Euronext Cross-Listing Offers Benefits to U.S. Companies
U.S.-listed public companies may benefit from cross-listing in the eurozone.
April 30, 2010 at 08:00 PM
25 minute read
About 50 U.S.-listed companies are cross-listed on NYSE Euronext, the EU's largest regulated equities market. What they've discovered is that Euronext listings are ideal for U.S.-listed companies that want to diversify their shareholder base, gain a European trading presence or increase their market visibility in the eurozone, the world's second largest source of capital.
“Globalization means that companies, customers and suppliers have a presence in more locations than ever, and when these locations are in the eurozone, cross-listing on Euronext certainly increases the visibility of an enterprise or brand,” says Marjorie Adams, chair of DLA Piper's capital markets group in the U.S.
Other benefits of cross-listing on Euronext include the ability to trade and list in dollars and euros; the ability to attract investors whose mandates only allow investing in euro-denominated shares; the potential for a lower cost of capital through increased liquidity premiums on equity; typically lower bid-ask spreads than single exchange companies; and less information asymmetry between capital markets, as firms with multiple listings generally get twice the analyst coverage. A Euronext listing also allows European money managers to avoid certain regulatory filings and mandates for eurozone-only listed companies.
In January 2008, Euronext made cross-listing even more attractive by introducing Fast Path, a streamlined and cost-effective way for U.S.-listed companies to cross-list on Euronext with fewer regulatory hurdles.
Six companies, including Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc. and Philip Morris International Inc., have used Fast Path since it became available. But it's not just the giant international consumer brands that benefit from cross-listing on Euronext.
Cross-Listing Case Studies
Consider the case of Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. (CLF), a U.S.-based, NYSE-listed international mining and natural resources company.
CLF is North America's largest supplier of iron ore and a significant producer of metallurgical coal. It also has a presence in South America and the Asia Pacific region. But by listing with Paris-based Euronext, CLF put itself in the company of globally recognized mining and metals concerns including ArcelorMittal, Vale, Rio Tinto, AngloGold and Harmony Gold.
“All this means increased exposure for common shares and enhanced positioning as a global company,” says David Freedman, who represented CLF on the listing. “It is also consistent with the company's ambition to build scale through diversification.”
CLF opened on Euronext with an initial 17.25 million-share offering. British and European investors snapped up 80 percent of the institutional pot, and one year after the listing, the proportion of CLF's institutional shareholder base in Europe and the U.K. quadrupled, rising from 2 percent to 8 percent of all institutional shares in the company.
“Existing European investors have increased their holdings, and the listing has attracted new European investors to the company,” says Freedman, a partner at Baker & McKenzie.
Similarly, Vale S.A., the Brazilian-headquartered mining company that is listed on the NYSE, diversified its shareholder base after listing on Euronext in mid-2008. European investors increased their holdings in the company by some 66.2 million shares in the nine months following the listing, even as U.S. investors reduced their holdings.
Then there's NYSE-listed Weatherford International Inc., a global provider of oilfield production technology and services. Several years ago, Weatherford moved its principal executive offices from Houston to Switzerland to establish corporate headquarters more centrally located within its worldwide operations. The company's revenue had trended eastward from North America in response to global spending on exploration and production of hydrocarbons, and Weatherford anticipated the trend would continue.
“Weatherford cross-listed to establish direct access to eurozone capital markets and to increase its global shareholder base, increase visibility in the Eastern Hemisphere and reinforce its European presence and global identity,” says Freedman, who also represented Weatherford on the Euronext listing.
Express Lane
In Freedman's experience, the relatively new Fast Path process adds to the benefits by making cross-listing much easier.
“Fast Path allows U.S.-listed, non-EU companies to use their existing filings with the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] for a listing on NYSE Euronext or NYSE Alternext [a Euronext subsidiary aimed at small and mid-cap companies] with or without a simultaneous capital issue,” he says. “The result is a turnkey product involving a process that is simple, fast and cost-efficient, with marginal additional ongoing costs and disclosure requirements.”
In other words, Fast Path lets a company avoid a separate prospectus for each exchange. Rather, the documents a company files with the SEC serve as the primary filings for the appropriate European regulator. The company completes its prospectus by combining its SEC documentation with a summary “wrapper” that addresses any additional EU and local requirements.
CLF had previously explored a listing on the London Stock Exchange but discarded the idea for the costly process it required, an inhibition for a mid-cap company with $3 billion in revenues at press time. Fast Path allowed it to avoid the expense issues that made the London exchange impossible, and the whole process took less than five weeks.
CLF filed its annual report with the SEC on Feb. 26, 2009. Twelve days later the company announced its intention to cross-list on the Euronext exchange using the Fast Path process.
European regulators approved the listing on March 31, and by April 6, CLF's shares began trading on Euronext.
Cautious Approach
While the benefits can be robust, Adams says companies should approach Euronext listings with care.
“By cross-listing, companies could dilute their market and adversely affect their liquidity in the U.S.,” she says. “Cross-listing probably works best for a U.S. company with a substantial existing presence in the European market.”
And while cross-listing through the Fast Path process may ease some of the regulatory pain, Mark Bergman, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, cautions that it will not obviate the continuing differences in ongoing disclosure requirements between the U.S. and EU.
“People should be under no illusion that the days of harmonized disclosure are here,” he says. “It's simply a question of the degree of pain involved in filing in different jurisdictions, but there is always some pain and cost.”
About 50 U.S.-listed companies are cross-listed on
“Globalization means that companies, customers and suppliers have a presence in more locations than ever, and when these locations are in the eurozone, cross-listing on Euronext certainly increases the visibility of an enterprise or brand,” says Marjorie Adams, chair of
Other benefits of cross-listing on Euronext include the ability to trade and list in dollars and euros; the ability to attract investors whose mandates only allow investing in euro-denominated shares; the potential for a lower cost of capital through increased liquidity premiums on equity; typically lower bid-ask spreads than single exchange companies; and less information asymmetry between capital markets, as firms with multiple listings generally get twice the analyst coverage. A Euronext listing also allows European money managers to avoid certain regulatory filings and mandates for eurozone-only listed companies.
In January 2008, Euronext made cross-listing even more attractive by introducing Fast Path, a streamlined and cost-effective way for U.S.-listed companies to cross-list on Euronext with fewer regulatory hurdles.
Six companies, including
Cross-Listing Case Studies
Consider the case of
CLF is North America's largest supplier of iron ore and a significant producer of metallurgical coal. It also has a presence in South America and the Asia Pacific region. But by listing with Paris-based Euronext, CLF put itself in the company of globally recognized mining and metals concerns including ArcelorMittal, Vale,
“All this means increased exposure for common shares and enhanced positioning as a global company,” says David Freedman, who represented CLF on the listing. “It is also consistent with the company's ambition to build scale through diversification.”
CLF opened on Euronext with an initial 17.25 million-share offering. British and European investors snapped up 80 percent of the institutional pot, and one year after the listing, the proportion of CLF's institutional shareholder base in Europe and the U.K. quadrupled, rising from 2 percent to 8 percent of all institutional shares in the company.
“Existing European investors have increased their holdings, and the listing has attracted new European investors to the company,” says Freedman, a partner at
Similarly, Vale S.A., the Brazilian-headquartered mining company that is listed on the NYSE, diversified its shareholder base after listing on Euronext in mid-2008. European investors increased their holdings in the company by some 66.2 million shares in the nine months following the listing, even as U.S. investors reduced their holdings.
Then there's NYSE-listed Weatherford International Inc., a global provider of oilfield production technology and services. Several years ago, Weatherford moved its principal executive offices from Houston to Switzerland to establish corporate headquarters more centrally located within its worldwide operations. The company's revenue had trended eastward from North America in response to global spending on exploration and production of hydrocarbons, and Weatherford anticipated the trend would continue.
“Weatherford cross-listed to establish direct access to eurozone capital markets and to increase its global shareholder base, increase visibility in the Eastern Hemisphere and reinforce its European presence and global identity,” says Freedman, who also represented Weatherford on the Euronext listing.
Express Lane
In Freedman's experience, the relatively new Fast Path process adds to the benefits by making cross-listing much easier.
“Fast Path allows U.S.-listed, non-EU companies to use their existing filings with the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] for a listing on
In other words, Fast Path lets a company avoid a separate prospectus for each exchange. Rather, the documents a company files with the SEC serve as the primary filings for the appropriate European regulator. The company completes its prospectus by combining its SEC documentation with a summary “wrapper” that addresses any additional EU and local requirements.
CLF had previously explored a listing on the London Stock Exchange but discarded the idea for the costly process it required, an inhibition for a mid-cap company with $3 billion in revenues at press time. Fast Path allowed it to avoid the expense issues that made the London exchange impossible, and the whole process took less than five weeks.
CLF filed its annual report with the SEC on Feb. 26, 2009. Twelve days later the company announced its intention to cross-list on the Euronext exchange using the Fast Path process.
European regulators approved the listing on March 31, and by April 6, CLF's shares began trading on Euronext.
Cautious Approach
While the benefits can be robust, Adams says companies should approach Euronext listings with care.
“By cross-listing, companies could dilute their market and adversely affect their liquidity in the U.S.,” she says. “Cross-listing probably works best for a U.S. company with a substantial existing presence in the European market.”
And while cross-listing through the Fast Path process may ease some of the regulatory pain, Mark Bergman, a partner at
“People should be under no illusion that the days of harmonized disclosure are here,” he says. “It's simply a question of the degree of pain involved in filing in different jurisdictions, but there is always some pain and cost.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Helping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
- 2How GC-of-Year Sam Khichi Has Helped CVS Barrel Through Challenges
- 3A Website is Not a ‘Place.’ What Took So Long To Get This Right?
- 4From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Julie Cantor, Associate General Counsel at Studs, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250