.avif)
In some real estate transactions, the asset appears to be the building. Commercially, that may be true. Legally, however, the transaction may be something rather different. The purchaser is not acquiring the property directly, but the company through which the property is held.
That distinction is not merely technical. In cross-border transactions, it often shapes the deal from the outset. The legal analysis is no longer confined to title, leases, permits and the physical asset itself. It must extend to the corporate vehicle, its history, its governance, its liabilities, the surrounding ownership chain and the way in which the structure operates across jurisdictions.
This is where share deals involving Greek real estate demand particular care. They may offer commercial and structural advantages, but they also require the parties to understand that the building is being acquired through an entity with its own legal life, rather than as a stand-alone asset lifted cleanly from one owner to another. In sophisticated transactions, that shift in perspective affects diligence, risk allocation and execution in a fundamental way.
The structure changes the legal question
Where a building is acquired through a share transaction, the immediate object of the acquisition is the company, not the land registry entry. That alters the nature of the enquiry from the beginning.
In a direct real estate acquisition, the legal focus tends to fall most heavily on the property itself: title, encumbrances, planning status, leasing arrangements, operational matters and asset-specific compliance. In a share deal, those points remain important, but they sit within a wider corporate analysis. The purchaser is stepping into the legal personality that owns the asset, together with the rights, obligations, records and risks attached to that entity.
In cross-border structures, this is often compounded by the presence of an intermediate holding company in another jurisdiction. That may serve a legitimate commercial purpose and may be entirely familiar to the parties involved. Even so, it introduces an additional layer of legal coordination. The structure must be read vertically as well as horizontally. One must understand not only the Greek asset and the Greek operating or holding vehicle, but also the foreign entity through which the acquisition is being effected and the legal consequences of the relationship between them.
The transaction therefore becomes an exercise in structural clarity. The question is not only whether the building is attractive, but whether the corporate path through which it is being acquired is sufficiently clean, stable and intelligible to support the deal.
Due diligence must move beyond the asset
In real estate-led share deals, there is sometimes a temptation to treat the corporate layer as little more than a wrapper around the property. That is a mistake. The corporate vehicle may appear passive, but it can carry legal significance well beyond the value of the asset it holds.
The due diligence exercise must therefore be calibrated accordingly. It should consider not only the property and its immediate legal condition, but also matters such as historic liabilities, governance records, corporate authority, financing arrangements, intra-group relationships, tax exposures where relevant, contractual obligations and any structural features that may affect the purchaser’s position after closing. Where the target entity has had a limited purpose and a disciplined history, the exercise may prove relatively contained. Where the entity has been part of a wider group structure or used in a more active way, the level of scrutiny may need to increase considerably.
In Greece, this analysis must also remain alert to the interaction between corporate and real estate issues. Property rights do not exist in isolation from the vehicle that holds them. If the acquisition is effected through shares, the purchaser needs confidence not only in the quality of the asset, but in the legal condition of the entity through which that asset is controlled.
This is one of the reasons sophisticated purchasers tend to resist artificial separation between real estate diligence and corporate diligence. In the wrong structure, that division can obscure the very risks that matter most.
Execution risk often lies in the chain, not only in the property
Cross-border share deals are often attractive because they allow parties to transact at the level of the holding structure. Yet the more layered the structure, the more important execution discipline becomes.
Timing, approvals, authority, funding flows, closing mechanics and post-completion integration may all depend on the relationship between entities in different jurisdictions. Even where the asset itself is in Greece, the success of the transaction may depend on whether the wider acquisition chain has been properly mapped and whether responsibilities have been clearly aligned among local counsel, foreign counsel, lenders and the commercial parties.
This is where legal coordination becomes especially important. A real estate acquisition conducted through a foreign holding vehicle may appear straightforward at first sight, particularly where the property itself is high quality and the commercial rationale is settled. In practice, however, the risk of misalignment often sits not in the asset, but in the path through which control of that asset is transferred.
A well-structured deal anticipates this. It does not assume that the corporate chain will simply carry the transaction because the parties are commercially aligned. It tests the route in advance, so that the transfer of shares produces the control, certainty and legal effect the purchaser expects.
Practical Implications
For investors, banks, developers and cross-border buyers involved in Greek real estate transactions, several points merit early attention.
- A share deal should be analysed as an acquisition of a legal vehicle, not merely as an indirect purchase of property.
- Corporate diligence and real estate diligence should be treated as connected exercises rather than separate workstreams.
- The ownership chain should be reviewed carefully where foreign holding companies are involved.
- Closing mechanics should be tested against the structure of the transaction, not only against the headline commercial agreement.
- In cross-border real estate acquisitions, a sound asset is not enough. The path through which it is acquired must also be legally coherent.
Sometimes the building is the commercial focus of the transaction. The legal task, however, is to ensure that the company through which it is acquired can carry that transaction without introducing uncertainty of its own.