Existing investors, including Vitruvian Partners and 83North, also participated in the funding rounds.
The Commission concluded that the notified transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market. Its stated reason was the limited market position that would result from the transaction.
The case was examined through the simplified merger-review procedure, which is used for transactions that do not appear likely to create significant competition concerns.
The decision is therefore regulatory clearance for a change in control—not a finding that Ebury has no competitors or that the wider payments market is unconcentrated. It means the Commission did not identify a competition problem from this particular combination of parties and activities on the information before it.
The transaction builds on Santander’s earlier investment in Ebury. Santander announced the original deal in 2019, and the bank completed the acquisition of a controlling 50.1% stake in April 2020 for £350 million, according to industry reporting.
The latest funding round preserves Santander’s majority position while bringing Centerbridge into the company’s controlling shareholder group. Santander described the new capital as supporting Ebury’s growth and international expansion.
Ebury is focused on companies that operate across borders. Its platform combines several financial workflows that businesses often manage separately:
For Ebury, the decision removes the EU merger-review issue attached to the proposed shared-control structure. Santander keeps majority ownership, while Centerbridge gains a formal role in strategic control alongside the bank.
The immediate significance is governance and financial backing rather than a change to Ebury’s core proposition. The company remains a business-focused platform for international payments, foreign exchange, cash management and trade-related financial services, with the new capital intended to support further growth.
The Commission’s approval also sets a clear limit on what can be inferred from the decision: Brussels cleared this transaction because the parties’ resulting market position was limited, not because it endorsed every future expansion or combination involving the businesses. Future strategic moves would still be assessed under the applicable regulatory rules.