基础承销商:Spotify直接上市分析

B. Nickerson
{"title":"基础承销商:Spotify直接上市分析","authors":"B. Nickerson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3393027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In April 2018, music streaming giant Spotify disrupted the traditional initial public offering model and became a publicly traded company through a novel process known as a direct listing. Eschewing standard Wall Street practice, Spotify did not raise new money through the offering and instead simply made its existing shares available for purchase by the public. Spotify worked throughout 2017 and 2018 alongside legal counsel and investment banks and in communication with the Securities and Exchange Commission to facilitate the unorthodox approach. Major technology companies are now adopting a similar approach. \n \nIn recognition of these developments, this Comment has two aims: to shed light on the statutory contours of a direct listing and to contribute to the legal understanding of underwriter liability. As this financial innovation unfolds, an important question remains: Who is liable as an “underwriter” in a direct listing for purposes of liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act? This Comment argues that the investment banks Spotify retained as financial advisors qualify as statutory underwriters notwithstanding language in the registration statement to the contrary. By walking through the precise statutory elements of a direct listing and by calling attention to latent liabilities in the process, this Comment seeks to set forth a path for future technology unicorns to follow the Spotify playlist.","PeriodicalId":431402,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Underlying Underwriter: An Analysis of the Spotify Direct Listing\",\"authors\":\"B. Nickerson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3393027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In April 2018, music streaming giant Spotify disrupted the traditional initial public offering model and became a publicly traded company through a novel process known as a direct listing. Eschewing standard Wall Street practice, Spotify did not raise new money through the offering and instead simply made its existing shares available for purchase by the public. Spotify worked throughout 2017 and 2018 alongside legal counsel and investment banks and in communication with the Securities and Exchange Commission to facilitate the unorthodox approach. Major technology companies are now adopting a similar approach. \\n \\nIn recognition of these developments, this Comment has two aims: to shed light on the statutory contours of a direct listing and to contribute to the legal understanding of underwriter liability. As this financial innovation unfolds, an important question remains: Who is liable as an “underwriter” in a direct listing for purposes of liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act? This Comment argues that the investment banks Spotify retained as financial advisors qualify as statutory underwriters notwithstanding language in the registration statement to the contrary. By walking through the precise statutory elements of a direct listing and by calling attention to latent liabilities in the process, this Comment seeks to set forth a path for future technology unicorns to follow the Spotify playlist.\",\"PeriodicalId\":431402,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3393027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3393027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

2018年4月,音乐流媒体巨头Spotify打破了传统的首次公开募股模式,通过一种被称为直接上市的新流程成为一家上市公司。Spotify避开了华尔街的标准做法,没有通过ipo筹集新资金,而只是让公众购买其现有股票。在2017年和2018年期间,Spotify与法律顾问和投资银行合作,并与美国证券交易委员会进行沟通,以促进这种非正统的方法。大型科技公司现在也在采用类似的方法。鉴于这些发展,本评论有两个目的:阐明直接上市的法定轮廓,并促进对承销商责任的法律理解。随着这种金融创新的展开,一个重要的问题仍然存在:根据《证券法》第11条的规定,谁作为“承销商”在直接上市中承担责任?本评论认为,Spotify聘请作为财务顾问的投资银行有资格成为法定承销商,尽管注册声明中有相反的语言。通过详细介绍直接上市的具体法律要素,并在此过程中提醒人们注意潜在的责任,本评论旨在为未来的科技独角兽公司提供一条效仿Spotify播放列表的道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Underlying Underwriter: An Analysis of the Spotify Direct Listing
In April 2018, music streaming giant Spotify disrupted the traditional initial public offering model and became a publicly traded company through a novel process known as a direct listing. Eschewing standard Wall Street practice, Spotify did not raise new money through the offering and instead simply made its existing shares available for purchase by the public. Spotify worked throughout 2017 and 2018 alongside legal counsel and investment banks and in communication with the Securities and Exchange Commission to facilitate the unorthodox approach. Major technology companies are now adopting a similar approach. In recognition of these developments, this Comment has two aims: to shed light on the statutory contours of a direct listing and to contribute to the legal understanding of underwriter liability. As this financial innovation unfolds, an important question remains: Who is liable as an “underwriter” in a direct listing for purposes of liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act? This Comment argues that the investment banks Spotify retained as financial advisors qualify as statutory underwriters notwithstanding language in the registration statement to the contrary. By walking through the precise statutory elements of a direct listing and by calling attention to latent liabilities in the process, this Comment seeks to set forth a path for future technology unicorns to follow the Spotify playlist.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Raiders, Activists, and the Risk of Mistargeting The Economics of Securities Regulation: A Survey Autonomous Vehicles, Moral Hazards & the "AV Problem" Regulatory transparency and the alignment of private and public enforcement: Evidence from the public disclosure of SEC comment letters The '7% Solution' and IPO (Under)Pricing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1