Directors and Officers Liability and Insurance : The D & O Diary : Kevin LaCroix : Securities Laws, Corporate Fraud, D & O Litigation

As I have noted in prior posts (most recently here), the several blue-ribbon panels that have recently examined the competitiveness of the U.S. financial markets have been particularly concerned with the apparent loss of company listings to overseas exchanges, particularly the London Stock Exchange's Alternative Investment Market (AIM). These would-be reformers have cited AIM's success as evidence that the U.S. regulatory structures, and the Sarbanes Oxley Act in particular, are driving potential issuers to competitor financial markets. They have similarly contended that in order for U.S. financial markets to reclaim their competitive position, the U.S. regulatory structure (and SOX in particular) should be reformed.

Lacking from these studies has been a detailed analysis of the causes of AIM's success, and the absence of this perspective arguably has led the would-be reformers to proscribe "solutions" that may not be best calculated to help U.S markets meet AIM's challenge. An August 2007 paper by Jose Miguel Mendoza of Javeriana University in Bogotá, Columbia, entitled "Securities Regulation in Low-Tier Listing Venues: The Rise of the Alternative Investment Market" (here), takes a closer look at the reasons for AIM's success. His observations may suggest that an approach to regulatory reform that is more finely-tuned than that proposed by the reformers could be likelier to improve U.S markets' competitive position while preserving its advantages.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Mendoza's paper is his exploration of the historical reasons for AIM's success. In his view, AIM's success in recent years was in significant ways the result of historical circumstance. The failure of the other European New Markets (such as the Neuer Markt) left a relatively open field, at a time when the bursting of the Internet bubble in this country caused the senior U.S. exchanges to heighten listing requirements -especially with respect to minimum market capitalization requirements. These forces were exacerbated by the demutualization of the leading exchanges, and the exchanges' conversion to listed, for-profit enterprises, which made smaller companies' listings less attractive. As a result of these developments, a "public equity financing gap" developed for smaller enterprises, a need that the AIM was well-positioned to meet. As Mendoza puts it, the "main reason behind AIM's growth lies with the fact that it supplies a scarce product to the marketplace: rapid and low-cost access to public equity for small firms with high growth potential."

Mendoza also points out that AIM's platform was successful because it was built in recognition that a "one-size fits all regulatory scheme" that works well for larger, better-capitalized companies may be poorly suited to the needs of smaller companies. AIM's regulatory structure is "tailored to fit the needs of small firms with high-growth potential." Mendoza characterizes this calibration of regulatory structure to company size and maturity as "the specialization of listing venues" and attributes AIM's success to its specialization for smaller growth stage companies. As the same time, Medoza recognizes that more rigorous regulatory structures, which are better suited to larger, better-capitalized companies, can have benefits for those companies, such as lower costs of capital and higher valuations.

In my view, it is an appreciation for this aspect of AIM's success formula that is missing from the would-be reformers' analysis; that is, the reformers overlook AIM's particular value and attraction for smaller companies. The reformers' proposed across-the-board reforms is a purported "one size fits all" solution to a problem that is due to a "one size fits all" regulatory system. But an across the board regulatory reform could eliminate the advantages of the U.S. markets for better-capitalized listing companies that benefit from lower costs of capital and higher valuations on U.S exchanges as a result of the U.S.'s highly regulated system. As alternative reform proposal that would be more likely to enable the U.S. financial markets to compete with AIM would be one that is not across the board, but rather one that is, to paraphrase Mendoza, tailored to meet the needs of the smaller, growth-stage companies that are attracted to AIM but that may be closed out now from the senior U.S. exchanges.

For that matter, it may be that the competitive dynamic of the global financial marketplace is already tending in this direction, without the need for governmental action. The recent launch of the OTCQX listing service (refer here) is a direct marketplace response to AIM's success. Similarly, the recent debuts of the Nasdaq Portal (refer here) and the GSTrUE trading platform (refer here) - both of which are designed to permit institutional investors to trade ownership interests in companies that are not interested or not able to take on the reporting company burdens and responsibilities - are two additional ways that the marketplace is evolving to challenge AIM's success and to provide smaller companies with access to equity capital.

The arrival of these trading innovations and the likelihood that further advances of this type will follow suggests the possibility that regulatory reform may not even be necessary for U.S. markets to be able to meet AIM's challenge. Although Medoza's paper does not expressly address this point, the logical extension of his analysis is that if there is to be any reform, it should be fine-tuned to meet the competitive challenge, and that an across the board one size fits all approach could weaken current competitive advantages the U.S markets offer companies that are able to meet the U.S.'s stricter regulatory regime.

If Mendoza's paper has a weakness, it is its tendency to minimize the concerns that commentators have noted with respect to the AIM approach (about which refer here). Even while acknowledging that it "remains to be seen whether [AIM's] particular system of self-regulation can take the strain of increased numbers of non-UK companies" and that the "venue's performance could have been negatively affected by the poorer quality of companies coming into the market during 2006," he nonetheless is an emphatic advocate for AIM's self-regulatory approach, and particularly for the benefits of its Nominated Advisor (Nomad) gatekeeper system.

Prospective issuers are clearly well aware of the potential shortcomings of an AIM listing (as discussed here), and that awareness will clearly affect AIM's competitive position going forward - indeed AIM's growth has slowed in 2007, and AIM offerings during the first four months of 2007 were more than 50% below the number of offerings in the comparable period in 2006.

If the U.S. financial markets want to not only regain their competitive position but in fact achieve a competitive advantage, the best approach would be to encourage further marketplace innovation calculated to meet the needs of smaller, growth-oriented companies, while avoiding the concerns that AIM market participants have noted. By the same token, an across the board regulatory reform that is not fine-tuned to meet the needs of smaller companies could weaken the advantages of the senior U.S. exchanges and ultimately reduce the competitiveness of the U.S financial markets.

My prior post examining the question whether the proposed reforms would solve a problem or introduce a weakness can be found here.

Hat tip to the Ideoblog (here) for the link to Mendoza's article.

Add One to the Subprime Lawsuit Tally: Regular readers know that I have been maintaining (here) a running tally of the subprime lending-related securities class action lawsuits. The filing this past week of a new securities class action case against Thornburg Mortgage (press release here), brings the number of subprime lending related securities class actions to 13.

More About Climate Change and D & O Risk: In earlier posts (here and here), I have examined the possible risk exposure of directors and officers arising from regulatory, legislative and judicial developments involving climate change. In the latest issue of InSights (here), I take a closer look at "Global Climate Change and D&O Insurance."

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In a July 18, 2007 publication entiled "IPO Executive Insights 2007" (here) the Nixon Peabody law firm published the results of its survey of 100 chief executive officers and chief financial officers whose companies conducted initial public offerings in the past three years. The report contains a number of interesting observations, but perhaps the most remarkable are in the summary of advice the executives have for companies now considering going public. For example, one survey respondent cautioned:

Going public is like standing in front of the X-Ray machine for every. Once one goes public one cannot go back. In other words, you are completely exposed; everything about the business is in the public domain and is in front of the competition. It is a very different environment than being a private company....Living under regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley can be crushing to a company that is not prepared to understand and manage such regulations.

A July 23, 2007 Wall Street Journal article further summarizing the survey results can be found here (subscription required).

The noted regulatory constraints might be a reason that some companies might consider listing their shares on the London Stock Exchange's Alternative Investment Market (AIM) (here). Perhaps the most valuable part of the survey report is its brief discussion of the advantages and disadvantages for a U.S.-based company in listing shares on the AIM.

The report notes that "utilizing AIM does provide a company certain advantages due to its flexible regulatory approach, lower costs and streamlined admissions process." However, the report also points out a number of risks for U.S.-based companies considering an AIM offering." The risks include:

Number of Shareholders May Trigger Reporting Obligations: Once shares are issued, "a company may have difficulty controlling the number of shareholders of record who eventually own its stock." The problem is that U.S. companies that have more than $10 million in assets "will become subject to the provisions of the Exchange Act" (including its periodic reporting requirements) if they have 500 or more shareholders of record.

Time Requirements: A company selling its shares on AIM must develop a relationship with institutions selling the company's shares. Because of travel requirements and time zone differences, these requirements can be substantial.

Reduced Liquidity: AIM has a reputation for being illiquid, and as a result investors may have difficulty disposing of their shares.

Poor Post-IPO Performance: "Post-IPO Performance for AIM shares compare unfavorabley with companies listed on NASDAQ."

AIM's Limited Diversity: Mining and energy companies account for close to half of AIM's total market value. A company that is not in one of these industries "may not garner the interest of institutional investors who buy AIM stock or the attention the company would otherwise get in another marketplace."

In light of these limitations, it is hardly surprising that, as the report notes, "AIM's growth has slowed in 2007." According to the report, the number of AIM offerings during the first four months of 2007 was more than 50% below the number of offerings during the comparable period in 2006.

Book Note: We here at The D & O Diary are impatiently waiting for our household resident teenagers to hurry up and finish reading the recently released Harry Potter book so that we can get a crack at it. While waiting our turn, we have been fortunate to have found a terrific book that we are happy to recommend to our readers.

Some readers will be sure to recall the rich combination of modern physics, philosophy and drama in Michael Frayn's Tony award-winning play "Copenhagen." (Others may recall Frayn's superbly funny farce, Noises Off.) In his 2006 book The Human Touch: Our Part in the Creation of the Universe (here) Frayn returns to the overlapping area between theoretical physics and philosophy to examine, in brilliant and entertaining fashion, questions about the universe and man's role in it. This book is as rich and rewarding as it is well-written. It would be difficult to capture the depth and breadth of this book in a single snippet, but I offer the following brief excerpt of an example of the book's reach and elegance:

Our own particular speck of the universe, the planet we live on, is as irregular as everything else. A sphere, which seems a neat enough idea - but a sphere that isn't exactly spherical, wobbling a little on its axis and spinning not quite regularly. With a surface as rumpled as an unmade bed, splashed with seas and lakes as haphazard as the spills on a bar, under a shifting blanket of air and water vapour as confused as a drawerful of tangled string.

The oddest feature of this wobbly spheroid, though, is one particular class of things scattered about amidst the rest: a range of entirely anomalous objects that construct themselves out of the material around them, and then replicate themselves - perhaps the only objects of this sort in the entire universe. Among these weird anomalies is a sub-group with a few thousand million members that are even odder, because they also have some inkling of just how odd they are.

Perhaps not everyone will find this kind of thing an adequate substitute for the urgent strivings of the adolescent wizards at Hogwarts, but I find it sufficient (at least for now).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With a conscious nod to London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM), Pink Sheets LLC has launched a new designation called OTCQX for domestic and international companies that meet certain criteria. In a March 5, 2007 press release (here), Pink Sheets announced that it had launched the designation for "reputable operating companies that wish to create enhanced visibility and respectability with investors."

Pink Sheets is an electronic quotation system and not a stock exchange. It has no listing standards, nor do its companies have to register with the SEC. According to a March 6, 2007 Wall Street Journal article entitled "Pink Sheets Tries to Spiff Up Its Image" (here, subscription required) there are about 8,200 stocks quoted on the Pink Sheets and the OTC markets combined. Of these, 600 are foreign shares. Many of the companies "are speculative" and "some are distressed." Some of the shares can go weeks or months without any trading, creating liquidity concerns. A Wikipedia article providing background on Pink Sheets can be found here.

The new Pink Sheets designation is intended as a "simple listing process that allows trusted companies to efficiently distinguish themselves." So far 3 U.S. companies and 3 non-U.S. companies have qualified, and Pink Sheets says that it is "processing applications from 20 additional companies."

The new designation is available for U.S. companies "with ongoing business operations that have professional advisors and provide credible disclosure," including annual GAAP audited financial statements. The International designation is available for non-U.S. based companies "listed on a qualified international stock exchange that makes their home country disclosures available in English to U.S. investors."

All companies seeking the new designation must have professional advisors. U.S. based companies must nominate a "Designated Advisor for Disclosure" (DAD) and each non-U.S. based company must nominate a "Principal American Liaison." (PAL) prior to being accepted for the designation. According to Pink Sheets' press release, the DAD and PAL designations are modeled on AIM's Nominated Advisors (NOMAD). These advisors role is designed to "bolster investor confidence in the quality and availability of issuer disclosure."

The new Pink Sheets designation, with its DAD and PAL advisors, is a clear effort to emulate the AIM and perhaps to replicate some of its success. However, Pink Sheets labors under a couple of handicaps that will challenge its efforts to compete with AIM. First, unlike AIM, which is affiliated with and supported by the London Stock Exchange, Pink Sheets is not affiliated with any exchange. AIM enjoys reflected prestige of its well-respected parent. Pink Sheets has only its own reputation, such as it is.

Even though AIM itself has had a rash of recent investigations (refer here), its reputation remains more or less solid. Pink Sheets, by contrast has a legacy that has caused the SEC to post on its website (here) strong warnings about the listing service, stating, among other things, "companies quoted on the Pink Sheets can be among the most risky investments" and "you should take extra care to thoroughly research any company quoted exclusively on the Pink Sheets (emphasis in original)."

But these concerns notwithstanding, Pink Sheets' attempt to copy the successful elements of the AIM is one of the more economically rational responses to the competitive challenge that the AIM poses for U.S. financial markets. Pink Sheets may have a very long way to go before it presents serious competition to the AIM, but it has made a start, and its attempt to renovate itself to offer an alternative to AIM is preferable to the would-be reformers efforts to reduce the mainstream exchanges' regulatory standards as a response to AIM's competition.

All of that said, the regrettable DAD and PAL advisor designations are too cute to take seriously. Those features were better left on the cutting room floor.

Now This: According to The Economist magazine (here, subscription required) the new generation of container ships are being built to enormous proportions. The Emma Maersk, which is the largest container ship ever built, can carry 11,000 20-foot containers (1,400 more than any other ship can carry). A train carrying that load would be 44 miles long! Its engine has as much power as 1,200 automobiles and its anchor "weighs as much as five african elephants." Yet, according to Wikipedia (here), its normal crew is only 13 people. That's a little scary now, isn't it?

These mega-ships are too large for the Panama canal. Ships that fit the dimensions of the Panama canal are known as Panamax. (The new mega vessals are known as "Post-Panamax,"and the canal will soon be modified to accomodate them.) To picture what it means for the Panama canal to have vessels designed to maximize its capacity, view this timelapse video of the canal in operation. This is solid visual evidence of what global oceanborne trade really means. (You think your job is complicated...)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an earlier post (here), The D & O Diary commented on the research published by Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard Law School and two colleagues, in which they examined over 19,000 options grant awards between 1996 and 2005, finding a disproportionately higher number of grants on the date during the month with the lowest share price. In an article in the March/April 2007 issue of Harvard Magazine entitled "'Insider Luck': How Stock-Option Grants Were Gamed - And What to Do About It" (here), Bebchuk elaborates and comments upon his research.

A portion of the magazine article summarizes Bebchuk's previously released study, in which the researchers found that 12% of all CEO options grants were "lucky grants," defined as grants awarded on days on which the stock price was at its monthly low. (The research findings are summarized in my prior post, linked above.) The magazine article adds the further research finding that "opportunistic timing has not been limited to executive' grants; rather it has been present to a significant degree in outside directors' grants as well." The research showed that about 9% of the grants to outside directors were "'lucky' events taking place on dates with stock prices at monthly lows." Bebchuk reports that the opportunistic timing was spread over about 460 companies, and that "in companies in which opportunistic timing of options awards took place, luck tended to lift the boats of both executives and outside directors."

Bebchuk emphasizes that the research showed that "most companies have not engaged in such timing in awarding options," but that certain factors were associated with a higher likelihood of lucky grants. The option grants were more likely to be "lucky" when the potential payoffs were relatively high, and opportunistic timing was "correlated with increased influence of the CEO on the company's internal pay-setting and decision-making process."

Bebchuk goes on to note that the "fact that many outside directors were themselves recipients of lucky grants reinforces the view that opportunistic stock-options awards were produced by governance failures, not business decisions made rationally and in good faith to serve shareholder interests." Bebchuk concludes by commenting that "even though significant backdating may belong to the past, its underlying causes are problems with which the corporate governance system must continue to wrestle."

Bebchuk's research and commentary are interesting. But I have begun to be a little suspicious of research studies showing that backdating took place at a very large number of companies, far greater than the number that have announced backdating problems so far. We are now nearly a year beyond the first wave of media attention surrounding the backdating issue. How many more companies can there be out there yet to divulge options grant manipulations? If Bebchuk's numeric research conclusions are not ultimately borne out, are his other conclusions and comments adequately supported? To be sure, there may yet be many companies about to reveal options timing problems, and Bebchuk's research could be validated by forthcoming disclosure events. At this point, I have become a little skeptical that there are as many companies yet to reveal options timing problems as Bebchuk's research would suggest.

Losing AIM?: In prior posts (most recently here), I have suggested that global financial markets are evolving, and that factors that may have made London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM) more attractive than U.S securities markets in the last few years may be changing on their own. A February 22, 2007 article in the U.K.-based LegalWeek.com entitled "Losing AIM - Three Years of Market Boom Has Come to an End" (here) confirms that "the twin shadows of market indigestion and long-simmering concerns regarding the quality of companies floating has finally called a halt to the AIM express."

The article notes that the recent headlines regarding Torex Retail (see my prior post, here) "have taken their toll, though regulatory concerns have been brewing for months." Although the article optimistic about the prospects for renewed future prosperity on the AIM, it does acknowledge that right now, the market is going through a "necessary correction." As one commentator quoted in the article says, "we are paying the price for the number of deals done in 2005 for companies of questionable quality."

Contrary to the arguments of would-be reformers, the AIM experience is not bearing out the need for U.S securities markets to loosen their regulatory standards in order to compete in the global marketplace. To the contrary, the AIM experience increasingly is substantiating the need for markets to maintain their regulatory discipline in order to preserve investor confidence. Moreover, it appears that some of the differences in the global financial marketplace that have been driving competition in recent years are turning out to be transient, and are evolving. As The D & O Diary has frequently noted (most recently here), we should be very cautious about relying on transient phenomena as a basis for compromising the U.S. securities markets' regulatory integrity.

Hat tip to Werner Kranenburg of the With Vigor and Zeal blog for the link to the LegalWeek.com article.

Practice, Practice, Practice? How you really get to Carnegie Hall -- refer here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The would-be reformers who propose restructuring the U.S securities regulation regime cite the loss of U.S. IPO market share to overseas markets, particularly London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM), as justification for regulatory reform. But as The D & O Diary has previously noted (most recently here and here), these overseas markets, especially the AIM, face precisely the opposite pressure - that it, to validate their regulatory integrity in order to maintain investor confidence.

Along those lines, on February 20, 2007, the London Stock Exchange (LSE) announced a variety of new rules for AIM companies, providing further disclosure obligations and clarifying guidance regarding the rules for "Nominated Advisors" (or Nomads, as they are more popularly known). In its press release (here) announcing the rules changes, the LSE said that the "changes are intended to ensure the AIM maintains the right regulatory balance as the market continues to grow and thrive internationally." The AIM Director of Markets is quoted as saying that "as the market grows and becomes increasingly international, the Exchange will take incremental steps to build on the quality and integrity of the market."

The LSE's summary of the rules changes, as well as a summary of the process leading up to the changes, can be found here. The amended Rules for AIM Companies can be found here.

The key changes in the new Rules for Companies include new requirements for disclosure of critical information on each AIM Company's website; enhanced disclosure requirements for pre-admission announcements; and guidance regarding reverse takeovers. The changes also include revisions to the AIM disciplinary guidelines, including the provision for the LSE to be able to issue warnings for AIM rules violatins, and an increase in the maximum disciplinary fine (from 25,000 pounds to 50,000 pounds). A good summary of the new rules by the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman law firm can be found here.

The AIM summary of the changes (here) notes that a number of commentators on the proposed rules during the notice-and-comment period had suggested that that the LSE "should mandate particular corporate governance requirements for AIM companies." The LSE declined to implement uniform corporate governance standards, observing that "given the wide range of companies that admit to AIM, the Exchange believes that the corporate governance measures to be adopted remain a matter for the nomad to provide advice about, on a company-by-company basis, both on admission and also on an ongoing basis as the company develops."

Even though the LSE declined to require uniform governance measures, the LSE's increased emphasis on disclosure, and tightened requirements for Nomads, as well as the increased disciplinary provisions, bespeak an appreciation for the need to encourage regulatory integrity to maintain investor confidence. As The D & O Diary has noted in the past, companies attracted to the AIM out of a perception of a lighter regulatory touch there will find that they still face regulatory scrutiny. Moreover, the changes suggest that the comparative landscape among the various global exchanges is evolving. For that reason, the U.S. should hesitate to alter its regulatory structure to address what may be transient differences in the global financial marketplace.

Special thanks to Werner Kranenburg of the With Vigor and Zeal blog and to alert reader Doug Edinburgh for links regarding the AIM rules changes.

A Baker's Dozen of Canadian Securities Regulators: In the meantime, Canada is wrestling with a different issue - whether to unite its current system of 13 provincial securities regulators into a single, national regulator. According to news reports (here), a panel convened last year concluded that a single regulator could "consistently enforce investor rights across Canada." Canada is the "only major developed country without unified securities regulation, " as a result of which bad actors who have been fined or barred from activity can simply move from province to province.

The push for a single unified regulator has recently gained momentum because of several high profile insider trading cases, and the movement got a further boost when Alberta's finance minister came out in favor of a unified regulatory approach (here). But the boost proved shortlived, as the head of the Alberta securities commission publicly opposed both the single regulator proposal and the finance minister (here). The Ontario government has been pushing for a single regulator, but other provinces, notably Quebec, have been pushing back.

Epic Poet: Homer -- first the Illiad and the Odyssey, then the Simpson. Read Homer's most eternal statements, here. (Better not to have any food in your mouth when you read these.)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent post (here), I noted that the cross-border Siemens bribery investigation shows that regulators throughout the world increasingly recognize the importance of vigilance and scrutiny, and that the extent of alleged misconduct in that case could spur further efforts for oversight and reform. In that same vein, a February 15, 2007 New York Times article entitled "Germany Battling Rising Tide of Corporate Corruption" (here) notes with respect to the Siemens case and other investigations that "the current spate of scandals will prompt a serious, systemic effort by German companies to impose more stringent internal controls and systems of legal compliance to stop corruption from happening in the first place."

Whether the current wave of German corruption cases reflects lax legal compliance or simply more aggressive prosecution, it is clear that the number of cases is increasing. Germany did not have laws allowing prosecutors to bring bribery cases until 1997, by contrast to the United States, which has had the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for over 30 years. One source quoted in the article says that in the last five years, "the notion that we need to prosecute economic criminality took on an entirely new dynamic."

This new dynamic clearly will influence both prosecutorial priorities, and by extension, expectations of corporate compliance. As I have previously noted (here), as these regulatory efforts elsewhere gain traction, differences in regulatory standards between the U.S. and other countries will diminish - a consideration that is clearly relevant to the current calls for regulatory reform in the U.S.

Ready, Fire, AIM: In prior posts, I have raised concerns (most recently here) about regulatory standards for London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM), and more recently (here) I have suggested that the AIM may be facing increasing pressure to tighten up. In a February 12, 2007 article in The Times (London) entitled "Most AIM Fundraisers Fail to Enrich Backers Over Three Years" (here) takes a look at the 802 companies that listed on the AIM during the three years ending on December 31, 2006, and finds that 52 percent were "either trading at or below their issue price, or have had their shares suspended."

The Times concludes that the "findings are likely to fuel criticism of AIM that, although it has been the most successful growth market in terms of new listings, it has often sacrificed quality for quantity."

Whatever conclusions may be drawn from the data about the quality of AIM listed companies, the fact that over half of the last three years' listings have failed to make money for investors does have important implications for the likelihood of the past level of listings to continue in the future. This is just one more example of the reasons why current global marketplace circumstances may well change for their own reasons, without any of the regulatory revisions for which the would-be reformers in the U.S. are clamoring.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

At the heart of recent calls for regulatory reform in the Interim Report of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation and in the Bloomberg/Schumer Report is the assertion that the U.S. securities markets are losing global IPO marketshare because of supposed regulatory overkill and the litigious environment in the U.S. Accompanying this assertion is the concern that foreign securities markets (particularly in London) are supposedly attracting IPO activity by their comparatively light regulatory touch. Reform of the U.S regulatory approach and litigation system is needed, these Reports assert, so that the U.S. can recapture a larger share of the global IPO activity.

The D & O Diary has previously presented (most recently here) its belief that the reformers' case for regulatory reform is "weak." More recently, events both overseas and in the U.S. further belie both ends of the reformer's premise - that is, these recent events suggest that companies (even foreign companies) may yet seek to list on U.S. exchanges, in preference to other exchanges, even without regulatory reform; and that companies might not be able to count on a lighter regulatory touch on competing exchanges.

1. London's Attraction To (or Appetite For) Russian and Chinese Companies May be Waning:

A very large part of the London markets' success in growing their share of the global IPO market in recent years has been based on their success in attracting listings from Russia (and other former Soviet republics) and from China. Indeed, in 2006 alone, 12 offerings by companies from Russia or other former Soviet republics raised proceeds of nearly 6.6 billion pounds. But now in early 2007, the bloom very much seems to have gone off the rose for Russian offerings in London. As reported in a February 8, 2007 Financial Times article (here), the listing of the shares last week of two Russian companies (Polymetal and Sitronics) came in at the low end of the offering range and in response a third company, GV Gold, withdrew its offering amidst "lackluster demand." According to the Financial Times article, these developments "underline the increasingly tough environment companies from Russia and other former Soviet states are likely to face this year as investors become increasingly selective."

At the same time the pipeline of Russian companies to London has started to slow, two Chinese companies, 3SBio and JA Solar Holdings, completed successful offerings on NASDAQ.

Without the flood of Russian listings, and with Chinese companies successfully listing in the U.S., the apparent market share advantage enjoyed by the London exchanges could be diminishing

2. The Successful Fortress Investment Group IPO Will Attract Additional Hedge Fund and Private Equity Fund Listings on U.S. Exchanges

Fortress Investment Group's successful February 9, 2007 IPO was not the first public offering by a private equity fund or hedge fund, nor was it the largest. But it was the first public hedge fund offering on a U.S securities exchange, and it was the most successful. According to the February 10, 2007 Wall Street Journal (here, subscription required) 19 private equity and hedge fund firms sold shares in 2006 on foreign markets, raising $12.4 billion. U.S. groups have been among the firms to list their shares in these offering. KKR, for example, sold shares in a private equity fund on the Euronext Amsterdam exchange. But the KKR fund shares trade in a narrow range close to their offering price.

Fortress chose to list its shares on the NYSE, notwithstanding those supposedly prohibitive regulatory constraints that are driving companies away from the U.S. securities markets. Its reward was that its offering priced at the top end of the range and its shares jumped 68% in the first day of trading. Commentators can argue all they want about whether regulatory burdens are deterring companies from listing on U.S. exchanges, but high valuations and a successful debut like Fortress Investment Group's will unquestionably attract companies to list on U.S. exchanges.

The title of the Wall Street Journal's February 10, 2006 article about the offering, "Hedge Fund Crowd Sees More Green As Fortress Hits Jackpot with IPO" (here, subscription required) says it all. Along those lines, a February 9, 2007 Business Week article (here) reporting on the Fortress Investment Group IPO contained a prediction that more than 30 hedge funds and private equity funds could seek to list their shares on U.S. exchanges by the end of 2008.

It should also be noted that the Fortress group was one of 17 offerings this week on U.S. securities exchanges, raising over $3.4 billion, the most active week in terms of deal value in over three years. It certainly seems like the market for IPOs on the U.S. exchanges is healthy -- perhaps healthy enough to question whether the reformers' dire warnings about the competitiveness of the U.S. markets are seriously overblown.

3. London's Regulators, Perhaps Spurred by Criticism, Have Begun to Show Some Teeth

It probably has nothing to do with the remarks (here) of John Thain, the head of the NYSE, at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that the London markets need to "tighten up" to avoid "damage" to "their reputation." But within days of these remarks, the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office launched an investigation (here) into Torex Retail, following the London Stock Exchange's suspension of trading of Torex Retail's shares on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM).

The Torex Retail matter may involve only one company, but it does serve as a reminder that markets will strive to maintain their integrity in order to preserve investor confidence. There are no advantages for being perceived as having won the race to the bottom. Companies attracted to the London markets out of a perception of a lighter regulatory touch will find that they still face regulatory scrutiny. It will not take too many cases like Torex Retail before the London regulators will have shown their vigilence is not less than regualtors elsewhere.

UPDATE: On February 12, 2007, another AIM listed company, Adamind LTD, disclosed (here) that the Financial Services Authority had initated an investigation regarding the company. The Adamind investigation is noteworthy because it involves one of those companies -- Adamind is a U.S.-based company with R & D facilities -- that chose to list in London and about which the would-be reformers have been fretting so much. Special thanks to alert reader Uri Ronnen of the AccountingClues blog for the link to the Adamind disclosure.

Each of these developments serve as a warning against seizing upon possibly temporary or transient phenomena as pretexts for reducing regulatory rigor in the U.S. In the global economy, transactions will go where they can realize their greatest financial advantage. The factors that in the recent past led to a greater number of listings in London may have had little to do with the regulatory regime in the U.S. The changing IPO market place so far in 2007 suggests that the competitive landscape among the various securities markets is already evolving, and will continue to evolve - and that that is happening without the adoption of any of the various proposed regulatory reforms. We should be very wary of compromising this country's regulatory rigor based on transient shifts in the global financial marketplace that have no relation to the level of regulation in this country.

Now This: When we heard about the untimely death of Anna Nicole Smith, we found that we could not think of her marriage to J. Howard Marshall without associating this scene from the film, Best in Show:

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In prior posts (here, here and here), I argue that the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation (popularly known as the Paulson Committee) made a "weak case" in its Interim Report for regulatory reform. Virtually all of my points apply equally to the recently released Bloomberg/Schumer report as well. The themes I sounded in my earlier posts are underscored in a January 25, 2007 Wall Street Journal article entitled "In Call to Deregulate Business, a Global Twist" (here, subscription required), which suggests that "the changing nature of global finance," rather than the U.S regulatory environment, explains U.S. markets' declining share of global finance business.

The Journal article explores at length the improved competitiveness of foreign markets, which in recent years have closed their "quality gap" with the U.S. markets. Developing world markets are "deep enough and liquid enough" that listing companies no longer have any financial imperative to list or trade their shares on U.S. exchanges, as they may have had in the past.

The article also zeroes in on one of the prime points cited to justify regulatory reform - that is, the declining U.S share of global IPOs. With the exception of the London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM), IPOs are down on all developed countries' exchanges - "the London Stock Exchange's blue-chip Main market has seen foreign listing decline 23% since 2000. The Deutsche Borse is down 58%; Tokyo down 39%." In other words, the declining IPO volume "is hardly an American disease." And even with respect to AIM, the article points out that many of the AIM companies don't "meet U.S. requirements" or are "too small to attract interest from U.S. underwriters and investors." (My prior post, here, reviews the Bloomberg/Schumer report's discussion of the AIM and the report's conclusion that the U.S. markets should not lower its standards to compete for more of AIM's business.).

The article also shows that overseas companies are now able to trade their shares freely, and even attract U.S. investors, without the need for a U.S. listing - or the need to pay the $1 million NYSE listing fee. In addition the article examines the fact that increased private equity takeover activity is a global phenomenon, not just a U.S. trait, and that rather than reflecting U.S. companies' interests to "go private" and avoid public company regulation, the high level of private equity activity is simply a reflection of the fact that private equity firms have so much cash.

At the same time as global markets have become better, they have also closed the regulatory gap with the U.S. The article quotes the director of the SEC's office of international affairs as saying that Sarbanes-Oxley has "not competitively disadvantaged U.S. markets, simply by virtue of the fact that they have been widely adopted elsewhere." Even though the U.S. regulatory burden has risen, the same is true for most countries' markets.

The article gives the advocates for regulatory reform an opportunity for rebuttal. The best that Glenn Hubbard, the chair of the Paulson Committee, can offer, is the declining "investment premium" enjoyed by foreign companies based in developed countries that cross list their shares on U.S. exchanges. Hubbard argues that the declining investment premium for these developed world companies shows that for companies already meeting their more stringent governance standards at home, the costs of meeting the U.S. benefits exceeds the costs.

I have extensively examined the investment premium issue before (here), but it is worth noting here what a total non sequitur Hubbard's argument is. First, it concedes that there is still an investment premium for companies based in developing countries - that is, the countries with the growing economies that are most likely to be the source of increased economic activity in the years ahead. Second, while the investment premium for companies based in developed countries has declined, it has not gone away, there is still an investment premium for listing on U.S. exchanges, and that is because of the integrity of the U.S. markets, which would be eliminated if regulation were relaxed. And third, to the extent the investment premium has declined, isn't it obvious that it is because the integrity of many foreign markets has improved? If that is the case, then why does that argue in favor of weakening U.S markets' regulation? It just seems to me that the only conclusion that can be drawn from the investment premium issue is that we would be best served by striving to maintain the integrity of our markets, not weakening our regulatory rigor in a race for the bottom.

All of this underscores the point I have made in prior posts that business interests in the U.S. may be seizing on the effects of the changing global finance environment as a pretext to undermine regulatory requirements that may occasionally prove uncomfortable because the requirements actually have teeth. The advocates for regulatory reform may want to advance U.S. competitiveness, but steps that threaten to weaken the integrity of the U.S regulatory structure could remove the greatest advantage the U.S. markets enjoy - that is, the U.S. markets are the most highly regarded precisely because they are the most tightly regulated.

That is not to say that none of the reformers' ideas have validity. To the contrary, the Bloomberg/Schumer report's suggestions for immigration reform and immediate adoption of the Basel II Capital Accords are sound and should be pursed, as should many of the report's suggestions for harmonization of competing U.S. regulatory structures, and the harmonization of U.S and international accounting standards. But aggressive revision of the U.S regulatory and legal structure, at least in the name of the competitiveness of the U.S. markets, could represent a misplaced effort that could do more harm than good.

It is worth noting that the Journal article contains an interesting quote from former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, who says that "well-functioning capital markets are central to the success of the economy. What faction of capital market transactions runs through New York is of much less broad-based significance." Summers' observation is one that is not being heard much, but it is a point worth keeping in mind. Perhaps we should be more focused on adapting to the new reality of the global marketplace, rather than attempting to preserve the benefits of market advantages that no longer exist.

Finally, it is worth noting that several of the overseas companies discussed in the Journal article mentioned the high listing fees for U.S. exchanges. While the two task force reports released so far have tried to downplay the importance of listing fees and U.S underwriters' fees (which also tend to be higher than European fees, as much as twice as high), evidence and logic suggest that these fees and costs are a factor affecting overseas companies' willingness to list on U.S. exchanges. As I have argued before, the U.S. financial industry, rather than sniping at a regulatory structure that other countries are imitating, perhaps they should overhaul their cost structure, which the rest of the world has substantially improved upon.

UPDATE: The January 26, 2007 New York Times has an article (here) that raises many of the same themes as the Journal article linked about, including specifically the point that the U.S. should not be stressing about the loss of very small companies to the AIM.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In my prior comments on the Paulson Committee's calls for regulatory reform (most recently, here), I have suggested that perhaps the U.S. securities markets may be better off without at least some of the companies that are avoiding the U.S. exchanges' tougher listing requirements. A recent report by a U.K. accounting firm contains interesting data that may be pertinent to this question.

BDO Stoy Hayward reports (here) that annual reported instances of fraud in the U.K. rose 33% between 2005 and 2006 and the value of the reported fraud rose almost 40%. (According to the firm's website, the full report will be available in February.) A January 8, 2007 New York Post article reporting on the BDO Stoy Howard study, entitled "Brits Get Bit: Lax British Marts Attract Fraud Along With U.S. Biz" (here), examines whether the increase in London-listed offerings by companies unwilling or unable to meet the U.S. listing requirements explains part of the increase in U.K. fraud. The article notes (as The D & O Diary has previously noted, here) that the London exchanges have "accepted scores of new listings of Chinese and Russian companies that may not have met New York exchanges' stricter rules." The article quotes the head of the BDO Stoy Hayward firm's fraud unit as saying that "I have no doubt that some businesses' plans have been deliberately optimistic, and property, including intellectual property falsely valued."

As Jack Ciesielski notes on the AAO Weblog (here), commenting on the New York Post article linked above, "Investors should be thankful that seedier companies have found the U.S. markets too difficult to easily game because of Section 404." And as I previously have noted (here and here), lowering standards to attract weaker companies is not a sustainable advantage. The valuation premium that companies listing on U.S. exchanges enjoy - because of the stricter regulatory environment - is a real and sustainable advantage.

UPDATE: The With Vigour and Zeal blog (here) adds an important additional perspective on this post. The WVZ blog does concede that the BDO Stoy Hayward study may be relevant to the question whether U.S. exchanges are better off without the companies drawn to London by lighter regulation; however, the WVZ blog also emphasizes that the BDO Stoy Hayward study is concerned with a very wide variety of frauds, not all of which involve listed companies. Among other things, the accountants' report is concerned with a species of tax fraud that is peculiar to the U.K. So, the WVZ blog concludeds, it is "therefore not wholly representative to discuss the report's findings in the context of the securities markets" or in connection with the question of the competitiveness of the U.S. securities markets. I don't disagree with the WVZ blog, but simply note that if the accountants' study is not entirely relevant, it is not entirely irrelevant either. Nevertheless, I agree that the WVZ adds an important additional gloss to this post, and for that reason, readers should refer to the WVZ blog for a more complete picture of the implications of the BDO Stoy Hayward report.

Speaking of the London markets, Legalweek.com has a recent article (here) discussing the potential liability of the London Stock Exchange's Alternative Investment Market's Nominated Advisors (or Nomads) in U.S. courts under U.S. securities laws. Hat tip to the With Vigour and Zeal blog (here) for the link to the Legalweek.com article.

Korea Adopts Securities Class Actions: Another cause the Paulson Committee cited as a reason foreign companies may be shunning U.S. exchanges is the U.S. litigation environment. But as I have previously argued (most recently, here), investors in other countries increasingly are demanding (and getting) the right to hold company management accountable in local courts, and as a result the differences between the U.S litigation environment and those of at least some other countries may be diminishing. The most recent example of another country moving toward a U.S. style class action litigation system is Republic of Korea, better known as South Korea.

According to a January 8, 2007 Korea Herald article entitled "Open Season for Securities-Related Class Actions" (here), South Korea adopted the Securities Related Class Action Act of 2005, subject to a "grace period" during which its enforcement was stayed. The grace period expired on December 31, 2006, meaning that companies listed on the South Korean stock exchanges (including the approximately 730 companies listed on the Korea Exchange), face potential securities class action exposure starting in 2007. At least based on the article, the new Korean class action sounds similar to the U.S.-style securities class action lawsuit, post PSLRA. The article's author, a Korean attorney, speculates that as many as 30 of Korea's 1,600 listed companies could face securities class actions annually.

An interesting discussion of the state of corporate governance reform in Korea, including a discussion of the new Act, can be found here.

The D & O Diary notes that one U.S.-listed Korean-based company, Pixelplus, was sued in a securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. (here) during 2006.

More on Short Selling in PIPE Financing Transactions: In a recent post (here), I reported on two recent SEC enforcement actions involving short selling by investment banks or broker dealers in connection with PIPE financing transaction. On January 4, 2007, the SEC filed yet another settled enforcement action (here) involving short selling in connection with a PIPE transaction, alleging alleged that a trader and a hedge fund entered into contracts to purchase shares in a PIPE offering and then sold those shares short. The SEC Actions blog has a detailed and interesting discussion (here) of the new enforcement action, as well as of the SEC's position regaring short selling in connection with PIPE transactions, including current SEC rule making regarding short selling in PIPE transactions.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks