Varying quality in IPO due diligence

money finance regulation IPOs

15 July 2016
| By Jassmyn |
image
image
expand image

The corporate regulator has found variations in due diligence process quality in small to mid-sized issuers of initial public offerings (IPOs).

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's (ASIC's) review of IPO issuer due diligence found a close correlation between defective disclosure in a prospectus and poor due diligence.

The review aimed to include guidance for directors and advisers about good practice due diligence and followed a number of recent financial services IPOs.

"Common concerns identified during ASIC's reviews included variation in the quality of due diligence processes, a ‘form over substance' approach and a lack of involvement by the directors of the issuer. In general, these concerns were identified in small to mid-sized issuers," ASIC said.

ASIC commissioner, John Price, said while there was no legal requirement to do so, conducting a due diligence process when preparing a prospectus had emerged as a market practice for issuers seeking to mitigate the risk of future liability from a poor-quality prospectus.

"…and to ensure that the prospectus includes all the information necessary to make an informed investment decision and is not misleading," he said.

"As this report demonstrates, there are clear benefits in conducting a thorough due diligence process and significant consequences for poor quality due diligence."

The review found:

  • The adoption of poor due diligence practices often produced prospectuses with defective disclosure;
  • Issuers and their directors should conduct an effective due diligence process to mitigate the risk of any future liability from a poor-quality prospectus;
  • It was important for directors of issuers and their advisers to be actively engaged in the due diligence process;
  • Additional procedures may be required to overcome the additional challenges of foreign laws, language barriers and supervision for emerging market issuers; and
  • A low-cost due diligence process may often lead to delays, further work and ultimately be more costly to an issuer.
Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

1 month 3 weeks ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

2 months ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

2 months ago

SuperRatings has shared the median estimated return for balanced superannuation funds for the calendar year 2024, finding the year achieved “strong and consistent positiv...

2 weeks 2 days ago

Original bidder Bain Capital, which saw its first offer rejected in December, has returned with a revised bid for Insignia Financial....

1 week 2 days ago

The FAAA has secured CSLR-related documents under the FOI process, after an extended four-month wait, which show little analysis was done on how the scheme’s cost would a...

1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS