Cango (CANG) Risk Analysis

On October 24, 2019, we received a notification letter, or the Notification Letter, from the NYSE indicating that we are not currently in compliance with Section 802.01A of the NYSE Listed Company Manual relating to the continued listing standards for stockholders, including (i) number of total stockholders of at least 400 or (ii) number of total stockholders of at least 1,200, if the average monthly volume is less than 100,000 (for the most recent 12 months). Therefore, we are now subject to the procedures set forth in Sections 801 and 802 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual. The Notification Letter also states that we need to respond within 90 days, which is no later than January 22, 2020, with a business plan that demonstrates how we expect to return to compliance with the first two standards within a maximum period of 18 months from receipt of the Notification Letter. The Notification Letter did not affect our business operations and did not conflict with or cause an event of default under any of our material debt or other agreements. We have submitted and the NYSE has accepted a business plan to regain compliance with the NYSE's continued listing standards. However, there can be no assurance that we will be deemed to have regained compliance by the NYSE or that we will be able to maintain compliance with the relevant requirements in the future. Failure to comply with the NYSE requirements could result in a decline in the price of our ADSs or a decline in investor confidence, which could directly impact our ability to efficiently raise capital. In addition, failure to adhere to NYSE requirements could result in trading suspension or delisting.

In May 2018, our co-founders Mr. Xiaojun Zhang and Mr. Jiayuan Lin entered into a voting agreement, which was amended and restated in June 2019. Pursuant to the amended and restated voting agreement, the co-founders shall reach a consensus before exercising their voting rights with respect to our shares. The voting agreement became effective upon the completion of our initial public offering. As of March 31, 2020, our co-founders beneficially owned all of 76,978,677 Class B ordinary shares issued and outstanding. In addition, Mr. Lin beneficially owned 1 Class A ordinary share. Our third amended and restated memorandum and articles of association provides that in respect of all matters subject to a shareholders' vote, each Class A ordinary share is entitled to one vote, while each Class B ordinary share is entitled to 20 votes. As of March 31, 2020, our co-founders collectively exercised 87.2% of the aggregate voting power of our issued and outstanding share capital. As a result of the ownership concentration, these shareholders have the ability to control or exert significant influence over important corporate matters, investors may be prevented from affecting important corporate matters involving our company that require approval of shareholders, including: -   the composition of our board of directors and, through it, any determinations with respect to our operations, business direction and policies, including the appointment and removal of officers;-   any determinations with respect to mergers or other business combinations;-   our disposition of substantially all of our assets; and -   any change in control. These actions may be taken even if they are opposed by our other shareholders, including the holders of the ADSs. Furthermore, this concentration of ownership may also discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company, which could have the dual effect of depriving our shareholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their shares as part of a sale of our company and reducing the price of the ADSs. As a result of the foregoing, the value of your investment could be materially reduced. The existing holders of ordinary shares, including entities controlled by the co-founders, agreed to transfer certain number of ordinary shares to certain holders of preferred shares upon the expiration of the 180-day lock-up period as provided under the applicable lock-up agreements that they entered into prior to our initial public offering. The share transfers are intended to compensate the relevant holders of preferred shares for the difference between their respective target valuation and the initial public offering price. As of the date of this annual report, we have completed the share transfers pursuant to this arrangement.

We are a "controlled company" as defined under the NYSE Listed Company Manual. Our co-founders Mr. Xiaojun Zhang and Mr. Jiayuan Lin collectively hold more than 50% of the aggregate voting power of our company. In May 2018, the co-founders entered into a voting agreement, which was amended and restated in June 2019. The amended and restated voting agreement provides that they shall reach a consensus before exercising their voting rights with respect to our shares. The voting agreement became effective upon the completion of our initial public offering. For so long as we remain a controlled company under that definition, we are permitted to elect to rely, and will rely, on certain exemptions from corporate governance rules, including an exemption from the rule that a majority of our board of directors must be independent directors. As a result, you will not have the same protection afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to these corporate governance requirements.

On May 25, 2018, we adopted the Share Incentive Plan 2018, which permits the grant of options, restricted shares, restricted share units and other share-based awards to our employees, directors and consultants. The maximum aggregate number of ordinary shares that may be issued pursuant to the share incentive plan is 27,845,526 initially. Additional ordinary shares may be reserved for issuance of equity awards as determined by our board of directors. In May 2018, we granted 5,569,105 options to purchase our ordinary shares to certain of our officers and employees. In February 2019, we granted another 5,569,105 options to certain eligible employees. We are required to account for options granted to our employees, directors and consultants. We are required to classify options granted to our employees, directors and consultants as equity awards and recognize share-based compensation expense based on the fair value of such share options, with the share-based compensation expense recognized over the period in which the recipient is required to provide service in exchange for the share option or other equity award. We believe the granting of share-based compensation is of significant importance to our ability to attract, retain and motivate our management team and talented employees, and we will continue to grant share-based compensation to employees in the future. As a result, our expenses associated with share-based compensation may increase significantly, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. We expect the options granted in May 2018 and February 2019 to vest over a four-year period, with 50%, 25% and 25% of the options vesting upon the second, third and fourth anniversary of the grant date, respectively, subject to the conditions provided under the share incentive plan. We recognized RMB82.3 million (US$11.8 million) of share-based compensation expenses in 2019.

We, through one of our subsidiaries and a wholly foreign-owned enterprise in the PRC, have entered into a series of contractual arrangements with our consolidated VIE and its shareholders. For a description of these contractual arrangements, see "Item 4. Information on the Company-C. Organizational Structure-Contractual Arrangements among Can Gu Long, Shanghai Cango and Its Shareholders." If our consolidated VIE or its shareholders fail to perform their respective obligations under these contractual arrangements, we may incur substantial costs and expend additional resources to enforce such arrangements. We may also have to rely on legal remedies under PRC laws, including seeking specific performance or injunctive relief, and claiming damages, which we cannot assure you will be effective under PRC laws. For example, if the shareholders of our consolidated VIE were to refuse to transfer their equity interests in the consolidated VIE to us or our designee when we exercise the purchase option pursuant to these contractual arrangements, or if they were otherwise to act in bad faith toward us, then we may have to take legal actions to compel them to perform their contractual obligations. All the agreements under our contractual arrangements are governed by PRC laws and provide for the resolution of disputes through arbitration in China. Accordingly, these contracts would be interpreted in accordance with PRC laws and any disputes would be resolved in accordance with PRC legal procedures. The legal system in the PRC is not as developed as in some other jurisdictions, such as the U.S. As a result, uncertainties in the PRC legal system could limit our ability to enforce these contractual arrangements. Meanwhile, there are very few precedents and little formal guidance as to how contractual arrangements in the context of a VIE should be interpreted or enforced under PRC laws. There remain significant uncertainties regarding the ultimate outcome of such arbitration should legal action become necessary. In addition, under PRC laws, rulings by arbitrators are final and parties cannot appeal arbitration results in court unless such rulings are revoked or determined unenforceable by a competent court. If the losing parties fail to carry out the arbitration awards within a prescribed time limit, the prevailing parties may only enforce the arbitration awards in PRC courts through arbitration award recognition proceedings, which would require additional expenses and delay. In the event that we are unable to enforce these contractual arrangements, or if we suffer significant delay or other obstacles in the process of enforcing these contractual arrangements, we may not be able to exert effective control over our consolidated VIE and relevant rights and licenses held by it which we require in order to operate our business, and our ability to conduct our business may be negatively affected. See "-Risks Related to Doing Business in China-There are uncertainties regarding the interpretation and enforcement of PRC laws, rules and regulations." The arbitration provisions under these contractual arrangements have no effect on the rights of our shareholders to pursue claims against us under United States federal securities laws.

The interests of the shareholders of our consolidated VIE in their capacities as such shareholders may differ from the interests of our company as a whole, as what is in the best interests of our consolidated VIE, including matters such as whether to distribute dividends or to make other distributions to fund our offshore requirement, may not be in the best interests of our company. There can be no assurance that when conflicts of interest arise, any or all of these shareholders will act in the best interests of our company or those conflicts of interest will be resolved in our favor. In addition, these shareholders may breach or cause our consolidated VIE and its subsidiaries to breach or refuse to renew the existing contractual arrangements with us. Currently, we do not have arrangements to address potential conflicts of interest the shareholders of our consolidated VIE may encounter, on one hand, and as a beneficial owner of our company, on the other hand. We, however, could, at all times, exercise our option under the exclusive option agreement to cause them to transfer all of their equity ownership in our consolidated VIE to a PRC entity or individual designated by us as permitted by the then applicable PRC laws. In addition, if such conflicts of interest arise, we could also, in the capacity of attorney-in-fact of the then existing shareholders of our consolidated VIE as provided under the power of attorney, directly appoint new directors of our consolidated VIE. We rely on the shareholders of our consolidated VIE to comply with PRC laws and regulations, which protect contracts and provide that directors and executive officers owe a duty of loyalty to our company and require them to avoid conflicts of interest and not to take advantage of their positions for personal gains, and the laws of the Cayman Islands, which provide that directors have a duty of care and a duty of loyalty to act honestly in good faith with a view to our best interests. However, the legal frameworks of China and the Cayman Islands do not provide guidance on resolving conflicts in the event of a conflict with another corporate governance regime. If we cannot resolve any conflicts of interest or disputes between us and the shareholders of our consolidated VIE, we would have to rely on legal proceedings, which could result in disruption of our business and subject us to substantial uncertainty as to the outcome of any such legal proceedings.

Under PRC law, legal documents for corporate transactions, including agreements and contracts that our business relies on, are executed using the chop or seal of the signing entity or with the signature of a legal representative whose designation is registered and filed with the relevant local branch of the State Administration for Market Regulation, or the SAMR, formerly known as the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, or the SAIC. We generally execute legal documents by affixing chops or seals, rather than having the designated legal representatives sign the documents. We have three major types of chops-corporate chops, contract chops and finance chops. We use corporate chops generally for documents to be submitted to government agencies, such as applications for changing business scope, directors or company name, and for legal letters. We use contract chops for executing leases and commercial contracts. We use finance chops generally for making and collecting payments, including issuing invoices. Use of corporate chops and contract chops must be approved by our legal department and administrative department and use of finance chops must be approved by our finance department. The chops of our subsidiary and consolidated VIE are generally held by the relevant entities so that documents can be executed locally. Although we usually utilize chops to execute contracts, the registered legal representatives of our subsidiary and consolidated VIE have the apparent authority to enter into contracts on behalf of such entities without chops, unless such contracts set forth otherwise. In order to maintain the physical security of our chops, we generally have them stored in secured locations accessible only to the designated key employees of our legal, administrative or finance departments. Our designated legal representatives generally do not have access to the chops. Although we have approval procedures in place and monitor our key employees, including the designated legal representatives of our subsidiary and consolidated VIE, the procedures may not be sufficient to prevent all instances of abuse or negligence. There is a risk that our key employees or designated legal representatives could abuse their authority, for example, by binding our subsidiary and consolidated VIE with contracts against our interests, as we would be obligated to honor these contracts if the other contracting party acts in good faith in reliance on the apparent authority of our chops or signatures of our legal representatives. If any designated legal representative obtains control of the chop in an effort to obtain control over the relevant entity, we would need to have a shareholder or board resolution to designate a new legal representative and to take legal action to seek the return of the chop, apply for a new chop with the relevant authorities, or otherwise seek legal remedies for the legal representative's misconduct. If any of the designated legal representatives obtains and misuses or misappropriates our chops and seals or other controlling intangible assets for whatever reason, we could experience disruption to our normal business operations. We may have to take corporate or legal action, which could involve significant time and resources to resolve while distracting management from our operations, and our business and operations may be materially and adversely affected.

On August 8, 2006, six PRC regulatory agencies, including the MOFCOM, the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, or the SASAC, the State Administration of Taxation, the SAIC, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, or the CSRC, and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, or the SAFE, jointly adopted the Regulations on Mergers and Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors, or the M&A Rules, which came into effect on September 8, 2006 and were amended on June 22, 2009. The M&A Rules established, among other things, additional procedures and requirements that are expected to make merger and acquisition activities in China by foreign investors more time-consuming and complex. For example, the M&A rules require that the MOFCOM be notified in advance of any change-of-control transaction in which a foreign investor takes control of a PRC domestic enterprise if (i) any important industry is concerned, (ii) such transaction involves factors that have or may have impact on the national economic security, or (iii) such transaction will lead to a change in control of a domestic enterprise which holds a famous trademark or PRC time-honored brand. The approval from the MOFCOM shall be obtained in circumstances where overseas companies established or controlled by PRC enterprises or residents acquire affiliated domestic companies. Mergers, acquisitions or contractual arrangements that allow one market player to take control of or to exert decisive impact on another market player must also be notified in advance to the MOFCOM when the threshold under the Provisions on Thresholds for Prior Notification of Concentrations of Undertakings, or the Prior Notification Rules, issued by the State Council in August 2008 is triggered. In addition, the security review rules issued by the MOFCOM that became effective in September 2011 specify that mergers and acquisitions by foreign investors that raise "national defense and security" concerns and mergers and acquisitions through which foreign investors may acquire de facto control over domestic enterprises that raise "national security" concerns are subject to strict review by the MOFCOM, and the rules prohibit any activities attempting to bypass a security review, including by structuring the transaction through a proxy or contractual control arrangement. We may grow our business in part by acquiring other companies operating in our industry. Complying with the requirements of the new regulations to complete such transactions could be time-consuming, and any required approval processes, including approval from the MOFCOM, may delay or inhibit our ability to complete such transactions, which could affect our ability to expand our business or maintain our market share. See "Item 4. Information on the Company-B. Business Overview-Regulations-Regulations Related to M&A and Overseas Listings."

Under the Enterprise Income Tax Law and its implementation regulations issued by the State Council, a 10% PRC withholding tax is applicable to dividends paid to investors that are non-resident enterprises, which do not have an establishment or place of business in the PRC or which have such establishment or place of business but the dividends are not effectively connected with such establishment or place of business, to the extent such dividends are derived from sources within the PRC. Any gain realized on the transfer of ADSs or Class A ordinary shares by such investors is also subject to PRC tax at a current rate of 10%, if such gain is regarded as income derived from sources within the PRC. If we are deemed a PRC resident enterprise, dividends paid on our Class A ordinary shares or ADSs, and any gain realized from the transfer of our Class A ordinary shares or ADSs, would be treated as income derived from sources within the PRC and would as a result be subject to PRC taxation. Furthermore, if we are deemed a PRC resident enterprise, dividends paid to individual investors who are non-PRC residents and any gain realized on the transfer of ADSs or Class A ordinary shares by such investors may be subject to PRC tax (which in the case of dividends may be withheld at source) at a rate of 20%. Any PRC tax liability may be reduced by an applicable tax treaty. However, if we or any of our subsidiaries established outside China are considered a PRC resident enterprise, it is unclear whether holders of our ADSs or Class A ordinary shares would be able to claim the benefit of income tax treaties or agreements entered into between China and other countries or areas. If dividends paid to our non-PRC investors, or gains from the transfer of our ADSs or Class A ordinary shares by such investors, are deemed as income derived from sources within the PRC and thus are subject to PRC tax, the value of your investment in our ADSs or Class A ordinary shares may decline significantly.

Starting in 2011, the Chinese affiliates of the "big four" accounting firms, including our independent registered public accounting firm, were affected by a conflict between U.S. and Chinese law. Specifically, for certain U.S. listed companies operating and audited in mainland China, the SEC and the PCAOB sought to obtain from the Chinese accounting firms access to their audit work papers and related documents. The firms were, however, advised and directed that under Chinese law they could not respond directly to the U.S. regulators on those requests, and that requests by foreign regulators for access to such papers in China had to be channeled through the CSRC. In late 2012, this impasse led the SEC to commence administrative proceedings under Rule 102(e) of its Rules of Practice and also under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 against the Chinese accounting firms, including our independent registered public accounting firm. In January 2014, the administrative law judge reached an initial decision to impose penalties on the firms including a temporary suspension of their right to practice before the SEC. The accounting firms filed a petition for review of the initial decision. On February 6, 2015, before a review by the commissioners of the SEC had taken place, the firms reached a settlement with the SEC. Under the settlement, the SEC accepts that future requests by the SEC for the production of documents will normally be made to the CSRC. The firms will receive matching Section 106 requests and are required to abide by a detailed set of procedures with respect to such requests, which in substance require them to facilitate production via the CSRC. If they fail to meet specified criteria, the SEC retains authority to impose a variety of additional remedial measures on the firms depending on the nature of the failure. Remedies for any future noncompliance could include, as appropriate, an automatic six-month bar on a single firm's performance of certain audit work, commencement of a new proceeding against a firm, or in extreme cases the resumption of the current proceeding against all four firms. In the event that the SEC restarts the administrative proceedings, depending upon the final outcome, listed companies in the U.S. with major PRC operations may find it difficult or impossible to retain auditors in respect of their operations in the PRC, which could result in financial statements being determined to not be in compliance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, including possible delisting. Moreover, any negative news about any such future proceedings against these audit firms may cause investor uncertainty regarding China-based, U.S.-listed companies and the market price of our ADSs may be adversely affected. If our independent registered public accounting firm were denied, even temporarily, the ability to practice before the SEC and we were unable to timely find another registered public accounting firm to audit and issue an opinion on our consolidated financial statements, our consolidated financial statements could be determined not to be in compliance with the requirements of the Exchange Act. Such a determination could ultimately lead to delisting of our ADSs from the NYSE or deregistration from the SEC, or both, which would substantially reduce or effectively terminate the trading of our ADSs in the U.S.

The trading prices of our ADSs have fluctuated since we first listed our ADSs. Since our ADSs became listed on the NYSE on July 26, 2018, the trading prices of our ADSs ranged from US$4.52 to US$13.67 per ADS, and the last reported trading price on April 24, 2020 was US$5.25 per ADS. The prices for our ADSs may continue to fluctuate because of broad market and industry factors, like the performance and fluctuation in the market prices or the underperformance or deteriorating financial results of other listed companies based in China. The securities of some of these companies have experienced significant volatility since their initial public offerings, including, in some cases, substantial price declines in the trading prices of their securities. The trading performances of other Chinese companies' securities after their offerings, including technology companies and transaction service platforms, may affect the attitudes of investors toward Chinese companies listed in the U.S., which consequently may impact the trading performance of our ADSs, regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition, any negative news or perceptions about inadequate corporate governance practices or fraudulent accounting, corporate structure or matters of other Chinese companies may also negatively affect the attitudes of investors towards Chinese companies in general, including us, regardless of whether we have conducted any inappropriate activities. Furthermore, securities markets may from time to time experience significant price and volume fluctuations that are not related to our operating performance, such as the large decline in share prices in the U.S., China and other jurisdictions in late 2008, early 2009, the second half of 2011 and in 2015, which may have a material and adverse effect on the trading price of our ADSs. In addition to the above factors, the price and trading volume of our ADSs may be highly volatile due to multiple factors, including the following: -   regulatory developments affecting us or our industry;-   announcements of studies and reports relating to the quality of our credit offerings or those of our competitors;-   changes in the economic performance or market valuations of other transaction service platforms;-   actual or anticipated fluctuations in our quarterly results of operations and changes or revisions of our expected results;-   changes in financial estimates by securities research analysts;-   conditions in the markets for car buyers and for financing facilitation services;-   announcements by us or our competitors of new product and service offerings, acquisitions, strategic relationships, joint ventures, capital raisings or capital commitments;-   additions to or departures of our senior management;-   fluctuations of exchange rates between the Renminbi and the U.S. dollar;-   release or expiry of lock-up or other transfer restrictions on our outstanding shares or ADSs; and -   sales or perceived potential sales of additional Class A ordinary shares or ADSs.

The trading market for our ADSs will depend in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If research analysts do not establish and maintain adequate research coverage or if one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our ADSs or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, the market price for our ADSs would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which, in turn, could cause the market price or trading volume for our ADSs to decline.

Holders of ADSs do not have the same rights of our shareholders and may only exercise the voting rights with respect to the underlying Class A ordinary shares in accordance with the provisions of the deposit agreement. Under our amended and restated articles of association, the minimum notice period required to convene a general meeting is ten days. When a general meeting is convened, you may not receive sufficient notice of a shareholders' meeting to permit you to withdraw your Class A ordinary shares to allow you to cast your vote with respect to any specific matter. In addition, the depositary and its agents may not be able to send voting instructions to you or carry out your voting instructions in a timely manner. We will make all reasonable efforts to cause the depositary to extend voting rights to you in a timely manner, but there can be no assurance that you will receive the voting materials in time to ensure that you can instruct the depositary to vote your ADSs. Furthermore, the depositary and its agents will not be responsible for any failure to carry out any instructions to vote, for the manner in which any vote is cast or for the effect of any such vote. As a result, you may not be able to exercise your right to vote and you may lack recourse if your ADSs are not voted as you requested. In addition, in your capacity as an ADS holder, you will not be able to call a shareholders' meeting.

Under the deposit agreement, any action or proceeding against or involving the depositary, arising out of or based upon the deposit agreement or the transactions contemplated thereby or by virtue of owning the ADSs may only be instituted in a state or federal court in New York, New York, and you, as a holder of our ADSs, will have irrevocably waived any objection which you may have to the laying of venue of any such proceeding, and irrevocably submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts in any such action or proceeding. Also, we may amend or terminate the deposit agreement without your consent. If you continue to hold your ADSs after an amendment to the deposit agreement, you agree to be bound by the deposit agreement as amended. See "Item 12. Description of Securities other than Equity Securities-D. American Depositary Shares" for more information.

We have adopted the third amended and restated articles of association, which became effective immediately prior to the completion of our initial public offering, that contain provisions to limit the ability of others to acquire control of our company or cause us to engage in change-of-control transactions. These provisions could have the effect of depriving our shareholders of an opportunity to sell their shares at a premium over prevailing market prices by discouraging third parties from seeking to obtain control of our company in a tender offer or similar transaction. For example, our board of directors has the authority, without further action by our shareholders, to issue preferred shares in one or more series and to fix their designations, powers, preferences, privileges, and relative participating, optional or special rights and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions, including dividend rights, conversion rights, voting rights, terms of redemption and liquidation preferences, any or all of which may be greater than the rights associated with our Class A ordinary shares, in the form of ADS or otherwise. Preferred shares could be issued quickly with terms calculated to delay or prevent a change in control of our company or make removal of management more difficult. If our board of directors decides to issue preferred shares, the price of our ADSs may fall and the voting and other rights of the holders of our Class A ordinary shares and ADSs may be materially and adversely affected. In addition, our third amended and restated memorandum and articles of association contain other provisions that could limit the ability of third parties to acquire control of our company or cause us to engage in a transaction resulting in a change of control, including a provision that entitles each Class B ordinary share to 20 votes in respect of all matters subject to a shareholders' vote.

The deposit agreement governing the ADSs representing our Class A ordinary shares provides that holders and beneficial owners of ADSs irrevocably waive the right to a trial by jury in any legal proceeding arising out of or relating to the deposit agreement or the ADSs, including claims under federal securities laws, against us or the depositary to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. If this jury trial waiver provision is prohibited by applicable law, an action could nevertheless proceed under the terms of the deposit agreement with a jury trial. To our knowledge, the enforceability of a jury trial waiver under the federal securities laws has not been finally adjudicated by a federal court. However, we believe that a jury trial waiver provision is generally enforceable under the laws of the State of New York, which govern the deposit agreement, by a federal or state court in the City of New York, which has non-exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the deposit agreement. In determining whether to enforce a jury trial waiver provision, New York courts will consider whether the visibility of the jury trial waiver provision within the agreement is sufficiently prominent such that a party has knowingly waived any right to trial by jury. We believe that this is the case with respect to the deposit agreement and the ADSs. In addition, New York courts will not enforce a jury trial waiver provision in order to bar a viable setoff or counterclaim sounding in fraud or one which is based upon a creditor's negligence in failing to liquidate collateral upon a guarantor's demand, or in the case of an intentional tort claim, none of which we believe are applicable in the case of the deposit agreement or the ADSs. No condition, stipulation or provision of the deposit agreement or ADSs serves as a waiver by any holder or beneficial owner of ADSs or by us or the depositary of compliance with any provision of the federal securities laws. If you or any other holder or beneficial owner of ADSs brings a claim against us or the depositary in connection with matters arising under the deposit agreement or the ADSs, including claims under federal securities laws, you or such other holder or beneficial owner may not be entitled to a jury trial with respect to such claims, which may have the effect of limiting and discouraging lawsuits against us and/or the depositary. If a lawsuit is brought against us and/or the depositary under the deposit agreement, it may be heard only by a judge or justice of the applicable trial court, which would be conducted according to different civil procedures and may result in different outcomes than a trial by jury would have had, including results that could be less favorable to the plaintiff(s) in any such action, depending on, among other things, the nature of the claims, the judge or justice hearing such claims and the venue of the hearing.

We are an exempted company incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands. Substantially all of our assets are located outside the United States. In addition, substantially all of our directors and executive officers and the experts named in this annual report reside outside the United States, and most of their assets are located outside the United States As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for you to bring an action against us or against them in the United States in the event that you believe that your rights have been infringed under the United States federal securities laws or otherwise. Even if you are successful in bringing an action of this kind, the laws of the Cayman Islands, China or other relevant jurisdiction may render you unable to enforce a judgment against our assets or the assets of our directors and officers.

We are an exempted company limited by shares incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands. Our corporate affairs are governed by our memorandum and articles of association, the Companies Law, Cap. 22 (Law 3 of 1961, as consolidated and revised) of the Cayman Islands and the common law of the Cayman Islands. The rights of shareholders to take action against the directors, actions by minority shareholders and the fiduciary duties of our directors to us under Cayman Islands law are to a large extent governed by the common law of the Cayman Islands. The common law of the Cayman Islands is derived in part from comparatively limited judicial precedent in the Cayman Islands as well as from the common law of England, the decisions of whose courts are of persuasive authority, but are not binding, on a court in the Cayman Islands. The rights of our shareholders and the fiduciary duties of our directors under Cayman Islands law are not as clearly established as they would be under statutes or judicial precedent in some jurisdictions in the U.S. In particular, the Cayman Islands have a less developed body of securities laws than the U.S. Some U.S. states, such as Delaware, have more fully developed and judicially interpreted bodies of corporate law than the Cayman Islands. In addition, Cayman Islands companies may not have standing to initiate a shareholder derivative action in a federal court of the United States. Shareholders of Cayman Islands exempted companies like us have no general rights under Cayman Islands law to inspect corporate records or to obtain copies of lists of shareholders of these companies. Our directors have discretion under the third amended and restated memorandum and articles of association to determine whether or not, and under what conditions, our corporate records may be inspected by our shareholders, but are not obliged to make them available to our shareholders. This may make it more difficult for you to obtain the information needed to establish any facts necessary for a shareholder resolution or to solicit proxies from other shareholders in connection with a proxy contest. As a result of all of the above, our public shareholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions taken by management, members of the board of directors or controlling shareholders than they would as public shareholders of a company incorporated in the U.S.

Because we qualify as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act, we are exempt from certain provisions of the securities rules and regulations in the U.S. that are applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, including: (i) the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the SEC of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q or current reports on Form 8-K; (ii) the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents, or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act; (iii) the sections of the Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their stock ownership and trading activities and liability for insiders who profit from trades made in a short period of time; and (iv) the selective disclosure rules by issuers of material nonpublic information under Regulation FD. We are required to file an annual report on Form 20-F within four months of the end of each fiscal year. In addition, we intend to publish our results on a quarterly basis as press releases, distributed pursuant to the rules and regulations of the NYSE. Press releases relating to financial results and material events will also be furnished to the SEC on Form 6-K. However, the information we are required to file with or furnish to the SEC will be less extensive and less timely compared to that required to be filed with the SEC by U.S. domestic issuers. As a result, you may not be afforded the same protections or information that would be made available to you were you investing in a U.S. domestic issuer.

We are an "emerging growth company," as defined in the JOBS Act, and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various requirements applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies including, most significantly, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for so long as we are an emerging growth company. As a result, if we elect not to comply with such auditor attestation requirements, our investors may not have access to certain information they may deem important. The JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company does not need to comply with any new or revised financial accounting standards until such date that a private company is otherwise required to comply with such new or revised accounting standards. We will take advantage of the extended transition period. As a result of this election, our financial statements may not be comparable to other public companies that comply with the public company effective dates for these new or revised accounting standards.