Singapore’s parliament introduced legislation that could reshape how companies dual-list across borders and expand retail investor access to IPO documents.
According to Business Times, the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill 2026, tabled in parliament on 7 April, proposes changes to two key areas: granting authorities the power to prescribe dual-listing arrangements, and expanding regulation-making powers.
If passed, the bill would mark a significant step toward establishing the Global Listing Board (GLB), a joint initiative between Singapore Exchange Securities Trading (SGX) and the Nasdaq Stock Market. The GLB is intended to attract both new IPO candidates and companies already trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, with a minimum market capitalisation threshold of S$2bn and a required Asian nexus.
By inserting Part 13A into the Securities and Futures Act 2001, the bill would give the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) the authority to introduce regulations that support a dual-listing framework. Under this framework, issuers would be able to rely on a single set of offer documents, bringing Singapore’s offering processes in line with those of the relevant foreign jurisdiction. The legislation would also allow for market misconduct provisions that mirror certain safe harbour protections available in the foreign jurisdiction, though MAS has noted this would not serve as a defence against fraud or dishonesty.
A notable element of the proposed legislation concerns access to preliminary listing prospectuses. Currently, only institutional and accredited investors are permitted to view these documents. The bill proposes extending that access to retail investors, enabling issuers to share their preliminary prospectus during the marketing phase of an offering — ahead of the final prospectus being registered. This change is intended to address existing gaps in Singapore’s IPO marketing framework and foster greater retail participation in the listing process.
Several safeguards would accompany this expanded access. No formal offer could be made on the basis of a preliminary prospectus, and any such document would need to clearly state that its contents remain subject to change. Issuers would also be required to make reasonable efforts to notify recipients once the final prospectus is available.
Copyright © 2026 RegTech Analyst
Copyright © 2018 RegTech Analyst
