Resolve the target
Confirm the legal entity, jurisdiction and identifiers used in the transaction process.
Target identity record
Understand the ownership perimeter before you price, approve or close.
See who owns the target, which entities belong in the group, where minority interests sit and what the available ownership history can—and cannot—establish.
For corporate development, private equity, investment teams, transaction counsel and financial due-diligence providers.
Transaction ownership reviewEvidence assembled
SubjectWestfield Industrial Group B.V.
ResolvedTarget and group parent resolved
Decision questionWho owns the target today, what sits inside the group, and where could the ownership perimeter be incomplete?
Government registry dataFour direct subsidiaries and two minority interests reported
Source factVerified public-source evidenceLatest annual report explains one post-filing disposal
Separate evidenceZavia calculation82% effective interest in the principal operating subsidiary
Formula shownUnresolved or conflictingOne overseas subsidiary lacks a current reported percentage
ReviewWorkflow outcomeCore perimeter supported; overseas interest added to the diligence request list
One evidence model throughoutExact legal entityNamed source and dateVisible ownership pathExplicit evidence gaps
The operating problem
A target name is not a transaction perimeter.
The operating brand, contracting entity, holding company and acquisition perimeter may be different. Zavia keeps every legal entity distinct while showing the supported connections between them.
Decision to support
Who owns the target today, what sits inside the group, and where could the ownership perimeter be incomplete?
01
Which legal entity is the target, and who owns it directly and ultimately?
02
Which parents, subsidiaries and minority interests belong in the review perimeter?
03
Have ownership or group relationships changed in a way that requires explanation?
How the workflow fits
Move from submitted company to reviewable evidence.
Zavia provides the company and ownership layer. Your team keeps control of policy, judgment and the final decision.
Map shareholders
Review direct interests, intermediate owners, ultimate owners and concentration.
Capital and ownership view
Define the group
Expand to supported parents, subsidiaries and cross-border holding entities.
Transaction perimeter map
Review change and gaps
Compare dated ownership states and surface relationships that remain incomplete or conflicting.
Diligence exception list
What your team receives
A decision file—not a data dump.
Every output is built to be reviewed by a person, passed into a system and revisited when the underlying company changes.
Target ownership schedule
Direct and effective interests with source dates and visible calculations.
Group perimeter
Parents, subsidiaries, holding companies and relevant jurisdictions in graph and list form.
Ownership history
Available changes to shareholders, percentages, parents and ultimate-owner conclusions.
Evidence exceptions
Unreported interests, stale records and conflicting links prioritized for further diligence.
Evidence architecture
Do not flatten four different evidence states into one answer.
The distinction is visible to analysts and available to systems through structured delivery.
Government registry data
The company fact or relationship as reported by the named official registry or government source.
Verified public-source evidence
A named public disclosure matched to the legal entity and kept separate from official registry facts.
Zavia calculation
A result derived from supported source facts, with the entity path and formula available to reproduce.
Unresolved or conflicting
A missing, unclear or inconsistent part of the record that the workflow must not convert into certainty.
The procurement test
What a skeptical buyer will challenge.
These are the controls that prevent a useful company-data workflow from becoming an overclaimed black box.
“Registry data may lag the deal documents.”
Source and retrieval dates remain visible. Zavia shows the latest supported public record, not a claim that it supersedes confidential transaction documents.
“A corporate group graph may exceed the acquisition perimeter.”
The graph shows supported legal relationships. The deal team selects which entities fall inside the transaction perimeter.
“This cannot replace legal or financial diligence.”
It does not. Zavia provides a sourced company and ownership layer that helps specialists focus their document review and questions.
Use the same evidence everywhere
Web platform, API, MCP, bulk data and monitoring.
Agreed web, API, MCP, bulk-data and monitoring implementations are designed to preserve the same resolved entities, relationship paths, evidence types, available dates, calculations and unresolved states.
Compare access methodsStructured decision contextWho owns the target today, what sits inside the group, and where could the ownership perimeter be incomplete?
- entity
- resolved
- registry_evidence
- attached
- ownership_paths
- visible
- calculations
- reproducible
- unresolved
- explicit
Frequently asked questions
Scope, evidence and workflow boundaries.
Need to test a specific jurisdiction or policy? Talk to the Zavia team.
Use your own company cases
Test the evidence before you change the workflow.
Start with a legal entity your team already knows. Compare the sources, ownership path and unresolved gaps against your current process.