The announcement of another large IPO taking place offshore — Glencore’s planned $11 billion offering in Hong Kong and London — again raises the question of the competitiveness of the U.S. regulatory market. One factor in deciding where to sell shares to the public is the set of rules that will be triggered depending on the jurisdiction in which the shares are offered. Some commentators have blamed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for making the U.S. a less hospitable regulatory market issuers, while others have rejected that view.
However, comparative analysis of exactly what difference regulations would make for specific companies is virtually nonexistent. Glencore, described as secretive, founded by former U.S. tax fugitive Marc Rich, and already having experienced a minor corporate governance snafu since its IPO announcement, would provide an ideal test subject. Exactly how would the public offering rules in Hong Kong, London and the U.S. affect Glencore differently? What specific regulatory differences should other privately held firms that may be considering IPOs be thinking about?
Glencore Chair Will Determine Governance Discount, IPO Readiness Meets Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance
