Cloud storage and encryption company Mega updated its corporate constitution on July 6 to prepare for a future stock market listing, the New Zealand Herald reports. Mega boasts more than 18 million registered users, and previously tried to list of the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX) through shell company TRS.
The previous attempt was abandoned after the shareholders of TRS, an investment company which is already listed, failed to approve a takeover bid in the allotted time frame.
The new constitution says that the “board shall take all reasonable steps to prepare the company for listing on a recognised stock exchange.” It also set standard restrictions on the issues of new shares over the next year, and around the prospective listing period.
Mega CEO Graham Gaylard confirmed that the new constitution would help the company’s attempt to go public, but did not comment on the time frame for the process, according to the Herald. The Mega website also includes a “Shareholder Reports” section, which states: “Reports to shareholders will be posted here when Mega becomes a publicly held company registered on a recognised stock exchange.”
Between the updated constitution, the transparency report released by the company last month, and a legal opinion it sought to defend against claims of aiding copyright infringement, Mega appears to be easing towards legitimacy in practice and perception. After the unsurprising failure of its previous attempt to join the NZX, given the legal issues surrounding Kim Dotcom and others, it makes sense for the company to take a more traditional approach.
Mega, which is registered in New Zealand, has 16 registered shareholders, including a trustee company with frozen assets due to money laundering allegations against Auckland businessman William Yan, and Dotcom’s estranged wife.
A 2014 study by NetNames on behalf of the Digital Citizens Alliance accused Mega and cyberlocker providers of supporting serial copyright infringement, and PayPal stopped processing payments to Mega. Mega responded with a legal opinion from international law firm Olswang, which said that Mega’s service, platform, and business model are different from the other cyberlockers studied, and called the claims defamatory, with “no factual basis whatsoever.”