Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Glencore: Superinjunction Law Firm on Preemptive Strike
Share: 
by NowPublic Staff | May 26, 2011 at 03:28 pm
250 views | 0 Recommendations | 1 comment
Law Firm seeks to Muzzle Journalists after Glencore's Failed IPO
Glencore's unsuccessful IPO has thrust them into the limelight, and its reclusive board is not happy about it. The problem with an IPO for privacy-hungry board members is that the P stands for "public". What's a company to do? Well, if you're in the UK, simply arrange a superinjunction to ban the press from talking about you, or from talking about talking about you.
That is precisely what Glencore did. Glencore hired superinjunction-happy "reputation management experts" Schillings to send out preemptive cease-and-desist letters to journalists, citing spurious "security risks" if Glencore's board members were scrutinized.
Photos
Glencore caught the public eye for perhaps the first time when the commodities trading firm's IPO failed to breach its strike price, and this was the London Stock Exchange's largest-ever IPO. Natually, financial journalists will want to know why.
We can't think of a better way to get the media to focus on a failed company with more hawklike intensity than telling them not to do so. If we tell you not to picture an elephant, what's the first thing you think of?
Do superinjuctions work in the internet age? How about asking a certain Ryan Giggs? Take heart, Glencore: nobody on your board is that famous yet, but journalists will be forgiven for wondering why you were so quick to hire Schillings.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (1)
at 10:49 on May 27th, 2011
I think the purpose of Glencore's IPO was to raise capital. Selling the initial publicly offered shares for more than they are worth in the next few days would seem to be the epitome of success for the selling company. Also, most investors would not consider it to be a failure to pay a few pence more for shares than they are worth a few days later. Successful investors know they can rarely buy at the very bottom or sell at the very top.Why do you consider an IPO that raised slightly more capital for the selling company than the shares are now worth to be unsuccessful?