Public Policy's Nasdaq IPO and Dual Listing: A Strategic Cross-Border Play for Policy-Driven Tech Firms

The recent decision by Public Policy Holding Co Inc (PPHC) to pursue a dual listing on the Nasdaq and London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM) reflects a broader trend among policy-driven technology firms seeking to optimize cross-border capital strategies. This move, announced in October 2025, underscores the growing importance of accessing diverse investor bases and navigating regulatory landscapes to fuel growth in an increasingly fragmented global market. For firms like PPHC, which operates at the intersection of technology and regulatory compliance, dual listings offer both strategic advantages and complex challenges.

Strategic Rationale: Liquidity, Capital, and Growth

PPHC's dual listing aims to enhance liquidity and broaden access to capital, critical for a firm that reported $87.9 million in revenue for the first half of 2025, reflecting 24% year-on-year growth PPHC's Nasdaq filing. By issuing newly created shares on the Nasdaq, the company intends to raise funds for working capital, acquisitions, and general corporate purposes, as outlined in that filing. This aligns with a broader pattern: 278 U.S. IPOs in 2025 alone, compared to a lower figure in 2024, signal a revival of investor appetite for high-growth tech firms.

The dual listing also allows PPHC to maintain its presence on London's AIM, a market known for accommodating innovative, often high-risk ventures. This duality enables the firm to tap into both U.S. and European investor pools, which may have differing risk appetites and valuation expectations. For policy-driven tech firms, whose business models often involve navigating regulatory complexities, such diversification can mitigate regional market risks.

Regulatory Nuances: The Foreign Private Issuer (FPI) Framework

A key consideration for U.K.-listed firms seeking U.S. dual listings is the status of a "foreign private issuer" (FPI). This designation allows companies to bypass certain U.S. disclosure requirements, such as the obligation to file quarterly reports, thereby reducing compliance costs, according to a cross-border listings analysis. PPHC's ability to qualify as an FPI will determine the efficiency of its U.S. listing and its capacity to allocate resources to growth rather than regulatory overhead.

However, dual listings are not without structural hurdles. Companies must often reorganize their corporate structures, such as establishing a U.S. holding company, to align with both markets' governance norms. Tax considerations, including stamp duty in the U.K. and U.S. securities laws, further complicate the process, as discussed in a guide on adding a U.S. listing. For PPHC, the involvement of underwriters like Oppenheimer & Co and Canaccord Genuity suggests a strategic emphasis on navigating these complexities, as noted in its Nasdaq filing.

Market Access and Geopolitical Realities

The decision to dual list also reflects broader geopolitical and economic shifts. U.S. regulators have tightened scrutiny of foreign firms, particularly those in dual-use technology sectors, through mechanisms like CFIUS reviews and export controls, according to a Reuters report. Meanwhile, London's post-Brexit regulatory reforms-such as relaxed shareholder approval rules for significant transactions-have made the AIM more attractive for tech firms seeking flexibility, a point explored in the Winston guide.

This duality allows firms like PPHC to hedge against regulatory uncertainty. For instance, if U.S. policies become more restrictive, the London listing provides a fallback for capital raising. Conversely, the U.S. market offers access to deep liquidity and institutional investors who may undervalue niche policy-driven models in Europe.

Case Studies and Broader Implications

Wise Plc's dual listing on Nasdaq and the London Stock Exchange provides a relevant precedent. By retaining its U.K. listing while expanding into the U.S., Wise capitalized on higher valuations and broader investor interest, a strategy PPHC may emulate. Similarly, Chinese firms like Alibaba and XPeng have navigated dual listings in the U.S. and Hong Kong, though they face challenges reconciling divergent regulatory expectations, as noted in broader cross-border listings analyses.

For policy-driven tech firms, the dual-listing model is not merely a financial tactic but a strategic response to the evolving interplay between technology, regulation, and global capital flows. As governments increasingly shape the rules governing data privacy, AI ethics, and environmental standards, firms that can operate across jurisdictions will gain a competitive edge.

Conclusion

Public Policy's dual listing represents a calculated step in a larger trend: the globalization of capital strategies for tech firms operating in policy-sensitive sectors. While regulatory and structural challenges persist, the potential rewards-enhanced liquidity, diversified risk, and access to global capital-are compelling. As PPHC's IPO proceeds, its success will offer valuable insights into how policy-driven firms can balance innovation with compliance in an era of fragmented markets and shifting geopolitical priorities.