I can't believe anyone would advocate a company offering shares to the public without revealing financial information and continuing to do so on a regular basis.
They do file regularly. But they regard Sarbanes-Oxley as a bizarre burden, the likes of which exist no place else in the world.
If you don't like the rules in the US, then go elsewhere. It's really that simple.
The implication here is that the U.S. primacy in global financial markets is a perpetual stranglehold and that everyone else will always just have to dance to our drumbeat. In actuality there are a number of trade areas, especially Europe, which would love to make inroads into one more business where the U.S. has traditionally been number one.
If you were running a company which was number one in its field, and its largest foreign customer, a distinguished company, decided that there was something wrong with your product, would your response be, "Screw them"? I think a better response would be to see if there was something inherently wrong with the company's product. To extend the analogy to the current situation, rather than saying that Electrolux has to delist totally in the U.S., the better response might be to inquire whether, gee, maybe they have a point.
Incidentally Electrolux used to be listed on the NYSE. They delisted to the Pinks because of Sarbanes-Oxley.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
