Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
As more dollars flow into Asia, businesses in that region continue to find favor among U.S. investors. Direct investments from the United States have been climbing, most sharply in Japan, which saw an increase of more than 200 percent between 2003 and 2004, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. China has also benefited from American direct investments, with government figures showing a 195 percent increase in 2004 compared to the previous year. And although the total number of U.S. dollars invested in European countries still outpaces American investments in Asia, growth remains brisk in the East. As some overseas companies begin complying with �404 requirements of the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act, these companies are also hoping that compliance will provide more evidence to American investors that their businesses are worth investing in. But not all companies are going to reap gains from �404. Securities law experts say smaller and midsize companies overseas are more likely than larger foreign companies to decide not to list on U.S. markets or even to consider delisting from American exchanges altogether. And experts add that certain companies have made these decisions despite lessons learned from U.S. companies on how to avoid pitfalls they might have otherwise encountered during the compliance process. So what’s behind these companies’ view of U.S. markets? The expense and trouble of compliance with �404 are forcing some overseas companies to skip listings on NYSE and Nasdaq, they say, as foreign listing markets in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and London take more aggressive approaches when it comes to competing for their business. But whether complying with �404 is a survival match for the financially fit or a major competitive disadvantage for American markets, foreign companies are looking hard at �404. Some are adjusting the way they seek outside funding, if at all. “Section 404 is the last and biggest test for public companies,” says David Matheson, a partner at Perkins Coie and co-author of “The Public Company Handbook: A Corporate Governance and Disclosure Guide for Directors and Executives.” Under �404, companies are responsible for ensuring that the service providers of any outsourced functions have documented their financial processes, carried out a risk assessment and put in place adequate controls over financial reporting, which have been thoroughly tested for their effectiveness. Foreign private issuers fall under �404 requirements and are required to file audit reports on its internal control over financial reporting with their annual reports for the first fiscal year ending on or after July 15, 2006. Roughly 1,200 foreign companies are listed on U.S. exchanges. The New York Stock Exchange has 400 foreign issuers while Nasdaq has about 300. The remaining foreign companies trade on over-the-counter exchanges. “A lot of the stuff around SOX isn’t hard,” says Kurt Berney, an attorney and certified public accountant in O’Melveny & Myers’ Shanghai office, where he represents technology, consumer and other companies in mergers and acquisitions, public and private financings and venture capital transactions. “It’s just common sense.” Still, as foreign private issuers conduct their �404 readiness activities, Berney and others say these companies face unique challenges due to particular business environments and regulations in each country as well as each country’s own corporate culture and language barriers. But this possible culture clash is a mere stumbling block rather than a full-fledged obstacle, and U.S. companies’ prior compliance activities in the United States have made it a bit easier for foreign companies to wrap their arms around Sarbanes-Oxley. “Foreign private issuers are going to benefit a lot from the learning and experience from both the accounting firms and the SEC having gone through the process with U.S. issuers,” says Carmen Chang, a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati who specializes in corporate and securities law and is the leader of the firm’s China practice. Chang adds that the SEC has clarified “a lot the issues that I think were problematic” for U.S. issuers. Aided by lessons learned from U.S. companies, as well as by early filings by other foreign private issuers, many overseas companies may find their biggest challenge is not so much the complexity of the law as it is the financial burdens in terms of human and financial capital. “When I’m talking to different Chinese companies, I’m telling them that we can get through the process and it doesn’t have to be so onerous or expensive,” says Chang. Even if compliance costs don’t turn out to be as high as some foreign private issuers originally believed, companies will still incur substantial expenses. So just how much is compliance apt to cost? “A good rule of thumb is that a company should take its audit budget and multiply it by two,” says Berney. “That’s not an unrealistic estimate of what 404 compliance will cost you.” While it is still too early to determine the exact costs of compliance that foreign companies will likely face, it’s worth noting that compliance involved several millions of dollars in additional expenses for large U.S. companies who had met prior Sarbanes-Oxley deadlines. For foreign private issuers � both large and small � the cost of compliance could be similarly staggering, with small and midsize companies experiencing a disproportionately sharp financial pang. Then there are the human-capital cost concerns. “The problem with smaller companies is that they don’t have large amounts of human resources,” says Howard Jiang, a partner at Baker & McKenzie whose practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions and securities in both domestic and cross-border transactions. “It is an uphill struggle for these companies because finding the right people, qualified people, and then paying these people can be a challenge for overseas companies who are not familiar with our situation and why SOX was enacted.” Although expenses tied to Sarbanes-Oxley are expected to decline somewhat with each subsequent reporting deadline, costs are unlikely to drop by a huge amount, says Sonsini’s Chang, a point that others agree with. “Compliance is not a one-time cost,” says Jiang. “But � further down the road, companies might be less likely to enter into certain kinds of transactions” that might have higher costs of compliance-related reporting requirements associated with them. That reluctance to enter into riskier transactions, says Jiang, could possibly lead to less work and lower bills from risk-averse accounting and auditing firms that assist companies through the compliance process. For certain companies that find �404 too costly or administratively too burdensome, alternative methods of funding have become increasingly attractive. “The downside to SOX, of course, from the perspective of certain overseas companies, is that there is much more disclosure and the costs of compliance are going to go up,” says Matheson, at Perkins Coie. What this means is that listing markets elsewhere � particularly the exchanges in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and London � are taking advantage of the competitive advantage they now enjoy over the U.S. markets. “Some foreign companies are really looking at 404 being the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” says Matheson. “And it’s bigger than a straw.” Some companies are considering alternative markets to raise capital or deciding to remain private altogether, he adds. Jiang says that private equity markets are seeing more activity as small and midsize foreign companies veer away from the United States’ strict disclosure requirements. Despite the growth of funding alternatives, however, the desire to list on U.S. exchanges remains strong for most foreign companies. “Listing on the U.S. markets carries a lot of prestige. That has not fundamentally changed,” says Jiang. “For some companies, compliance is a cost they’re willing to pay.”

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 Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.