6 Comments
User's avatar
James Uyi's avatar

The distinction between where a company earns revenue and where its controlling shareholder is based feels central here. For founders, a foreign incorporation or listing may not settle the question if ownership, management and the investor’s home-country rules still matter. The practical challenge is making that exposure clear before a deal is priced, not after.

Olumuyiwa Olowogboyega's avatar

Agreed. To be fair to OPay, the prospectus did say it couldn't be sure the filing rules didn't apply to it. What it couldn't say was which regulator would come knocking.

Quareeb Azeez's avatar

What does the Chinese government stand to gain by restricting or delaying the IPOs of companies founded by Chinese citizens in international markets?

Olumuyiwa Olowogboyega's avatar

Mostly control. The rules let Beijing decide what money and data leave China and on what terms, and the newest one covers stakes that mainland investors hold abroad, including when they sell. An IPO is when those stakes start to move.

Cletus Igwe's avatar

There is something deeply concerning about the fact that Opay was planned and ready to IPO but never sent any notifications to its customers about this but would constantly bombard us with betting ads from its partners.

Olumuyiwa Olowogboyega's avatar

😂😂 of the $300m or so it was looking to raise, it had already secured buyers for around $270m and to be fair, the first leg of the IPO was in New York. We can assume they will bombard customers when they list on the NGX