Dark Side of Initial Public Offerings (IPO): Legal and Ethical Concerns

ABSTRACT

Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) serve as a crucial avenue for private companies to tap into public funds and enhance their market presence. However, despite their advantages, IPOs frequently face legal and ethical issues that can compromise market integrity and investor trust. This paper provides a critical examination of the negative aspects of IPOs, concentrating on problems such as under-pricing, overvaluation, and insider manipulation. Through the analysis of secondary data, it follows the notable failures in IPOs, including those of Reliance Power, Paytm, Zomato, and a few more, emphasizing regulatory deficiencies and consequences for market participants.

A key element of this research is the assessment of SEBI’s regulatory structure and how effective it has been in preventing misconduct in the Indian IPO market. The paper also looks into the micro-level comparative examination of global regulatory strategies, including those from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), to highlight best practices that could be adopted in India.

The study, in its findings, shows that although the regulatory frameworks are in place, there are still some significant gaps in due diligence practices, disclosure standards, and accountability after listings. To improve the safety of investors and clarity in the market, the research suggests implementing stricter oversight, conducting thorough risk evaluations, and reinforcing enforcement strategies. By tackling these issues, regulatory authorities can strive to create a fair and efficient IPO market that aligns corporate interests with the protection of investors.

Keywords: Initial Public Offerings, Under-pricing, Overvaluation, Insider manipulation, SEBI, Investor protection, Market transparency.

INTRODUCTION

“The stock market is filled with individuals who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.”[1][2]

Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) represent a company’s shift from private ownership to trading in a public market, which can be seen as a hallmark of corporate success and financial growth. Although IPOs enable companies to secure substantial funding, they also introduce various legal and ethical challenges that can affect market stability and investor confidence. The temptation of high and fast financial profits frequently eclipses essential valuation metrics, resulting in widespread market anomalies. Concerns such as under-pricing, overvaluation, and insider trading have led to considerable financial setbacks for investors and ignited discussions about the sufficiency of regulatory oversight.[3]

Traditionally, initial public offerings (IPOs) have been regarded as a way for companies to enhance their credibility and financial viability. However, the growing instances where investors incur significant losses due to inflated valuations raise critical issues. Companies often exaggerate their financial outlooks, which can mislead investors through inflated projections and selective information sharing. This not only negatively impacts retail investors but also undermines the confidence of the overall market. Conversely, under-pricing—another prevalent issue—artificially lowers IPO values, typically benefiting institutional investors and insiders at the expense of public investors.

The Indian IPO market has witnessed several instances where companies have taken advantage of speculative market sentiment to inflate their share prices, only to experience significant declines after listing. Notable examples include the Reliance Power IPO crash in 2008, Paytm’s post-listing decline in 2021, and the Snapchat recovery phase. These cases serve as cautionary tales, highlighting the risks associated with insufficient disclosures and speculative trading. They underscore the necessity for stricter regulatory intervention to prevent similar occurrences. Also, the roles of investment banks, underwriters, and financial analysts in determining IPO pricing and shaping investor expectations require closer examination to ensure transparency and accountability in the process.

This research paper critically explores the challenges associated with IPOs, focusing on significant legal and ethical issues. It evaluates the role of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in overseeing IPOs and compares India’s IPO regulatory framework to global standards. By examining case studies, regulatory practices, and investor experiences, the paper seeks to identify weaknesses in existing policies and suggest reforms aimed at enhancing transparency, accountability, and investor protection within the IPO sector. This study intends to contribute to the ongoing conversation about improving regulatory systems and creating a more favourable, investor-centric IPO environment.

IPO PROCESS AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN INDIA

The IPO Process

The IPO process in India is strictly regulated by SEBI. The duration of an IPO varies based on factors such as market conditions, the complexity of the transaction, and the company’s size. The timeline typically ranges from 3 months to a year, depending on the type of IPO[4]:

• Mainboard IPOs: 6 to 12 months
• SME IPOs: 3 to 4 months

The process involves the following key stages: [5]

1. Planning (2 weeks) – Initial discussions, strategy formulation, and internal approvals

2. Due Diligence (4-5 weeks) – Financial, legal, and regulatory compliance checks.

3. Drafting and Filing the Red Herring Prospectus (RHP) (1 week) – A detailed document containing financials, risk factors, and plans is submitted to SEBI.

4. SEBI Approval (4-8 weeks) – SEBI reviews the DRHP and provides comments, which must be addressed before proceeding.

5. Roadshows and Marketing (2-3 weeks) – Executives conduct investor outreach to attract institutional and retail investors.

6. IPO Launch (Minimum 3 days) – Public bidding begins.

7. Share Allocation and Listing – Shares are allotted within 1 day of issue closure, and listing occurs within 3 days of issue closure.

8. Post-Issue Activities (2-3 weeks) – Compliance and regulatory filings post-listing.

Note: A company must complete an IPO within 12 months of receiving SEBI’s comments on the initial filing.

Key Regulations Governing IPOs in India

Several legal frameworks regulate the process of IPOs in India, while ensuring fair practices and investor protection. The key regulations include:

> SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018[6]

• Mandates that companies transparently disclose their financial statements, risks, and business models.
• Regulates pricing mechanisms, minimum public shareholding requirements, and post-listing obligations for companies.
• Provides guidelines for the book-building process, fixed price issues, and promoter lock-in requirements.

> Companies Act, 2013[7]

• Governs the corporate structure and financial disclosures of companies that are going public.
• Defines the eligibility criteria for public listings, including minimum net worth and profitability requirements.
• Regulates investor rights, fraud prevention, and compliance with corporate governance standards.

> Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956[8]

• Establishes the legal framework for the listing and trading of securities in India.
• Ensures fair trading practices and prevents market manipulation.
• Defines the roles of stock exchanges and their regulatory oversight in public offerings.

SEBI’s Role in Ensuring Fair IPO Practices and Investor Protection

As the primary securities regulator in India, SEBI plays a vital role in ensuring transparency, fairness, and investor protection during Initial Public Offerings (IPOs). It enforces stringent disclosure norms, monitors market practices, and implements regulations to prevent unethical behaviour.[9]

> Before an IPO: SEBI reviews the Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP), mandates comprehensive financial disclosures, and ensures compliance with legal requirements.

> During an IPO, SEBI regulates pricing mechanisms to prevent under-pricing and overvaluation, monitors grey market activities, and ensures fair share allotment.

> After an IPO, SEBI enforces post-listing compliance, conducts market surveillance, and protects investors through mechanisms such as the SEBI Complaints Redress System (SCORES).[10]

SEBI also addresses specific concerns related to IPOs, including:

> Regulating Disclosure Norms: Ensuring companies provide accurate and comprehensive financial information.

> Monitoring Under-pricing and Overvaluation: Preventing companies from misleading investors with artificial pricing strategies.

> Preventing Insider Trading and Market Manipulation: Enforcing strict guidelines to curb unethical practices.

> Protecting Retail Investors: Implementing reservation quotas and fair allotment criteria.

> Post-IPO Surveillance: Monitoring newly listed companies to detect anomalies in stock performance and trading patterns.

LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONCERNS IN IPOS

Under-pricing

Under-pricing refers to the practice of setting the initial public offering (IPO) price below its basic value, resulting in a significant price increase once the stock is listed. While this approach benefits institutional investors and early stakeholders, retail investors often find themselves at a disadvantage.

> Causes of Under-pricing and Market Manipulation

• Strategic Pricing by Underwriters: Underwriters tend to price IPOs conservatively to ensure full subscription and minimize the risk of underperformance.[11]
• Preferential Allotment: Institutional investors are often allocated shares at discounted prices, which limits the potential benefits for retail investors.[12]
• Flipping and Market Distortion: Early investors frequently sell their shares immediately after listing, capitalizing on the under-pricing while retail investors end up purchasing at inflated prices.[13]

> Impact on Retail Investors

• As a result of these practices, retail investors may experience losses when stock prices eventually stabilize at lower levels after the initial surge.
• The lack of transparency in the pricing process raises ethical concerns about fairness and the protection of investors.

Overvaluation

Overvaluation occurs when companies inflate their IPO prices beyond justifiable financial metrics. This is often driven by aggressive marketing and speculative growth projections.

> Tactics Used for Overvaluation

• Misleading Financial Forecasts: Companies may project exaggerated revenue growth to support higher valuations.[14]
• Investment Bank Influence: Underwriters, motivated by high commission incentives, may promote overvaluation.[15]
• Media Hype and Speculative Buying: Extensive advertising can create artificial demand, leading to irrational exuberance among investors.[16]

> Consequences of Overvaluation

• Stock prices often decline after listing, resulting in losses for retail investors.
• Regulatory scrutiny increases when financial disclosures appear misleading or inconsistent.

 Insider Manipulation & Unethical Practices

The IPO process can sometimes favour insiders and large institutional investors, leading to unethical market distortions.

> Some common manipulative practices are:

• Pre-IPO Placements: Select investors receive shares at significantly lower prices before the public offering.[17]
• Stock Dumping by Promoters: Promoters may sell their shares at peak valuations, leaving retail investors with devalued stocks.[18]
• Conflict of Interest: Underwriters who advise both issuers and investors can create potential ethical concerns.[19]

> Regulatory Measures and SEBI’s Role

• The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has implemented stricter lock-in periods for pre-IPO investors to prevent immediate selling.
• Enhanced disclosure norms and due diligence requirements are in place to ensure better protection for investors.

CASE STUDIES: IPO FAILURES AND SUCCESSES IN INDIA

1. Paytm IPO (2021): A Story of Unrealized Potential[20]

Background:
Paytm, India’s largest digital payments firm, went public in November 2021 with an ambitious IPO aimed at raising ₹18,300 crore. With a valuation exceeding $20 billion and an issue price of ₹2,150 per share, it was one of the most anticipated IPOs in Indian history. However, the IPO turned into one of the biggest failures, as Paytm’s stock plummeted by 27% on the listing day, wiping out billions in market value.

Legal & Ethical Issues:

• Overvaluation: Analysts widely criticized Paytm’s inflated valuation, given its continued financial losses.
• Opaque Business Model: The company’s diverse services made it difficult for investors to gauge its core revenue sources.
• Regulatory Concerns: Paytm faced increased scrutiny over compliance and future operational risks.
• Market Timing: The IPO launched during a period of market volatility, leading to diminished investor enthusiasm.

Outcome & Lessons Learned:

• SEBI emphasized the need for justified IPO valuations to prevent investor losses.
• Paytm’s case highlighted the importance of profitability and transparency in public offerings.

 2. Reliance Power IPO (2008): A Case of Overvaluation[21]

Background:
Reliance Power’s IPO in 2008 was India’s largest at the time, raising ₹11,700 crores. Despite massive retail investor participation, the stock collapsed by over 17% on the first trading day, leading to significant losses.

Legal & Ethical Issues:

• Exaggerated Valuation: The IPO was aggressively priced, despite the company having no operational power plants.
• Misleading Disclosures: The IPO prospectus lacked transparency regarding project timelines.

Outcome & Regulatory Actions:

• SEBI introduced stricter disclosure norms under the SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, 2009.
• The case underscored the need for risk transparency in IPO documentation.

 3. DLF IPO (2007): SEBI’s Landmark Order on Disclosure Norms[22]

Background:
DLF, one of India’s largest real estate firms, launched its ₹9,187 crore IPO in 2007. However, SEBI later found that DLF misrepresented its financials by failing to disclose related-party transactions.

Legal & Ethical Issues:

• Misleading Disclosures: The company concealed subsidiary transactions, violating SEBI’s disclosure rules.
• Investor Misrepresentation: Retail investors suffered due to incorrect financial reporting.

Outcome & Regulatory Response:

• SEBI banned DLF and its executives from the capital markets for three years.
• This case set a precedent for stricter IPO disclosures in India.

 4. JSW Infrastructure IPO (2023): A Resounding Success[23]

Background:
Unlike Paytm, JSW Infrastructure’s IPO was one of the most successful in India. The company, a part of the JSW Group, raised ₹2,800 crores with an issue price of ₹113-119 per share. The stock opened at a 20% premium on listing day.

Factors Behind Success:

• Strong Financials: JSW had a track record of profitability, unlike many tech IPOs.
• Clear Business Model: Investors easily understood the company’s operations.
• Sector Growth Potential: The infrastructure sector in India was booming.
• Reasonable Valuation: The IPO was priced fairly, leaving room for post-listing growth.

Lessons Learned:

• Profitability and transparency drive investor confidence.
• Sector trends heavily influence IPO success.

 5. IPO (2021): India’s First Tech Unicorn Goes Public[24]

Background:
Zomato, India’s leading food delivery platform, became the first Indian unicorn to go public in July 2021. The ₹9,375 crore IPO was oversubscribed 38.25 times, reflecting strong investor demand.

Key Success Factors:

• Revenue Growth: Zomato’s revenue surged 71% year-on-year in FY24.
• Brand Strength: The company’s branding attracted strong retail participation.
• Investor Sentiment: The IPO coincided with a bullish market for tech stocks.

Challenges post-listing:

• Stock Volatility: After initial success, the share price fluctuated due to profitability concerns.
• Market Adaptation: Zomato had to adjust its model to sustain long-term growth.

Takeaways:

• Tech startups can succeed in public markets if backed by strong branding and growth potential.
• Consistent financial performance is crucial post-IPO.

A few other case studies-

 6. WeWork – A Publicized IPO Failure[25]

WeWork’s failed IPO remains one of the most infamous collapses in recent history. Once valued at $47 billion, its attempt to go public in 2019 failed due to:

• Overvaluation: The company’s valuation was grossly inflated without a profitable business model.
• Poor Governance: CEO Adam Neumann’s erratic leadership raised concerns about corporate governance.
• Financial Instability: High operating losses and an unsustainable expansion model made investors wary.

WeWork’s downfall highlights the need for transparency, ethical governance, and sustainable financial strategies for a successful IPO.

 7. com – A Dot-Com Bubble Catastrophe[26]

A classic example of an overhyped IPO, Pets.com went public in 2000 but collapsed within nine months. Key reasons for its failure include:

• Unrealistic Market Expectations: The company was overhyped despite having a weak business foundation.
• Excessive Spending: Heavy marketing expenditures drained its financial resources.
• Lack of Revenue Sustainability: The business lacked a clear path to profitability.

Pets.com’s failure served as a wake-up call for investors, emphasizing the dangers of investing in companies without a sustainable revenue model.

 8. Snapchat – A Rocky IPO with a Recovery[27]

Snapchat’s IPO in 2017 started on shaky ground but eventually found success. Initially, it faced:

• User Growth Concerns: Slow growth raised doubts about its ability to compete with Facebook and Instagram.
• Monetization Issues: Investors questioned the potential for advertising revenue.

However, Snapchat adapted through innovation and improved monetization, turning its post-IPO struggles into a long-term success story. This case illustrates how strategic adjustments can salvage a troubled IPO.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: INDIA VS. GLOBAL IPO REGULATIONS

Regulations of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) differ significantly from one jurisdiction to another. Although India’s SEBI has established comprehensive guidelines for disclosures and safeguarding investors, examining these frameworks alongside international standards — particularly in the U.S., U.K., and Singapore, can provides useful perspectives on regulatory strengths, shortcomings, and opportunities for improvement.[28]

Regulatory Authorities:

• India: The primary authority regulating IPOs is the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which promotes market integrity through comprehensive disclosure requirements and standards for investor protection.[29]
• United States: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is responsible for overseeing public offerings and enforces extensive disclosure regulations under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.[30]
• United Kingdom: The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) utilizes a principles-based approach to regulation, prioritizing flexibility and transparency in corporate governance.[31]
• Singapore: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) regulates IPOs under the Securities and Futures Act 2001, with an emphasis on fostering financial innovation and enhancing the competitiveness of capital markets.[32]

 Disclosure Requirements:

• SEBI: Requires disclosures in accordance with SEBI (ICDR) and SEBI (LODR) Regulations, which include risk factors, financial information, related party transactions, and governance practices.
• SEC: Enforces comprehensive disclosure obligations under Regulation S-K, covering executive compensation, management discussion and analysis (MD&A), and risk factors.
• FCA: Mandates the disclosure of financials, governance, and an increasing emphasis on ESG-related metrics through new sustainability and labelling regulations.[33]
• MAS: Adheres to the Securities and Futures Act, necessitating complete disclosure of offer documents along with ongoing financial reporting responsibilities.

Enforcement Mechanisms:

• SEBI: Has the power to levy fines, suspend trading activities, and start enforcement actions.
• SEC: Boasts strong enforcement capabilities, including the ability to impose fines, revoke registrations, and begin legal proceedings. The whistleblower program under the Dodd-Frank Act also strengthens regulatory enforcement.[34]
• FCA: Holds the authority to impose fines, conduct investigations, and prohibit individuals from participating in financial markets.
• MAS: Is authorized to impose administrative penalties and pursue criminal prosecutions for violations.

 Investor Protection Measures:

• India: SEBI highlights the importance of investor education, requires mechanisms for addressing grievances, and enforces disclosure practices to enable informed investment decisions.
• US: There is strong investor protection through transparency, initiatives for financial literacy, and comprehensive anti-fraud measures.
• UK: The FCA prioritizes market integrity, implements risk-based supervision, and fosters competitive yet secure investment conditions
• Singapore: MAS enforces rigorous due diligence requirements for issue managers and ensures adherence to corporate governance standards.[35]

Corporate Governance:

• In India, the SEBI (LODR) Regulations highlight the necessity for board independence, the clarity of related party transactions, and the responsibilities of the audit committee.
• In the United States, public companies are required to have independent boards and audit committees in compliance with SEC and SOX regulations.
• The UK Corporate Governance Code emphasizes the importance of accountability, fairness in remuneration, and engagement with stakeholders.
• In Singapore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) advances governance through the SGX Code of Corporate Governance, which undergoes periodic updates.

 Are Global Markets Providing Stronger Investor Protection?

Yes, markets in countries such as the U.S. and UK can be seen as offering better investor safeguards, especially because of:

• Protections for whistleblowers (for example, the U.S. Dodd-Frank Act)
• Regulations focused on ESG disclosures and combating greenwashing (UK’s FCA)
• Strict pre-IPO due diligence and accountability of sponsors (Singapore’s MAS)

India has improved its framework with SEBI reforms; however, international models shows the greater proactive enforcement, investor engagement, and participation from stakeholders.

 Lessons India Can Learn from International IPO Regulations:

1. Improved safeguards for whistleblowers (from the SEC)

2. Regulation based on principles (from the FCA)

3. Compulsory ESG disclosures (from the UK & Singapore)

4. Thorough pre-IPO due diligence conducted by sponsors (following Singapore’s SGX model)

5. Enhanced rights for shareholders (Japan’s inclusive process for board nominations and shareholder activism)

CONCULSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) serve as a vital link between private companies and the public capital markets. While they enable the acquisition of capital and expand investment avenues, they are also fraught with potential issues such as under-pricing, overvaluation, and insider manipulation. This paper examined how these risks frequently arises from regulatory gaps, ethical conflicts, and insufficient protections for investors—particularly in emerging markets like India.

Despite the substantial reforms implemented by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), including the establishment of anchor investor guidelines, pricing band regulations, and enhanced disclosure requirements, practices of regulatory arbitrage and grey market activities continue to exist.[36] Comparative analysis with regions like the United States, United Kingdom, and Singapore indicates that a comprehensive framework—one that integrates rigorous disclosures, strengthens investor empowerment, and encourages proactive enforcement, can prove to be more successful in promoting fair IPO markets.

Suggestions or Recommendations for Reinforcing India’s IPO Framework:

Make ESG Disclosures Mandatory: It is crucial for India to require Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosures for all large-cap IPOs, akin to the evolving norms set by the UK’s FCA.[37] This will enhance long-term accountability and ethical performance metrics.

Enhance Whistleblower Protections: By learning from the SEC’s Whistleblower Program, SEBI could implement anonymous reporting mechanisms, provide financial incentives, and ensure legal safeguards for insiders who report IPO irregularities.[38]

Enforce Sponsor-Led Due Diligence: Following the example of reforms in Singapore’s SGX, SEBI should mandate that IPOs above a defined threshold be managed by sponsors or issue managers, who would be held personally liable for any misleading or false disclosures.[39]

Promote Stakeholder Inclusivity in Board Appointments: Embarking on Japan’s inclusive practices for shareholder engagement in board nomination could improve transparency and mitigate conflicts of interest during IPOs.

Establish an IPO Oversight Committee: Form a dedicated SEBI-led panel to oversee book-building procedures, anchor allocations, and grey market activities in real-time, supported by algorithmic surveillance.

India’s IPO framework is at a crucial turning point. With a thriving startup environment and increasing investor involvement, the regulatory and ethical foundations of IPOs need to adapt to maintain market confidence, foster long-term wealth generation, and enhance international competitiveness. Strengthened regulatory adjustments—coupled with global best practices—can transform IPOs from a speculative risk into a strategic asset for economic growth.

Notes:-

[1] Philip Fisher, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits 84 (Harper & Row, 1958).

[2] Investopedia. The Top 17 Investing Quotes of All Time, Investopedia, May 1, 2011, investing-quotes.

[3] See Securities and Exchange Board of India, Study – Analysis of Investor Behavior in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) (Sept. 2, 2024), analysis-of-investor-behavior-in-initial-public-offerings.

[4] Chittorgarh, IPO Process, Chittorgarh, https://www.chittorgarh.com/book-chapter/ipo-process/5/

[5] Angel One, IPO Process in India: 7 Steps Involved in Initial Public Offering, Angel One, what-ipo-process

[6] Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018, Gazette of India, pt. III, sec. 4 (Sept. 11, 2018), securities-and-exchange-board-of-india.

[7] The Companies Act, 2013, No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India), companies-act-2013.

[8] The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, No. 42, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India), contractact.

[9] Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Investor Protection Measures & Regulations, sebi.gov.in.

[10] IPO GMP, What is the Role of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in an IPO?, IPO GMP, role-of-the-securities-and-exchange-board-of-india-sebi-in-an-ipo

[11] John C. Coffee Jr., Dispersed Ownership: Theories, Evidence, and Legal Implications, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 675 (2006).

[12] Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Disclosure and Investor Protection Guidelines, 2018.

[13] Paul Gompers & Josh Lerner, The Venture Capital Cycle 157 (2d ed. 2004).

[14] Jay R. Ritter, Initial Public Offerings: International Insights, 91 Pac. Econ. Rev. 1 (2011).

[15] David Hirshleifer, Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing, 56 J. Fin. 1533 (2001).

[16] SEBI, Investor Awareness Handbook on IPOs, 2020.

[17] Rajesh Chakrabarti, The Financial Sector in India: Emerging Issues 112 (2010).

[18] Umakanth Varottil, The Evolution of Corporate Law in Post-Colonial India: From Transplant to Autochthony, 2 Berkeley Bus. L.J. 65 (2005).

[19] Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Market Integrity Regulations, 2021.

[20] Paytm: Down 70.6% Since Listing: Should You Invest in Paytm Now?, Value Research (Nov. 2021), down-70-6-per-cent-since-listing-should-you-invest-in-paytm-now

[21]The Institute of Cost Accountants of India, Debacle of Reliance Power IPO – A Case Study, https://icmai.in/Knowledge-Bank/upload/case-study/2014/Debacle-of-Reliance.pdf

[22] HDFC SKY, Case Studies of IPOs: Key Lessons from Paytm, JSW Infra & Zomato, HDFC SKY, https://hdfcsky.com/sky-learn/ipo/case-studies-ipos

[23] HDFC SKY, Case Studies of IPOs: Key Lessons from Paytm, JSW Infra & Zomato, HDFC SKY, https://hdfcsky.com/sky-learn/ipo/case-studies-ipos

[24] Zomato’s IPO: A Case Study, Salt (July 2021), zomatos-ipo-a-case-study

[25] Next IPO India, Chapter 8: Case Studies of Failed IPOs, Next IPO India, https://nextipoindia.com/chapter-8-case-studies-of-failed-ipos/

[26] Next IPO India, Chapter 8: Case Studies of Failed IPOs, Next IPO India, https://nextipoindia.com/chapter-8-case-studies-of-failed-ipos/

[27] Next IPO India, Chapter 8: Case Studies of Failed IPOs, Next IPO India, https://nextipoindia.com/chapter-8-case-studies-of-failed-ipos/

[28] The Amikus Qriae. Comparative Analysis of Securities Market Regulations in India, USA, UK, and Japan: Evaluating the Effectiveness of SEBI’s New Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements Regulations, 2021, The Amikus Qriae, March 2021, comparative-analysis-india-sebi.

[29] Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025, sebi-issue-of-capital-and-disclosure-requirements.

[30] U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Regulation S-K Disclosure Requirements Review, sk-disclosure.

[31] U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, Primary Market Bulletin No. 31: Corporate Governance Disclosures by Listed Issuers, fca-disclosures.

[32] Singapore Attorney-General’s Chambers, Securities and Futures Act 2001,  sso.agc.

[33] U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, Sustainability Disclosure and Labelling Regime, fca.disclosure.

[34] U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, SEC Whistleblower Program under the Dodd-Frank Act, sec.gov.

[35] Reed Smith LLP, Singapore Targets High-Growth, High-Tech Companies with SGX Reforms, (Oct. 2021), singapore-targets-high-growth-high-tech-companies.

[36] SEBI, SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025, sebi.india.

[37] Financial Conduct Authority (UK), Sustainability Disclosure and Labelling Regime, fca.org.uk.

[38] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Whistleblower Program, whistleblower.usa.

[39] Reed Smith LLP, Singapore Targets High-Growth, High-Tech Companies with SGX Reforms, (Oct. 2021), singapore-tech-companies.