Wall Street law firms scoop lead mandates as China technology giants set sights on US listings
The much-anticipated US initial public offering (IPO) filing last week from Chinese internet giant Alibaba reflects a growing trend in the capital markets world.
May 14, 2014 at 11:33 AM
4 minute read
The much-anticipated US initial public offering (IPO) filing last week from Chinese internet giant Alibaba reflects a growing trend in the capital markets world.
Figures from Dealogic show that the value of listings by Chinese companies on US stock exchanges so far this year stands at $676m (£401.5m) – even before the Alibaba IPO, which is expected to raise north of $1bn (£590m).
The numbers mark a real turnaround compared with just two years ago, when PRC corporates were delisting in their droves from the US.
There were no listings at all in the same period last year and only $72m (£42.7m) worth in 2012. In 2011 the figure was $601m (£356.9m) for the same period. China's technology companies – like Alibaba – are leading the way, especially those dealing in e-commerce, social networking and mobile apps.
And thanks to the growth in China's internet market and a healthy appetite for tech stocks among US investors, lawyers don't see the trend abating in the second half of the year.
"There are several reasons why PRC companies have been listing in the US," says Li He, a US and Hong Kong-qualified capital markets partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell in Beijing. "One is that to list domestically or in Hong Kong there is a threshold – companies need a certain revenue or market capitalisation.
"Another is that for technology companies and particularly internet companies it is easier to market themselves [in the US]. US investors are more familiar with these kinds of businesses and so the valuation is often higher. A third reason is that it makes it easier to do a US acquisition in the future."
Investors also remain undeterred by Chinese companies' use of structures to sidestep government restrictions on foreign ownership in certain industries. Similarly, the 2011 concerns over accounting fraud and compliance issues in PRC corporates have been alleviated after limited evidence of fraudulent behaviour was found.
"There doesn't seem to be much concern about the VIE [variable interest entities] structure, both from the regulators' standpoint and the perspective of investors," says one China-based partner. "At the same time the suspicion that used to prevail about systematic fraud involving Chinese companies has not amounted to anything."
Unsurprisingly, US law firms are profiting from the resurgence in US IPOs. This is despite their UK counterparts, such as Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Clifford Chance and Linklaters, being among the most active on the Hong Kong IPO scene. Indeed for the Alibaba deal, Freshfields was originally appointed to advise the issuer when the IPO was planned for Hong Kong, but was quickly replaced by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett when the e-commerce giant decided to list in New York.
Within the US group, a handful of players are dominating. These include Davis Polk, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom. Other firms, such as Shearman & Sterling, O'Melveny & Myers and Sullivan & Cromwell, have also been winning mandates, though they have advised on fewer deals.
Compared with Hong Kong IPOs, partners say firms can charge higher hourly rates, but are typically required to do less work, thus bringing in less revenue overall.
Matthew Bersani, Hong Kong managing partner for Shearman & Sterling, says it is unlikely that firms will react immediately to the shift westwards because of high market volatility and a need to balance the business in Asia. He expects that a small group of firms will continue to reap the benefits in the short term.
"It's a very volatile market so it's hard to say how long it's going to last. I don't think any firm is going to react to six months of activity. And with Hong Kong IPOs we are actually more consistently busy. But it's a resurgence of a revenue stream and US firms have definitely benefitted."
Click here to view the most recent US IPOs by Chinese companies
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllNuix Discover Named a Leader in SoftwareReview's eDiscovery Solutions Data Quadrant for the Second Consecutive Year
Trending Stories
- 1Thompson Coe, 2 Lawyers, Hit by $1M+ Legal Mal Suit
- 2Regulatory Intelligence Platform Abstract Announces $4.8 Million in Seed Funding
- 3Former Sacks Weston Partner Faces 5-Year Suspension Over Mail, Wire Fraud Conviction
- 47th Circ. Revives Transactional Dispute Against Military Retailer, Sends to State Court
- 5Lavish 'Lies' Led to Investors Being Fleeced in Nine-Figure International Crypto Scam
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