7.506
6.126
5.57
0.712
3.26
9.796488211
3.005501744
5.29
10.612
2.006
2.79
3.37
4.88
5.30
7.85
16.115
25.316
29.868
29.535
5.588
4.598
5.773
7.506
6.126
5.57
0.712
0.587
Accounts pre and post 2009 have considerable discrepancies; (2009 accounts restate actual accounts)
Earnings per Share
0.06
4.598
-0.04
Gearing
73
-0.003
0.021
0.03
Fresenius SE
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
0.07
1205
17866
0.06
991
17354
0.04
683
16375
0.03
410
11821
0.03
330
11966
0.02
222
9097
0.03
168
6132
0.02
115
6220
2002
2001
2000

Net Profit
Capital Employed
Discrepancies on Net Profit for Accounts 08 and 09; latest accounts used

Capital Employed
89%
15972
17866
82%
14164
17354
75%
12336
16375
96%
11358
11821
90%
10777
11966
87%
7889
9097
119%
7271
6132
114%
7064
6220
Total Assets
23577
20882
20544
15324
15024
11594
8188
8347
5711
3528
4169
3503
3058
2497
2056
2127
Current Ratio
1.13
6435
5711
1.52
5363
3528
1.22
5078
4169
1.22
4291
3503
1.34
4106
3058
1.41
3531
2497
1.34
2755
2056
1.29
2744
2127
Earnings per Share
4.08
3.18
2.85
2.65
2.16
1.77
1.36
0.93
1.08
0.76
1.02
Gearing
91%
105%
121%
88%
98%
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
0.10
196.95
1931.76149
0.15
204.66
1401.48
0.20
260.71
1336.58
0.01
10.10
1230.40
0.05
49.21
930.82
-0.03
-20.74
612.37
0.02
3.93
199.97
28%
539
1931.76149
2087.899059
156.1375695
46%
649.91
1401.48
59%
784.68
1336.58
31%
381.53
1230.402
33%
304.86
930.82
7%
44.60
612.372
20%
39.00
199.966
1563.61
1720.19
1556.472
1134.48
891.082
215.076
162.13
383.61
326.07
203.66
278.71
15.11
1.170280789
182.724798
156.1375695
1.69
273.78
162.13
0.69
263.16
383.61
0.43
138.84
325.32
0.68
138.52
203.66
0.44
140.84
318.62
0.12
4.63
39.82
1.20
1.26
2.05
0.14
0.58
-0.28
-0.47
21%
54%
77%
73%
77%
75%
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
-1.03
-25.19
24.45298503
-0.09
-1.938
22.12
-0.13
-3.029
23.07
-0.15
-4.28
27.78
-0.07
-1.911
28.08
-0.10
-2.572
26.75
-5.335
225%
55.0296441
24.45298503
26.67765938
2.224674347
266%
58.89
22.12
273%
63.10
23.07
58%
16.09
27.78
47%
13.32
28.08
56%
14.95
26.75
3.95
26.85
26.95
31.87
32.65
32.05
36.27
4.73
3.88
4.09
4.57
5.30
2.37
5.271007439
2.224674347
1.73
8.17
4.73
2.12
8.21
3.88
2.94
12.02
4.09
2.43
11.13
4.57
2.02
10.72
5.30
1.78
13.61
7.66
0.65
0.39
0.35
0.35
1.1
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
0.04
234.9164283
5713.095525
0.03
188.378
5595.914
0.03
184.611
5404.495
0.03
166.36
5374.983
0.05
207.614
4264.82
0.10
224.004
2179.196
0.04
94.566
2104.459
65.748
237%
13523.99258
5713.095525
11090.02165
5376.926122
221%
232%
227%
12381.537 12551.928 12227.795
5595.914 5404.495 5374.983
232%
9878.6
4264.82
433%
9430.621
2179.196
331%
6955.797
2104.459
5222.905
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
Songa Offshore SE
2011
Based on most recent 2011 Accounts (Q3)

Capital Employed

Sales / Operating Value
Capital Employed
Current Ratio
Earnings per Share (USD)
Gearing
Betbull Trading SE
2011
2011 Accounts Unreleased; based on FT

Net Profit
Capital Employed

Capital Employed
Total Assets
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
Gearing
Bauholding Strabag SE (F)
2011

Net Profit
Capital Employed

Capital Employed
Total Assets
Current Ratio
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
10382.157
9613.59
9765.206
7740.814
5575.826
5126.927
4786.243
4209.095
4390.223
3475.994
3396.63
3022.468
1.21
6501.843804
5376.926122
1.26
6037.118
4786.243
1.26
5313.138
4209.095
1.25
5471.024
4390.223
1.52
5270.97
3475.994
1.08
3673.507
3396.63
1.12
3390.119
3022.468
138%
-20.70%
-19.20%
-3.70%
-29.90%
65.20%
Earnings per Share
Gearing
74
No Previous Accounts as incorporation was by Merger
13. Annex 2 - Individual Industry Research

Note: Data from 2008 onwards are estimates
Sector: Mining and quarrying (NACE Rev.2)
EEA
2005
2006
2007
Austria
1740.8
2044.6
2075.9
Belgium
851.4
973.5
1000.3
Bulgaria
794.8
1133.1
1193.7
Cyprus
77.2
81.6
88.5
Czech Republic
2785.7
2984.4
3279.9
Denmark
7446.7
8907.1
8491.4
Estonia
186.8
208.8
268.7
Finland
854.8
1069.5
1169.0
France
9922.5 10990.7 10935.5
Germany
13169.1 14366.8 14583.6
Greece
1525.8
1711.6
1799.4
Hungrary
462.1
463.4
437.7
Ireland
1652.4
2369.6
2317.0
Italy
64994.4 58647.1 53674.8
Latvia
68.7
98.9
139.7
Lithuania
166.5
186.5
218.0
Luxembourg
59.9
70.7
82.3
Malta
50.2
48.7
53.0
Netherlands
25409.7 31363.8 31239.9
Poland
8476.7
9676.8 10354.7
Portugal
1176.1
1290.6
1371.6
Romania
4864.1
6022.0
6481.0
Slovakia
355.4
348.5
447.6
Slovenia
222.5
253.1
270.5
Spain
5153.8
5653.2
6128.4
Sweden
2466.5
2961.2
3127.3
United Kingdom
64497.1 71375.1 72583.3
Norway
101366.5 86039.6 117518.2
EEC Total
320798.2 321340.5 351330.9
Turnover Ratio
1 1.00169 1.093329
75
Total Turnover or gross premiums written (V12110)

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2332.5
1932.7
1960.0
2150.2
2348.4
1100.5
1067.9
1124.0
1182.1
1231.2
1322.6
1316.7
1325.2
1405.6
1489.0
102.5
112.8
130.1
137.0
143.9
4195.5
3367.8
3366.2
3451.9
3488.8
9868.9
7907.1
6525.7
6301.7
6204.2
288.1
286.2
279.8
295.4
309.4
1215.8
1300.1
1599.7
1762.3
1919.8
11216.5 10473.3 10875.7 11495.5 12097.0
16866.1 17208.8 18089.1 18963.2 19773.9
1909.9
1874.1
1833.1
1810.4
1882.7
523.7
460.2
457.1
473.0
491.3
1972.9
1861.5
1563.0
1646.1
1772.5
59261.8 58397.0 57821.0 59292.3 60870.0
139.7
132.2
140.3
150.0
160.8
224.4
128.2
124.9
129.7
137.5
83.7
80.3
72.0
75.0
79.9
43.0
46.0
44.9
50.2
52.2
41197.4 30151.1 28705.8 29073.5 29960.0
12293.9 10986.2 12983.0 14795.4 16465.3
1241.9
1392.4
1448.5
1363.8
1306.0
5123.2
7554.6
7618.0
7929.0
8320.7
576.1
547.4
543.2
570.6
608.1
282.5
278.1
288.9
293.9
296.2
6992.4
7177.6
7422.2
7584.4
7838.7
3855.4
3724.9
4783.4
5191.0
5439.7
80990.1 87149.8 84636.2 82897.8 82127.8
147083.9 110662.6 114991.9 117257.7 121864.1
412304.9 367577.6 370752.9 377728.7 388679.1
1.173551 0.891519 1.008638 1.018815 1.02899

Sector: Manufacturing (NACE Rev.2)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Austria
131978.8
143756.4
155401.1
163046.8
138426.8
148752.6
161303.1
174161.8
Belgium
211985.7
244008.3
258291.9
251753.0
225949.5
239253.1
252515.9
264093.6
Bulgaria
16908.9
20597.6
23931.2
27656.6
29140.6
29357.2
31371.8
33592.5
Cyprus
3377.1
3461.4
3706.8
4087.1
4180.0
4321.9
4463.3
4665.3
Czech Republic 99482.1
117733.6
130904.8
147734.7
116397.0
119577.0
125912.2
133127.2
Denmark
80103.7
86907.6
94107.3
100450.8
85271.2
87097.5
89602.6
92647.1
Estonia
6350.2
7442.1
8567.6
8653.5
6413.1
6418.0
6801.5
7136.3
Finland
120929.3
140515.3
150409.3
155286.7
118478.6
127606.3
137534.7
146707.7
France
945692.0
950035.9
980418.5
998994.6
950293.5
962922.2
990626.9
1021106.9
Germany 1636306.10 1767561.00 1878517.30 1831904.10 1489854.40 1696075.00 1810762.80 1913326.90
Greece
48389.9
55437.3
59404.4
68455.6
71563.2
72000.5
70700.6
73212.6
Hungrary
77221.8
83546.6
93758.3
98092.7
74335.3
74883.2
77731.7
82018.7
Ireland
113021.6
118641.3
125688.2
120637.8
123911.9
132548.1
138995.7
146497.2
Italy
863788.1
931346.5
1001151.9
977623.0
851130.9
884172.5
919348.7
957934.3
Latvia
5256.4
6288.9
7360.4
6929.0
5318.2
5301.5
5300.0
5300.0
Lithuania
11269.5
12967.4
14127.6
15201.7
11186.5
11109.1
11781.8
12567.0
Luxembourg 19998.0
25201.9
28412.7
29397.8
21429.7
21933.7
22899.8
23892.2
Malta
2434.4
2612.3
2668.7
2416.7
2122.9
2002.2
1885.8
1873.0
Netherlands 257013.3
284533.2
301754.3
321096.3
268192.4
271316.7
279481.4
288478.3
Poland
167546.9
196701.5
232015.0
265669.1
238266.8
270681.9
297922.3
320074.9
Portugal
73102.7
76907.6
83027.4
91976.8
95947.4
100307.3
99315.2
99743.3
Romania
41284.8
49382.9
59966.8
65233.9
80114.0
83988.2
90116.2
97016.2
Slovakia
30686.8
38484.7
48511.4
54722.9
44695.2
45985.9
48431.1
50678.3
Slovenia
20809.6
23249.2
26057.0
26554.9
21360.8
21803.3
22845.2
24249.0
Spain
486556.0
528507.7
565297.8
576160.1
494881.2
508475.9
517140.4
532894.4
Sweden
175383.5
190446.9
203765.0
189164.9
160118.9
179747.1
191927.0
197935.3
United Kingdom
682555.0
710251.0
737160.8
775053.3
865604.4
887105.9
916221.9
948435.1
Norway
73025.1
83827.6
95764.1
96339.7
87053.8
91010.1
92869.4
97029.0
EEA
6402457.3
6900353.7
7370147.6
7470294.1
6681638.2
7085753.9
7415809.0
7750394.1
1 1.077766454 1.068082582 1.013588127 0.894427731 1.06048153 1.046580096 1.045117815
76

Sector: Electricity, gas and water (NACE Rev 2)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Austria
17789.2
22709.3
23267.4
31632.0
30069.4
30387.8
32642.1
34909.6
Belgium
29951.0
36263.0
36607.1
40264.1
39065.8
40828.1
42691.9
44195.5
Bulgaria
4127.0
4662.0
5900.1
8180.8
7181.1
6836.2
7095.7
7445.9
Cyprus
542.6
635.0
664.0
805.2
761.1
760.1
798.5
855.9
Czech Republic
12902.3
20538.1
23345.6
29442.5
29222.3
29280.4
30267.4
32047.9
Denmark
15855.9
19125.5
17806.0
22584.2
20057.2
18909.3
19142.0
19592.8
Estonia
1131.6
1197.1
1446.8
1626.7
1690.8
1652.0
1741.7
1867.5
Finland
8987.0
11248.6
10861.8
11296.2
12078.8
14789.1
15843.0
16765.7
France
75967.7
84328.7
96359.6
102341.3
94217.5
92796.2
95021.7
99036.2
Germany
225394.6
267616.7
298905.5
339076.8
339627.4
352601.7 374102.9 389679.5
Greece
4825.7
5362.1
5593.2
5930.0
5813.1
5668.7
5509.4
5647.8
Hungrary
11472.1
12031.7
17319.9
19389.6
17318.1
16739.0
17236.6
18212.4
Ireland
4015.4
5471.6
5882.6
5261.1
5069.2
4940.6
5152.8
5424.3
Italy
115773.9
142465.9
128559.0
141403.9
138476.9
136764.0 141493.9 146612.1
Latvia
812.5
1084.1
1525.6
2236.5
2143.4
2066.1
2140.0
2297.9
Lithuania
1783.7
1979.4
2266.1
2630.2
2867.0
2760.3
2880.9
3083.2
Luxembourg
1400.5
1887.8
2118.7
2395.0
2121.1
2047.3
2145.5
2289.1
Malta
1085.0
1281.0
1481.7
1776.8
1590.6
1721.8
2127.0
2036.0
Netherlands
21316.9
37093.0
39303.1
44890.6
43210.3
42600.4
44058.4
46366.7
Poland
29379.1
32935.7
35655.0
42215.6
37954.7
44923.3
48965.7
52053.2
Portugal
11769.8
12877.9
15942.0
14434.4
16184.9
16839.5
16713.6
16866.0
Romania
9209.0
10564.4
12305.7
14141.8
9600.2
9538.6
10106.1
10879.7
Slovakia
6384.7
7542.2
8601.4
11056.7
11135.6
10962.1
11598.9
12349.2
Slovenia
2010.6
2379.2
2603.0
2991.2
2966.0
2918.0
2970.2
3155.1
Spain
53250.9
59177.4
60051.2
68186.9
69656.2
70897.6
71573.6
73148.6
Sweden
20559.3
23028.9
22608.5
27888.9
26962.7
34688.2
37098.6
38291.8
United Kingdom 90673.6
108213.7
114522.6
130550.4
135831.0
131448.2 135237.5 141422.7
Norway
11976.3
13712.9
11948.1
15216.5
12865.4
12907.3
13375.4
14075.9
EEA
790347.9
947412.9
1003451.3 1139845.9
1115737.8
1139271.9 1189731.0 1240608.2
1 1.198728939 1.059148867 1.13592548 0.978849685 1.021092859 1.0442907 1.0427636
77

Total Turnover
Sector: Construction (NACE Rev.2)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Austria
28237.8
30454.5
33981.8
40560.7
35677.2
34857.8
34275.2
35019.2
Belgium
34349.6
39052.7
43485.6
47104.9
45552.0
46608.7
48753.6
51211.8
Bulgaria
3988.6
5334.6
7552.2
8943.9
8372.9
8291.9
8914.7
9656.4
Cyprus
2132.2
2395.0
2791.6
3088.2
3085.5
3058.2
3126.2
3331.3
Czech Republic
20259.8
24909.5
28318.9
33598.1
29520.0
30581.6
30623.1
30967.8
Denmark
24378.3
28163.3
31481.0
32728.4
28181.5
30084.1
30610.8
32033.0
Estonia
2667.0
3552.0
4551.7
4184.9
2794.9
2662.7
2849.6
3089.0
Finland
19742.0
20579.0
23797.2
26226.2
23401.8
23317.3
24500.1
25698.7
France
178905.7 201340.6 220501.5 232478.8
223088.6 227592.0 233288.9 242019.3
Germany
137347.1 153240.9 143848.1 147758.7
151685.9 152202.6 155326.3 159922.4
Greece
15733.2
16456.1
18290.9
15007.0
13289.3
11651.6
10997.2
11065.3
Hungrary
13943.4
14587.8
15667.0
16151.8
13795.1
14468.5
15028.8
16054.4
Ireland
14568.9
21391.1
19752.0
15132.9
9933.3
9105.5
8946.3
9106.5
Italy
197200.5 223407.5 226289.8 231819.8
227896.8 222299.9 226486.8 233830.4
Latvia
2661.9
4022.6
5703.4
4895.5
3180.7
2767.3
2801.2
3031.4
Lithuania
3020.7
4058.1
5690.7
6283.7
3195.4
2933.7
3004.3
3182.9
Luxembourg
3509.2
3812.8
4330.3
4662.5
4471.1
4795.9
5157.6
5519.6
Malta
425.7
398.2
442.1
418.9
455.8
445.9
439.8
442.6
Netherlands
69830.3
77067.1
85136.7
93252.0
90108.2
91782.4
94123.7
96210.6
Poland
27077.9
33965.2
44264.2
52760.2
46208.0
49553.1
52635.3
56414.0
Portugal
32341.4
32518.1
33203.6
33795.0
30092.4
30592.2
29503.5
29563.7
Romania
8795.3
12778.4
19858.8
25872.4
11755.6
11828.6
12276.2
13079.4
Slovakia
3947.8
4933.4
5442.8
7294.3
7022.1
7439.9
8045.6
8588.0
Slovenia
4598.1
5436.6
7177.8
8059.3
6515.1
6411.0
6520.1
6917.1
Spain
255999.3 294594.0 304644.5 308686.1
286935.1 264573.1 266375.1 274971.0
Sweden
33259.6
38153.9
44138.9
44488.2
43055.2
48399.0
52505.4
54889.5
United Kingdom 244708.2 256676.1 286677.3 296914.8
296045.8 312873.1 330335.9 346603.0
Norway
25543.1
29110.0
35409.6
38320.3
36624.5
39253.9
40868.1
43179.0
EEA
1409172.6 1582389.1 1702430.0 1780487.5 1681939.8 1690431.5 1738319.4 1805597.3
1 1.1229207 1.0758605 1.0458506 0.94465128 1.0050488 1.0283288 1.0387028
78

Total Turnover
Sector: Transport, storage & communications (NACE Rev. 2)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Austria
42410.4 45484.6
47602.1 56622.7
51821.1
53670.8 55545.5
57526.5
Belgium
57528.5 61320.9
65421.4 67103.4
62917.1
65482.4 68496.0
72029.0
Bulgaria
5579.3
5586.9
6579.5
7738.2
8038.5
8146.7
8824.6
9476.3
Cyprus
1764.0
1905.3
2190.5
2251.7
2297.3
2374.3
2459.2
2575.0
Czech Republic
21235.4 22312.8
25562.3 29722.4
25636.8
26882.3 27833.2
28593.6
Denmark
47156.5 51773.7
56526.1 57489.8
46723.4
48795.7 50951.3
53171.1
Estonia
3905.4
4423.2
5156.9
5308.0
4564.4
4571.3
4798.7
5060.5
Finland
25182.6 26528.8
27700.7 29383.0
27032.3
28965.5 31414.6
33530.6
France
230359.5 237853.8 244621.6 253300.1 256067.7 265530.7 276656.0
289674.8
Germany
277466.6 293925.3 312625.2 329719.7 311919.3 322463.0 334046.8
348180.1
Greece
20063.7 21828.6
22875.0 24543.7
24252.3
23644.8 22571.9
22877.0
Hungrary
15942.5 17885.4
19518.1 20990.9
17953.2
18714.1 19338.7
20461.7
Ireland
22271.5 22244.6
23780.6 22167.4
19568.5
18068.9 17910.7
18160.4
Italy
189047.0 201377.6 205712.0 206340.7 200070.5 201391.7 210939.9
222734.9
Latvia
3530.1
4084.1
4914.1
5570.8
4946.4
4575.7
4612.8
4794.8
Lithuania
3961.8
4913.5
6021.1
6738.0
5539.8
5394.9
5723.7
6177.1
Luxembourg 6927.8
6431.6
7560.5
8678.8
8815.6
9279.9
9715.2
10204.6
Malta
1152.8
1144.8
1263.4
1345.4
1478.1
1539.0
1521.9
1531.0
Netherlands 81783.0 89532.5
95812.3 98072.7
89092.4
92973.4 97616.1
102431.3
Poland
34593.2 40508.2
46846.9 54170.9
48233.9
55574.9 61555.6
67892.3
Portugal
24669.5 26785.7
28913.7 29346.0
28732.6
29706.2 29749.4
29912.2
Romania
10670.2 13321.2
16460.8 17796.7
13915.5
14701.6 15717.2
16843.7
Slovakia
4554.0
5176.2
7207.8
8904.6
8189.4
8371.4
8756.3
8999.2
Slovenia
4625.9
5344.8
6208.5
6992.1
6640.6
6748.0
7034.0
7471.8
Spain
138179.4 150344.0 160944.6 169346.1 167632.7 170079.9 173299.2
178827.7
Sweden
54044.2 57173.8
60648.8 63375.1
60604.2
65079.9 69180.0
72791.4
United Kingdom
311564.0 322520.9 335371.0 339423.6 360474.1 383126.8 401749.9
420470.7
Norway
44791.9 47767.2
51723.8 53459.6
46573.1
49202.0 50870.7
53019.4
EEA
1684960.7 1789500.0 1895769.3 1975902.1 1909730.8 1985055.8 2068889.1
2165418.7
1 1.062043 1.0593849 1.042269 0.9665108 1.0394427 1.042232 1.046657697
79

Sector: Real estate, renting & business activity (NACE Rev. 2)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Austria
47130.9 51452.3
56167.4 57974.4
56154.4
Belgium
63794.2 73821.7
79003.6 81819.4
82931.4
Bulgaria
2078.7
2835.8
4479.2
4993.7
4909.3
Cyprus
1380.5
1728.5
1942.2
2072.1
2005.0
Czech Republic
20050.1 23451.4
29119.9 34706.9
32011.0
Denmark
43389.1 50715.8
55336.6 62114.5
62609.6
Estonia
2092.1
2484.0
3167.1
3324.7
2857.9
Finland
23247.9 26799.6
30379.8 32281.2
32357.5
France
416021.6 458647.0 488145.5 505990.0 474504.4
Germany 389697.3 424381.6 451432.7 464954.0 474232.7
Greece
21385.2 22487.3
24159.8 25118.8
26020.4
Hungrary
20536.6 22640.6
26540.0 28673.9
25116.3
Ireland
36745.5 41056.1
44296.0 44275.4
37768.3
Italy
226051.4 237074.5 253888.1 263993.3 264069.4
Latvia
2129.2
3076.0
4001.1
3364.7
3268.7
Lithuania
2196.1
2986.9
4138.9
4884.6
3901.9
Luxembourg 6424.7 10270.2
11093.4 12212.1
12254.2
Malta
922.8
1242.3
1158.8
1147.7
1386.7
Netherlands123449.0 139190.8 152784.5 160816.5 157596.6
Poland
31898.8 37549.7
45290.5 53901.5
43625.0
Portugal
26038.0 28810.5
31013.5 32550.1
31890.6
Romania
7018.5
9967.2
14148.7 15957.8
11643.4
Slovakia
3745.0
4792.5
6770.3
8234.9
8439.3
Slovenia
5164.0
5846.5
7059.2
7904.1
7141.9
Spain
208710.2 233982.6 256757.1 276440.4 282567.9
Sweden
75308.3 81400.6
93667.8 99141.8
98609.8
United Kingdom
493850.3 530749.9 591736.0 641503.4 682295.6
Norway
40919.9 47989.8
54300.2 56828.1
54453.2
EEA
2341375.9 2577431.7 2821977.9 2987180.0 2976622.4
1 1.100819 1.0948798 1.058541 0.9964657
80
Total Turnover
2010
59867.5
84021.6
5004.0
1993.8
33872.0
65367.9
2804.6
33113.0
485699.9
490545.1
25869.4
26088.9
34006.5
267311.4
3017.4
3854.8
12697.2
1446.5
162192.9
48957.2
31430.7
12326.2
8674.5
6933.3
270581.2
100974.8
741213.3
58486.0
3078351.6
1.034176
2011
63609.6
86214.5
5419.1
2047.7
35436.3
68725.5
2984.7
34856.9
501729.1
513622.1
24722.9
26571.3
33284.0
272312.2
3081.2
4059.4
13298.1
1578.3
169032.7
53411.4
31118.1
13181.6
9216.8
7164.4
273994.1
105968.2
804205.5
62082.6
3222928.3
1.046966
2012
66819.1
88893.8
5777.8
2189.4
36909.1
71915.1
3211.1
36578.9
527873.1
539479.8
25087.8
28428.5
33163.1
280123.7
3318.2
4352.3
13813.0
1674.5
176342.1
58105.1
30760.6
14583.1
9650.0
7697.1
281170.4
110115.5
863626.4
66212.7
3387871.3
1.051178
Industry J
Information and Communications
NACE Rev. 2 Cl a s s i fi ca ti on: J
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
Turnover
382.05
495.73
-0.2
4.5
Gross Value Added
Gross value added - NACE Rev.2: J - volumes

Percentage changes
Percentage change q/q-1 (SA)
geo\time
2008Q4
EU (27 countries)
Annual
Other services - turnover
Index (2005=100)
Information service activities
geo\time
EU (27 countries)
Annual
465.82
1.7
-1.3
2009Q1 2009Q2 2009Q3 2009Q4 2010Q1 2010Q2 2010Q3 2010Q4 2011Q1 2011Q2 2011Q3
0.9
-0.7
-0.2
1.7
1.3
1.4
0.4
1.4
-0.9
0.3
0.4
4.8
4.3
-0.2
120.1
2009Q1 2009Q2 2009Q3 2009Q4 2010Q1 2010Q2 2010Q3 2010Q4 2011Q1 2011Q2 2011Q3
113.42
117.62
116.33
118.45
123.61
123.54
124.65
123.93
125.03
127.4
129.62
837.62
877.78
382.05
2008Q4
NACE_R2
Information and communication
INDIC_SB
Turnover or gross premiums written
GEO/TIME
2008
European Union (27 countries)
2009
1141268.95
1081406
Industry K
Finance and Insurance Activities
NACE Rev. 2 Cl a s s i fi ca ti on: K
2011 (Based on Q1-Q3)
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2009Q3
-1.5
2009Q4
-0.4
2010Q1
1.5
2010Q2
-0.8
2010Q3
-1.2
2010Q4
-0.4
2011Q1
0.6
2011Q2
0.3
2011Q3
0.5
Based on most recent statistics from Eurostat
Turnover
Gross Value Added
1.4
-0.9
-2.9
2008Q4
2.7
2009Q1
-1.2
2009Q2
0.7
Raw data
Gross value added
EU (27 countries)
Industry M and N
Professional scientific and Technology
NACE Rev. 2 Cl a s s i fi ca ti on: M
Turnover
Gross Value Added
2011
2010
Other services - turnover

Index (2005=100)
Information service activities
geo\time
EU (27 countries)
Annual
2009
2008
2007
2006
2009Q1 2009Q2
-4.8
-0.8
-3.8
2009Q3
0.1
2009Q4
0.2
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2010Q2
0.5
2010Q3
0.9
2010Q4
0.3
2011Q1
1.5
2011Q2
0.6
382.05
495.73
465.82
2.7
-5.3
Industry: Gross value added - NACE Rev.2: M_N - volumes

Percentage change q/q-1 (SA)
geo\time
2008Q4
EU (27 countries)
-1.7
Annual
GEO/TIME
European Union (27 countries)
2000
2010Q1
1
5.7
2011Q3
0.9
2008
2009
1168753.44 1094248
2008Q4
120.1 (s)
2009Q1 2009Q2 2009Q3

2009Q4
2010Q1
2010Q2 2010Q3 2010Q4 2011Q1 2011Q2 2011Q3
113.42
117.62
116.33
118.45
123.61
123.54
124.65
123.93
125.03
127.4
129.62
712.97
877.78
382.05
81

Creation, Running of Societas Europea (European Company)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creation, Running of Societas Europea (European Company)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Practical and Financial Critique on the Formation and Running of

the Societas Europaea (SE).

Word Count: 14,887

6.Conclusion to Part 1 ..............................................................................................................................Page30

Part 2: Finance and Trends

8.Methods of Analysis ...........................................................................................................................Page 31

Part 1: The Setting up and Running of the Societas Europaea

1.3 Historical Progress

Total Number of SE's

Directive 2157/2001, Article 15(1).

2.3 Practical Problems Regarding Formation

Vaughan and Robertson, Law of the European Union. Issue 15 [pp22.1001+]

Number of SE which Transfered Registered

Figure 2: Transfers of Registered Offices between 2005-2011 70

Cumulative Average Abnormal Returns on Announcement of Reincorporation

Figure 3: Cumulative Average Abnormal Returns on day of announcment of reincorporation as an SE 83

3.4 Flexibility in Corporate Governance

Board Structure of SE's

No. of Employees at Time of Formation

3.9 Conclusion to Positive Drivers

Subscribed Capital at Time of Formation

120,001 EUR - 3M EUR

3M EUR - 10M EUR

10M EUR - 100M EUR

4.5 Employee Involvement Regime

4.6 Practical Application of SE Regulation and National Law

4.7 Common Practical Problems

Distribution of Registered SEs by Country

The European Commission outline stakeholders views in relation to distribution of SE's to

Current Operational Status of SE's

5.1 Distrubition in relation to Specific Sectors

Number Of SE's by Field of Activity

Activities of Households as Employers, 0

Public Administration and Defense, Compuslory 0

Mining and Quarrying

Agriculture, forestry and Fishing

Arts, Enterntainment and Recreation

Human, Health and Social Work Activities

Accomodation and Food Service Activities

Administrative and Support Service Activities

Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities

Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply

Transporting and Storage

Information and Communication

Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor

Real Estate Activities

Other Service Activities

Financial and Insurance Activities

Finance and Insurance

Basel II International Capital Framework, http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsca.htm. Solvency;

Part 2: Finance and Trends

Efficiency: Indicator as to the appropriateness of the level of debt compared to sales.

Eurostat; Official provider of European Statistics; http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat

Investment: indicator as to whether the business is a safe, productive place to invest.

Eurostat; Official provider of European Statistics; http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat

Mining and Quarrying (NACE Rev. 2; B)

Turnover Ratio relative to the

Volume index of production

9.3Manufacturing (NACE Rev.2 Classification C)

Manufacturing (NACE Rev. 2; C)

Turnover Ratio relative to the

Earnings per Share

Earnings per Share

Earnings per Share