Toppan Vite Acquires PR Newswire Division, ‘Vintage’

Leading International Financial Printing Firm Acquires Competitor to Expand Service Offerings; forms one of the world’s largest financial communications companies

NEW YORK, March 10, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — Toppan Vite, a leading international financial printing, communications and technology company, announced today the strategic acquisition of Vintage, a division of PR Newswire. Vintage provides regulatory compliance across capital markets, corporate services, and institutional and fund services.


“We’re incredibly excited to be joining forces with Vintage,” said Jeffrey Riback, President of Toppan Vite. “Vintage’s clients and resources are now part of one of the largest financial printing companies in the world. We’re proud to offer Vintage’s clients our global financial printing and communications capabilities and enhance the firm’s technology-based solutions for today and the future.”

The acquisition expands the Toppan Vite global footprint and doubles the size of the company.  Toppan Vite plans to make extensive investments into the business following the merger, focusing particularly on enhanced technology.

“Aligning with Toppan Vite will improve Vintage’s business offerings for its clients, partners and employees,” said Cision CEO, Kevin Akeroyd. “Combined with Vintage’s hard-earned reputation for value and nimble service and Toppan Vite’s global reach, first-class service offerings and exceptional technology, Toppan Vite will provide countless business advantages for its clients’ most important financial moments. We are excited to continue our relationship with Toppan Vite, and to seamlessly deliver their newly combined offerings to our joint customers.”

Vintage, formerly Vintage Filings, was founded in 2002 and acquired by PR Newswire in 2007. PR Newswire was acquired as part of the Cision group of companies in 2016.  The terms of the deal are not being disclosed.

About Toppan Vite
Toppan Vite, a leader in financial printing and communications solutions, is part of the Toppan Printing Co., Ltd., the world’s largest printing group, headquartered in Tokyo with approximately US $13 billion in annual sales. Toppan Vite has been a pioneer and trusted partner in the financial markets for three decades, serving the financial, legal and corporate communities with meticulous, responsive service and unparalleled local market expertise and capabilities. Toppan Vite’s expanding U.S. operations deliver a hassle-free experience for mission-critical content for capital markets transactions, financial reporting and regulatory compliance filings, investment companies and insurance providers. Learn more at

About Cision
Cision is a leading media communication technology and analytics company that enables marketers and communicators to effectively manage their earned media programs in coordination with paid and owned channels to drive business impact. As the creator of the Cision Communications Cloud™, the first-of-its-kind earned media cloud-based platform, Cision has combined cutting-edge data, analytics, technology and services into a unified communication ecosystem that brands can use to build consistent, meaningful and enduring relationships with influencers and buyers in order to amplify their marketplace influence. Cision solutions also include market-leading media technologies such as PR Newswire, Gorkana, PRWeb, Help a Reporter Out (HARO) and iContact. Headquartered in Chicago, Cision serves over 100,000 customers in 170 countries and 40 languages worldwide, and maintains offices in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Australia. For more information, visit or follow @Cision on Twitter.

Media Contacts

Sarah Reilly
Toppan Vite
Marketing Manager
(201) 562-1798

Stacey Miller
Director, Communications
(301) 683-6038




REPORT: Your proxy is driving investment decisions, says Wall Street

If there was ever a chart to demonstrate the growing importance of smart proxy design, this is it.


Activists seem to heavily focus on governance… and proxy fights will happen. Keeping “regular” investors informed is your best defense.

Click here to request the complete Shareholder Confidence 365 Study.

About the study

Initially launched in 2012, the Shareholder Confidence 365 Study is an ongoing survey targeted at two key constituents with whom public companies communicate: institutional investors and individual investors. It was the first study of its kind — directly asking investors how they consume investor relations content. In 2014, we published an updated study.

For this 2016 iteration, we have segmented and compared the results between institutional investors and individual investors. To date. we have accumulated over 6,870 responses from a pool of 16,000 buy-side analysts & portfolio managers and from over 15,000 long-term holding retail investors. There are 29 questions.

Questions include:

  • How often do you visit IR websites?
  • Why do you visit IR websites?
  • Do you use Twitter for stock research?
  • Would a CEO video instill trust?
  • Do you use earnings estimates?

The inbound response ratio is 1:3, Wall Street to Main Street. All of the data is unedited, except for any typos within the comments and the exclusion of inappropriate comments.


Experts view sustainability reporting is of growing importance for investors

Even as the SEC moves to re-shape disclosure requirements, many companies… with IR taking the lead... are making changes to their reporting formats at their own initiative. We asked five leading experts to weigh in.

Vintage question > Many in the accounting community are hoping to add a disclosure framework for sustainability. Do you think there should be such a framework/requirement? Why/why not and if yes, what do you think such a framework should look like?

Broc Romanek > Yes – I think sustainability information requirements are long overdue. I am strongly in the camp that thinks climate change is a huge issue and we’re behind the eight-ball on this. I think the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) is doing great work creating voluntary standards industry-by-industry– it is a ton of work – but I wish they were mandatory. Fifty years ago is when weneeded the real change

If they remain voluntary, it means they aren’t going to happen for many companies. That’s just the way of human nature, right? Big companies have fiduciary duties to their shareholders to maximize profit, and so if it’s not mandatory, then they won’t all comply. Some companies will – they’ll be pressed because they have shareholders demanding it. But it would happen much more slowly.

Robert Herz > I’m on the board of directors of the SASB, and we see that investors and financial analysts are asking for more disclosure in this area. One survey conducted by the CFA institute last year said that sustainability information is an increasingly important area for them to consider in their analysis of valuation and investment recommendations. And the current information they get is not adequate or reliable.

Many companies now produce separate sustainability or corporate social responsibility reports, and I applaud them for doing that. But sometimes they are selective and basically say, “Here are all the nice things we did last year” – community activities, reducing their carbon footprint, and various other things. They don’t necessarily focus on the issues that really matter in the context of their industry.

The SASB was created to figure out and develop a set of standards industry-by- industry, and it covers 10 sectors and 79 industries, with standards that get to the most important issues in an industry context. And then we had to determine which metrics could be produced to address those issues so that you get comparable reporting. I believe that’s the right approach. Some people would say, “No, you need more standardized disclosure on climate risks,” for example. My response to that is, “Well, yes, climate risk is a fairly pervasive issue, but how it affects different companies tends to be different by industry.”

If you’re a real estate developer, climate change will obviously affect where you decide to put your developments, and gets into energy efficiency, LEED standards, and things like that. If you’re in the apparel industry, it may focus on your ability to adequately source cotton. If you’re in the automobile industry, it involves fuel efficiency and electric cars.

Financial services firms do not have much of a carbon footprint at all, while on the other hand a petroleum and chemical company may have a lot more.

Materiality of information is very important as well. There was a research study last year by Harvard Business School called “Corporate Sustainability: First Evidence on Materiality,” that used the SASB lens to look at what matters and what doesn’t when it comes to sustainability. They looked over a 20-year period at over 2,000 companies and showed that both the financial performance and stockholder returns of the companies that focused on the more material issues greatly outpaced the companies that focused on a broader range of sustainability issues.

So material issues as defined in the SASB approach do much better. We obviously think that this is the right approach to take in order to really get the usable, comparable, investor-grade data.

Erik Bradbury > As Bob pointed out, the innovations are happening, such as the work being done by the SASB. And in our view, we will see more innovation the more the SEC and other regulators get out of the way and allow companies to present nformation in the most meaningful way to investors. The SEC asked a lot of questions about sustainability disclosures, and we recognize the importance of sustainability issues to certain investors, including non-governmental organizations, local communities, and many others. But our view is that the commission shouldn’t pursue an approach where all issues that are important to a particular subset of stakeholders are required to be disclosed.

In other words, our view is that the SEC should focus on material items and avoid calls to expand disclosure requirements intended to address societal issues unrelated to its core mission of investor protection. Many of these issues don’t appropriately consider materiality. They don’t consider whether the information is useful to reasonably knowledgeable investors. There is a lot of information that certain investors want to know about companies – but is it important for making an investment decision? We don’t think that the threshold for including this information within the 10-K has been reached.

On a voluntary basis, most of our member companies have sustainability reports. But including these issues within a 10-K is a whole different story.

Dan Hanson > A principles-based framework for sustainability disclosures would be a positive. However, a requirement could have unintended consequences, and so I would advise to take one step at a time. The uniformity and materiality lens that the SASB standards bring is very helpful. I was one of the founding members of the SASB board of directors in 2011 and I took the view as a bottom-up investor that the SASB was something whose time had come. There needed to be an initiative to drive some degree of consistency for disclosure of sustainability information for investors.

You see literally thousands of corporate social responsibility reports being issued, in addition to securities filings, as well as third-party metrics and rankings being published, and it’s become a booming cottage industry of different methods and approaches. Without regulation, the market is responding to issuer and investor interest in sustainability data. So the SASB is encouraging reporting of this data in a more standardized way. As an investor, uniformity can make it much easier to interpret those reports and metrics and have some understanding of what’s meaningful in the business, because you can create benchmarks and provide context to understand metrics in comparison to competitors and peers. That is the benefit that SASB brings to the conversation.

It focuses on the most vital issues that are fundamentally, financially, and operationally relevant. Issuers could be provided with a principles-based framework of disclosure related to sustainability, but it would be best left to management to determine what the most material issues are to their particular businesses and how they want to disclose that information. I support the market-based approach that SASB brings. Companies are disclosing this information in any event, and having a more unified approach to disclosure can create more efficiency for both the issuers and users.

Ultimately, I think this discussion is about the concept of integrated reporting. Different people may use that term to mean different things, but the GE example cited by Erik and Bob is a great case of an issuer responding to a market need for better communication. That’s the market working, not a regulatory- driven approach.

Likewise, Broc’s earlier comment on Buffett’s “straight talk” in his CEO letter as a model for good disclosure is spot-on. And guess what – like all annual report CEO letters, those letters are not even part of the 10-k regulatory filing. So while there is an important role for regulation, some of the best examples of effective disclosure and communication to shareholders come from management teams that go beyond the scope of a regulatory “check the box” approach of minimum compliance, and treat their shareholders as true owners and partners in the business.


Video: February’s Top Law Firms for SEC transactions

As subject matter experts in transactions i.e. IPOs and M&A, we carefully track the capital markets dealflow… daily, weekly and monthly. If you would like to be emailed the week’s transactions (every Monday afternoon), fill out the quick form on this page.


Congratulations to any and all of our partnering law firms that made this month’s list – and to the firms that worked with our teams on their clients’ transaction:

  • 1-A: Form needed for companies taking advantage of Regulation A+
  • S-1: General form of registration statement for all companies including face-amount certificate companies
  • S-3: Registration statement for specified transactions by certain issuers
  • S-4 Registration of securities issued in business combination transactions
  • N-2: Initial filing of a registration statement on Form N-2 for closed-end investment companies
  • F-1: Registration statement for securities of certain foreign private issuers
  • S-11: Registration statement for securities to be issued by real estate companies
  • 10-12G: Initial general form for registration of a class of securities pursuant to Section 12(g)
  • 10-12B: Initial general form for registration of a class of securities pursuant to Section 12(b)

Have you read our whitepaper on how the S-1 registration paperwork flows back-and-forth between the company and the SEC?  CLICK HERE


IPOs and Transactions: Feb 27 – March 3 / plus “Billion Dollar Questions” for M&A

There were 35 transactions filed with the SEC last week.

Congratulations to all of the corporations and law firms that selected our transactions services last week including American Brivision Holding Corp w/ Kane Kessler PC and Energy XXI Gulf Coast Inc. w/ Vinson & Elkins LLP.

We appreciate that they selected to work with us and benefited from our fast turns, spot-on execution and absolute cost transparency.


Law firm / advisor Registrant Symbol Form Industry
Baker & McKenzie LLP KELLY SERVICES INC KELYA S-3 Services – help supply services
Baker Botts L.L.P. SELECT ENERGY SERVICES INC ~ S-1 Oil & gas field services
Baker Botts LLP DELEK HOLDCO INC ~ S-4 ~
Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP WEST BANCORP INC WTBA S-3 State commercial banks
Cantabio Pharmaceuticals Inc. CANTABIO PHARMACEUTICALS INC TBD S-1 Management services
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP CITIGROUP INC C/PN S-3 National commercial banks
DLA Piper LLP SEASPINE HOLDINGS CORP SPNE S-3 Surgical & medical instruments & apparatus
Eversheds Sutherland LLP SARATOGA INVESTMENT CORP SAB N-2 Finance services
Foley & Lardner LLP ORION ENERGY SYSTEMS INC OESX S-3 Electric lighting & wiring equipment
Foley Hoag LLP ZOSANO PHARMA CORP ZSAN S-1 Pharma. preparations
Greenberg Traurig, LLP AIT THERAPEUTICS INC ~ S-1 Prepackaged software
Greenberg Traurig, LLP AQUA METALS INC AQMS S-3 Secondary smelting & refining nonferrous metals
Hart & Hart, LLC AMERICANN INC NVHS S-1 Blank checks
Jones Day BABCOCK & WILCOX ENTERPRISES INC BW S-3 Heating equipment
Kane Kessler, P.C. AMERICAN BRIVISION HOLDING CORP NNVC S-3 Commercial physical & biological research
King & Spalding LLP BEAZER HOMES USA INC BZH S-4 Operative builders
Kirkland & Ellis LLP NRG ENERGY, INC. NRG S-4 Electric services
Law Offices of Robert Diener PAY MY TIME LTD ~ S-1 ~
Legal & Compliance, LLC RONCO BRANDS INC ~ 1-A ~
Locke Lord LLP TAMPA ELECTRIC CO TE1 S-3 Electric services
Mayer Brown LLP HALCON RESOURCES CORP HK S-3 Crude petroleum & natural gas
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. IMMUNOGEN INC IMGN S-3 Pharma. preparations
Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP NEXPOINT CAPITAL INC ~ N-2 ~
Proskauer Rose LLP ZOSANO PHARMA CORP ZSAN S-1 Pharma. preparations
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP MY SIZE INC MYSZ S-3 Electro- medical & electro- therapeutic apparatus
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP GARDNER DENVER HOLDINGS INC ~ S-1 ~
State Agent & Transfer Syndicate, Inc. MIKROCOZE INC ~ S-1 ~
Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. SELECT ENERGY SERVICES INC ~ S-1 Oil & gas field services
Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. SILVER RUN ACQUISITION CORP II ~ S-1 Blank check
Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. ENERGY XXI GULF COAST INC EXXI S-3 Crude petroleum & natural gas
Vinson & Elkins LLP DELEK HOLDCO INC ~ S-4 ~
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO CO SMG S-4 Agricultural chemicals
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP SILVER RUN ACQUISITION CORP II ~ S-1 Blank check
White & Case LLP LIFEPOINT HEALTH INC LPNT S-4 Hospital & medical service plans
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP EDITAS MEDICINE INC EDIT S-3 Biological products

Whether in-house, your-house or 100% virtual… click here to discover why we are the intelligent value for both traditional and confidential IPOs.

Post IPO, thousands of organizations count on us to assure regulatory compliance and target new investors. Click here and opt-in to receive this weekly summary via email.

Click here to review the week’s underwriters.

Have a great week


IPO Underwriters of the Week: Feb 27 – March 3 / plus “Billion Dollar Questions” for M&A

Congratulations to the corporations and underwriters that worked with our transaction services team. Whether in-house, your-house or 100% virtual… click here to discover why we are the intelligent value for both traditional and confidential IPOs.


Registrant Form Underwriter 1 Underwriter 2 Underwriter 3 +
SILVER RUN ACQUISITION CORP II S-1 Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Credit Suisse Securities LLC Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
IMMUNOGEN INC S-3 Cowen and Company, LLC ~ ~
EDITAS MEDICINE INC S-3 Cowen and Company, LLC ~ ~
SELECT ENERGY SERVICES INC S-1 Credit Suisse Securities LLC / FBR Capital Markets & Co. / Wells Fargo Securities, LLC Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. / Citigroup Global Markets Inc. / J.P. Morgan Securities LLC Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. / RBC Capital Markets, LLC / Piper Jaffray & Co. / Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities Inc.
ZOSANO PHARMA CORP S-1 Piper Jaffray & Co. Guggenheim Securities, LLC
STONE RIDGE TRUST III N-2 Quasar Distributors, LLC ~ ~
RONCO BRANDS INC 1-A Wellington Shields & Co., LLC ~ ~

Post IPO, thousands of organizations count on us to assure regulatory compliance and shareholder communications.

Click here to review the week’s IPOs and active securities law firms.

Have a great week.


SEC comment letters prepare companies to become “transparent”

Submitting an S-1 or 1-A file to the SEC for your IPO can be nerve-wracking. However, the SEC is not grading your paper like it’s your senior thesis. In fact, the SEC actually WANTS companies to thrive. To succeed. What they don’t want is investor fraud. The working team (especially the corporation) needs to understand this. The comments you receive back are meant to guide and sculpt your communications as you move from private to public. To learn about “transparency.”.

Time is on my side, yes it is.

The SEC’s time-frame objective is to provide initial comments on a Form S-1 within 30 days after the initial filing. They don’t commit to any specific timing for the staff to review and comment on the company’s responses to their initial and subsequent comments. The time necessary for SEC review depends on the depth and nature of their staff’s comments and the company’s changes to the Form S-1, the quality of the company’s response, staff workloads and other workflow variables. On average, it’s safe to plan for a two week “ping-pong” per each round of amendments.

Dance this mess around.

To perhaps keep a step ahead of the SEC, companies can research the trends found with peer and sector companies’ comment letters. After an S-1 Registration Statement becomes Effective, the letters from the company, or its securities counsel, are visible on the SEC’s site. Simultaneously, when responding to SEC Comments, a company also amends its S-1 from the guidance provided in the SEC’s Comments. Those amendments are also posted to EDGAR.

Below is a chart of the comments made by the SEC in Q1 and Q2 2016. As we all know, GAAP v non-GAAP was a top priority for the SEC in 2016. Assume 2017 to be the same.


CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. Audit Analytics is the superb data source.

One note: Non-GAAP comments have more than doubled in two years. Mind the GAAP. Pardon the tired pun.

To get an illustrative “visual” and tactical explanation of the workflow for S-1 and 1-A registrations with the SEC, I recommend THIS GUIDE. It is one of our most popular whitepapers.



SEC adopts rule requiring Exhibit Index items must hyperlink to referenced source

Yesterday, the SEC held an open meeting to discuss a few topics that created “action items” for most all issuers (and their SEC filing agents). One discussion, now moved into the comment phase, is the complete adoption of inline XBRL. That is still not settled, although likely to pass.

What IS settled is the new rule and form amendment mandate that the Exhibit Index in registration statements and reports contain hyperlinks to those exact referenced exhibits listed. Adjunct to this is a ruling that all filings are to be made in HTML format. (Logical, as you cannot link in ASCII.)

Adding hyperlinks will eliminate the arduous and manual research process investors currently endure to dig deeper into the exhibits.

The new amendments would apply to forms:

  • S-1
  • S-3
  • S-4
  • S-8
  • S-11
  • F-1
  • F-3
  • F-4
  • F-10
  • SF-1
  • SF-3
  • 10
  • 10-K
  • 10-Q
  • 8-K
  • 10-D
  • 20-F

These exhibit items ain’t gonna link themselves!

Depending on the depth of your Exhibit Index, the tactical labor of creating these links will be work for issuers and Vintage  This varies by company and by sector… as this REIT client (below) understands. They have 39 pages of exhibits to research, link and QA check. Fortunately, they have us. The silver lining to this “transparency act” is that, like many compliance tasks, the first time set-up is the most time-consuming. Many of the linked references will roll from one document into the next – similar to XBRL tags.



This ruling is considered a common sense mandate to help investors and web-technologically overdue. SEC Commissioner Kara Stein stated, “In many cases, exhibits are incorporated by reference, meaning that they are not attached to a current filing. In order to find an exhibit, an individual would need to embark on a time-consuming search.”

Acting SEC Chair Michael Piwowar remarked that the new rules will “harness technology,“focus the light of disclosure in ways that empower investors” as well as stimulate “efficient regulation.”

The effective date for most issuers will be September 1, 2017. Read the formal ruling here and the SEC news release here.   Hyperlinked to ease your research.




The ABCs (and DEFs) of annual report print buying

No one expects Investor Relations Officers or Corporate Secretaries to be experts at purchasing commercial printing. That said, it’s safe to have a general understanding for the process – to assure your expectations are met.

Below are the six key variables that Investor Relations Officers and Corporate Secretaries will be asked to make decisions around that will impact the production and price of an annual report.

Each year, issuers' ask us to audit their previous annual report print production to set a budget for their upcoming one. Click here and upload your 2013 PDF.

Each year, issuers’ ask us to audit their previous annual report print production to
set a budget for their upcoming one. Click here and upload your 2015 PDF.



4-color… is full color. The only distinction now is whether you print on a traditional offset printing press or digital print. The variables you will discuss when shopping depend on your report’s creative design and print quantity.

  • Traditional offset printing is generally used for larger print quantities or very exact color (brand) matching by adding a 5 and 6th color.
  • Digital printing is, simply put, a really high-end version of the HP printer sitting on your desk. Perfect for smaller quantities and rush scenarios.

Both these technologies will require a final CMYK (also known as four color process) file from you. CMYK is cyan, magenta, yellow and black. Online annual reports are RGB: red, green and blue. Digital cameras, television screens and computer monitors use the RGB process to create color. Generally, a print vendor can convert a RGB file to CMYK without issue.



1-color… usually means “black ink only.” The meat of the 10-K.



Cover stock… is the thicker paper used for both the front and back covers. It is described in “pounds” and generally ranges from 65 lb to 120 lb, depending on the paper itself.

  • “Coated cover” is generally a glossy stock. Most times, you will be using 100 lb – 120 lb weight, as the glossiness makes the paper softer.
  • Uncoated cover is a matte paper, much like a business card. You may be in the 65 lb – 100 lb weight range.
  • Generally, you will print on both sides of the front cover. You will always print the back cover, often NOT the inside back cover. It costs you no more to not print on the inside back. That is a visual design choice.



Text stock… are the pages inside of the covers. The guts.

  • It follows the same descriptions as cover stock, just much thinner weights. 20 lb – 32 lb. “Copier paper” is 24 lb-ish.



Binding…. is how the annual report is held together

  • Saddle stitched means the annual report pages are folded in half and stapled. This physically creates a “10-K wrap.” (The front cover is the back cover; the first inside page is the same piece of paper as the last inside page and so on.)
  • Perfect bound is a flat glued spine. It can be more expensive; however it allows for any configuration of paper/pages and presents itself in a very finished manner.



Sheets of paper vs. page count… can be confusing. Financial printers think in terms of “pages” not paper. A simple example is if you take an 11″x 17″ piece of paper and fold it in half, that’s a four page 8.5″ x 11″ annual report. Get it?

  • This only “really” matters for saddle stitched annual reports. The page count needs to be in a multiple of four. If you come up short, we print “This page is intentionally left blank.”


Click here to audit your previous annual report printing to benchmark your upcoming production. You will need to upload the PDF of last year’s annual report. (We will also send you examples of our printed work. )

Click here for a clean PDF of the points above.



The Before, the During and the After of your IPO: Introduction

An initial public offering (IPO) can be one of the most significant events in a company’s life cycle. For many entrepreneurial businesses, “going public” represents far more than simply selling stock on a public exchange for the first time. More significantly, it is often viewed as the ultimate message to the business world that the company has made it.



Beyond the prestige factor, the completion of a successful IPO allows a company to raise new capital, which improves its ability to expand into new markets or grow through acquisitions. Going public can also help a company attract new talent with stock options and other equity awards, while rewarding initial investors with liquidity through dividend payments.

The allure of going public and its potential benefits should not, however, distract a company from carefully considering the necessary measures and planning that are required to successfully implement an IPO. The actual process can be time-consuming, and presents certain unique challenges that a company should be prepared to address.

Before – Preparing for an IPO

  • Conducting a pre-IPO readiness assessment – is an IPO right for your company?
  • Choosing an exchange and timing the market
  • Gauging investor appetite

During  – Executing an IPO

  • Building the management team
  • Corporate governance and a board of directors
  • Choosing an investment bank
  • Regulatory compliance: the financial health-check
  • Investor relations and the IPO marketing process
  • The road show and pricing the IPO

After – The post-IPO and realization

  • Developing an aftermarket strategy
  • Managing post-IPO risk and regulatory compliance

A company will need to consider that once public, it will need to meet additional requirements and continuing obligations that may require new skillsets, additional resources and changes to the business. Taking these requirements into consideration ahead of time and having a plan in place will help ensure the best chance of success for a company looking to go public and will help reduce the number of post-IPO issues that could arise.




Download our S-1 registration workflow chart for a visual understanding of the SEC commenting period.

Watch this video webinar: Going public: A “How-to” guide for making an IPO