For the first years after the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, many companies chose to go public in London (the AIM = Alternative Investment Market sponsored by the London Stock Exchange). I had one client who tried to do so before the stock market collapse of 2008 and another who looked to move from NASDAQ to AIM. Both claimed that Sarbanes-Oxley was to blame. Do you agree, or is there more to the story? Has the collapse of world financial markets over the past few years changed the pattern? The desire of small public companies to escape from SEC reporting requirements, a related topic, is discussed at: http://bigfatfinanceblog.com/2009/04/08/the-dark-sides-bright-side-lower-compliance-costs/. I've seen a suggestion that the tide may be turning. The (U.S.) JOBS act reduced certain reporting requirements for IPOs under $1 billion. Manchester United's IPO happened in the U.S.; was that because of reporting requirements or because the controlling Glazer family (owners of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers) are in Tampa?