Advertisement

May 21, 2013

Facebook's Initial Public Offering "IPO": The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

By this time, you’re probably aware of the debacle over Facebook’s initial public offering on the NASDAQ exchange last week. Let’s break it down.

The Good

There isn’t much that falls under this category, execpt for the fact that the NYSE is enjoying the controversy – it’s attempting to lure Facebook to the exchange.

The Bad

It was announced Tuesday that two U.S. financial regulators suggested reviews be launched into the social media site’s IPO, citing concerns over disclosure relating to underwriter Morgan Stanley. It was reported that Morgan Stanley analysts received information that caused them to cut revenue forecasts for Facebook. This information, however, was only shared with analysts from the 33 underwriting banks and was never made public. Simply put, “the disclosure of lower forecasts to certain big institutional investors left both Facebook and Morgan Stanley open to accusations of selective disclosure. Many smaller investors who bought Facebook shares in the IPO were left in the dark.”

This morning it was announced that Morgan Stanley and other underwriters associated with the IPO have profitted close to $100 million from stabilizing the share price, along with millions in profit more in IPO fees. Before the public offering, Morgan Stanley was given the opportunity to purchase a large chunk of shares at a discount in order to keep the share price stable through buying and selling once the shares were offered to the public. The bank not only sold every last one of the 421,233,615 shares it bought at discount, but it also shorted an additional 484,418,657, which only signals one thing — Morgan Stanley knew the share price would drop and it, in turn, would buy back the shorted shares at a profit.

The Ugly

Thus begins the wave of lawsuits. Tuesday, a Los Angeles-based law firm, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who suffered losses from Facebook’s IPO. And it was announced today that the law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has filed a similar class action suit, stating that “the company, its officers and directors, and underwriters with violations of federal securities laws for false and misleading statements made in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO.” In addition to these, several lawsuits have been brought against Mark Zuckerberg, Morgan Stanley and even Nasdaq.

In the end, the fact is that not all Facebook IPO investors received the same data. To most (i.e., small, individual investors), that’s unfair. But to many (institutional investors and underwriters), that’s just the name of the game. What’s your take?

 

Facebook IPO on NASDAQ

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2013 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Editor

Emily Holbrook is the editor of Risk Management magazine and the Risk Management Monitor blog.

212-655-5915

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

<