Part 1 | Part 2
Early planning, accounting readiness, and audit currency create the foundation for a clean listing process, but the real execution test starts once drafting begins. Mid stage delays often emerge when coordination becomes more complex and multiple workstreams must move in parallel. The next set of pitfalls focuses on issues that surface during this phase, from misalignment with service providers to gaps in governance and management preparedness. Addressing these risks with discipline is essential to maintaining momentum and protecting the listing timeline.
Service providers are central to a successful listing. Legal counsel, auditors, the financial advisor, tax specialists, and other firms must operate in sync for the transaction to move cleanly. Because every workstream is interconnected, misalignment between the issuer and its providers is one of the most common causes of execution friction.
The issue is rarely pure capability. It is often a mismatch between the issuer’s needs and the provider’s experience navigating U.S. public-company requirements. When service providers are unfamiliar with SEC expectations or exchange procedures, responses to comments take longer, disclosure updates require more iterations, and routine issues become time sinks. These inefficiencies extend the schedule and create avoidable uncertainty.
Issuers should select service providers whose expertise, communication style, and transaction experience align with the specific demands of a U.S. listing. While high-quality advisors may require a greater upfront investment, their ability to anticipate issues, coordinate efficiently across workstreams, and resolve regulatory questions quickly often results in meaningful time and cost savings over the course of the transaction. Choosing experienced providers reduces the risk of rework, prevents avoidable delays, and ensures a smoother and more predictable execution process.
Strong issuers select service providers whose expertise and working style fit the demands of a U.S. listing. Although more experienced advisors may require a higher upfront investment, they anticipate issues earlier and coordinate more efficiently across workstreams. This reduces rework, prevents avoidable delays, and delivers a smoother and more predictable execution process.
Corporate domicile is more than a legal formality. It influences the level of regulatory scrutiny, the speed of legal opinions, and the familiarity of the structure to investors and exchanges.
For U.S. issuers, Delaware remains the preferred jurisdiction due to its predictable corporate law and extensive case precedent. For FPIs, offshore holding structures such as the Cayman Islands or British Virgin Islands offer tax neutrality, simplified governance, and smoother recognition among global investors.
Selecting a jurisdiction unfamiliar to regulators or counsel can complicate reviews, delay legal opinions, and trigger additional disclosure requirements.
Strong issuers finalize jurisdiction early in the structuring stage with both onshore and offshore counsel. Any re-domiciliation after filing introduces additional disclosure obligations and shareholder approvals, which almost always result in timing setbacks. The right jurisdiction removes friction; the wrong one guarantees it.
Many listing delays stem from avoidable administrative inconsistencies uncovered during legal or financial due diligence. These typically include misaligned share registers, missing board resolutions, incomplete capitalization tables, or share issuances not properly authorized or documented.
These issues rarely reflect on the quality of the business, but they materially affect execution because counsel cannot certify completeness. Exchanges may withhold approval until all discrepancies are resolved.
Before preparing the registration statement, strong issuers run a governance scrub before drafting begins. This internal review verifies that historical share issuances, option grants, and shareholder approvals are properly authorized and supported by executed records.
Ensuring that board resolutions and shareholder consents are aligned across all subsidiaries and holding entities will significantly streamline the due diligence and regulatory review process, minimizing last-minute legal complications.
Many issuers underestimate the step-change from running a private company to operating a listed one. Public companies face higher expectations for disclosure, financial discipline, internal controls, and investor communication. Management teams without prior public-company experience often find this shift challenging when preparation starts too late.
The investor roadshow is where this gap becomes most visible. Management must articulate strategy, defend financials, and respond confidently to institutional investor questions. Weak preparation undermines credibility, slows book-building, and reduces pricing power.
Strong issuers prioritize management readiness early. They train management on public-company responsibilities, prepare them for investor engagement, and bring in directors with public-company experience in the same sector. A prepared management team strengthens credibility and supports a smoother roadshow and listing.
Author:
WK Khor
Analyst
Receive our latest market insights, news and reports, and business bulletins.
