Read the general pathway comparison overview
The acquisition is still being negotiated and could be structured as a purchase of shares or a purchase of assets. The label on the term sheet does not decide anything about immigration status. Each structure leaves a different ownership chain, a possibly different employer of record, and a different account of employment continuity, so compare the two routes against the actual closing terms rather than against the heading. Mark which facts are still subject to negotiation.
Map ownership the day after closing under each structure
For each version of the deal, draw who owns the U.S. entity, in what proportions, and through which intermediate entities. L-1 depends on a qualifying corporate relationship between the foreign and U.S. organizations; E-2 depends on treaty nationality of the individual and of the enterprise. Control and ownership are assessed on the facts, and control can exist below a majority interest, so a percentage alone will not answer the question. Note where a structure would break an existing chain and where it would preserve one, and what document would prove it.
Trace employment continuity, not just the entity
Identify which entity has employed the applicant, in what role, and for how long, then ask what each structure does to that history: whether the employer of record changes, whether contracts of employment transfer, and how the qualifying year of foreign employment within the relevant three-year period would be evidenced afterwards. Describe the applicant's actual daily work honestly in both comparisons. A person mainly performing delivery work should not be recast as primarily managerial because that account would better suit whichever route currently looks more convenient.
Sequence the deal and the household questions
Hypothetical example: the parties want to close quickly and address immigration afterwards. List what becomes harder to evidence in that order, such as pre-closing employment records held by a seller who is no longer reachable. Ask which documents to preserve before signing. Separately, note accompanying family members and their intended work or study: qualifying E and L spouses are employment-authorized incident to status with proper I-94 evidence, while children are a different question. Keep legal eligibility, commercial risk and family preferences listed as three separate considerations.
Deal counsel acts for the transaction, not for your status
Several lawyers are already in the room during a negotiated purchase, and none of them answers for whether the buyer may lawfully work in the business afterwards. Corporate counsel owes duties to the entity that retained them, a seller's adviser owes duties to the seller, and a lender's counsel protects the lender's security. Ask plainly which of them has been instructed to consider immigration consequences, and accept that the answer is frequently nobody. The individual who will need status is often the only person at the table carrying that exposure, while the structure gets chosen around price. Raise the question before the structure is settled, since a share purchase and an asset purchase are far easier to compare than to unwind.
What else is on your mind?
Does being a business owner or director qualify me for L-1A?What employment history should an L-1 transfer review cover?What makes a new-office L-1A case different?How should an owner compare L-1 and E-2?Editorial source review: 2026-09-07. General preparation guidance, not an individual assessment.