Read the general investor planning overview
When a seller removes assets or rights from a deal, the revised enterprise needs its own explanation. A reduced price is not the only change that matters.
Compare the actual transaction scope
Write out what the revised agreement actually conveys: which machines, which stock, which lease rights, which customer contracts and which licences pass to the buyer, and which the seller has kept back. Hypothetical example: the amended schedule transfers the finished stock but excludes the two presses that produced it, leaving the buyer to source equivalent machinery separately. Where a withdrawn asset has to be replaced, show the replacement arrangement — supplier, price, timing and whether anything has been signed. Where it has not yet been arranged, say so in those words rather than letting the original plan stand as though nothing had changed. A schedule that still describes the first version of the deal misstates the enterprise the applicant would actually be buying.
Rebuild the financial explanation from genuine terms
Rebuild the financial account from the amended terms rather than adjusting the old total. Capital has to be lawful in origin, traceable along its path, substantial for the undertaking as it now stands, irrevocably committed and genuinely at risk of loss. Separate what has been paid or contracted from what is merely projected. Money borrowed against the assets of the business does not count as qualifying capital whatever the security package is called; borrowing the applicant carries personally without security, or secured only on property outside the business, is assessed on the terms the documents record. Funds held pending the visa decision can count where the arrangement really does commit them once the visa issues, but a refundable holding deposit is not converted into an investment by the word written on the account.
Show that the smaller undertaking still meets every condition
Shrinking the deal does not shorten the list of conditions. Nationality is tested twice over: the applicant must be a national of the treaty country, and the business takes its own nationality from ownership, so nationals of that country must hold no less than half of it. The applicant has to develop and direct what remains, normally by owning half or more, or by showing another form of operational control that genuinely governs the business. What remains must still be an actual trading concern rather than a marginal one, able to yield more than a bare living for the applicant’s household or else to make a significant contribution to the economy — and if that ability is prospective, it should be reached inside five years of ordinary operation. No published figure sets a floor and no rule sets a headcount, so a reduced price neither disqualifies nor qualifies on its own; what counts is whether the sum is substantial for this smaller undertaking, drawn from lawful sources, irrevocably committed and genuinely at risk. Money borrowed against the assets of the business is excluded even where the applicant has also pledged property of their own, whereas personal borrowing carrying no security, or secured only outside the business, is judged on the terms the paperwork records. The applicant must also intend to depart when the status expires, and a Canadian applicant will normally require an E visa.
What else is on your mind?
Is there one minimum investment that guarantees E-2 eligibility?Is holding money or owning an asset enough for E-2?Editorial source review: 2026-09-07. General preparation guidance, not an individual assessment.