SOS (2C30) Risk Analysis

U.S. public companies that have substantially all of their operations in China have been the subject of intense scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity by investors, financial commentators and regulatory agencies, such as the SEC. Much of the scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity has centered on financial and accounting irregularities and mistakes, a lack of effective internal controls over financial accounting, inadequate corporate governance policies or a lack of adherence thereto and, in many cases, allegations of fraud. On December 7, 2018, the SEC and the PCAOB issued a joint statement highlighting continued challenges faced by the U.S. regulators in their oversight of financial statement audits of U.S.-listed companies with significant operations in China. On April 21, 2020, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and PCAOB Chairman William D. Duhnke III, along with other senior SEC staff, released a joint statement highlighting the risks associated with investing in companies based in or have substantial operations in emerging markets including China, reiterating past SEC and PCAOB statements on matters including the difficulty associated with inspecting accounting firms and audit work papers in China and higher risks of fraud in emerging markets and the difficulty of bringing and enforcing SEC, Department of Justice and other U.S. regulatory actions, including in instances of fraud, in emerging markets generally. On May 20, 2020, the U.S. Senate passed the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act requiring a foreign company to certify it is not owned or controlled by a foreign government if the PCAOB is unable to audit specified reports because the company uses a foreign auditor not subject to PCAOB inspection. If the PCAOB is unable to inspect the company's auditors for three consecutive years, the issuer's securities are prohibited to trade on a national exchange. On December 2, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act. As a result of these scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity, the publicly traded stock of many U.S. listed Chinese companies sharply decreased in value and, in some cases, has become virtually worthless. Many of these companies are now subject to shareholder lawsuits and SEC enforcement actions and are conducting internal and external investigations into the allegations. It is not clear what effect this sector-wide scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity will have on us, our offering, business and our share price. If we become the subject of any unfavorable allegations, whether such allegations are proven to be true or untrue, we will have to expend significant resources to investigate such allegations and/or defend our company. This situation will be costly and time consuming and distract our management from developing our growth. If such allegations are not proven to be groundless, we and our business operations will be severely affected and you could sustain a significant decline in the value of our share.

As a foreign private issuer, we will remain exempt from the rules under the Exchange Act prescribing the furnishing and content of proxy statements, and our officers, directors and principal shareholders will be exempt from the reporting and short-swing profit recovery provisions contained in Section 16 of the Exchange Act. In addition, we will not be required under the Exchange Act to file periodic reports and financial statements with the SEC as frequently or as promptly as United States domestic issuers, and we will not be required to disclose in our periodic reports all of the information that United States domestic issuers are required to disclose. While we currently expect to continue to qualify as a foreign private issuer, we may cease to qualify as a foreign private issuer in the future.

Certain of our directors and most of our executive officers reside in China. In addition, most of our assets and those of our directors and executive officers are located in China. The PRC does not have treaties providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments of courts with the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and many other jurisdictions. As a result, it may not be possible for investors to serve process upon us or those persons in China, or to enforce against us or them in China, any judgments obtained from non-PRC jurisdictions. On July 14, 2006, the Supreme People's Court of China and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region signed an Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, or the 2006 Arrangement. Under such arrangement, where any designated People's Court or any designated Hong Kong court has made an enforceable final judgment requiring payment of money in a civil and commercial case pursuant to a choice of court agreement, any party concerned may apply to the relevant People's Court or Hong Kong court for recognition and enforcement of the judgment. On January 18, 2019, the Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China and the Department of Justice under the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region signed the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, or the 2019 Arrangement. The 2019 Arrangement, for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters between the courts in mainland China and those in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, stipulates the scope and particulars of judgments, the procedures and ways of the application for recognition or enforcement, the review of the jurisdiction of the court that issued the original judgment, the circumstances where the recognition and enforcement of a judgment shall be refused, and the approaches towards remedies, among others. After a judicial interpretation has been promulgated by the Supreme People's Court and the relevant procedures have been completed by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, both sides shall announce a date on which the 2019 Arrangement shall come into effect. The 2019 Arrangement shall apply to any judgment made on or after its effective date by the courts of both sides. The 2006 Arrangement shall be terminated on the same day when the 2019 Arrangement comes into effect. If a "written choice of court agreement" has been signed by parties according to the 2006 Arrangement prior to the effective date of the 2019 Arrangement, the 2006 Arrangement shall still apply. Although the 2019 Arrangement has been signed, its effective date has yet to be announced. Therefore, there are still uncertainties about the outcomes and effectiveness of enforcement or recognition of judgments under the 2019 Arrangement. Shareholder claims that are common in the United States, including securities law class actions and fraud claims, generally are difficult to pursue as a matter of law or practicality in China. For example, in China, there are significant legal and other obstacles to obtaining information needed for shareholder investigations or litigation outside China or otherwise with respect to foreign entities. Although the local authorities in China may establish a regulatory cooperation mechanism with the securities regulatory authorities of another country or region to implement cross-border supervision and administration, such regulatory cooperation with the securities regulatory authorities in the United States has not been efficient in the absence of mutual and practical cooperation mechanism. According to Article 177 of the PRC Securities Law which became effective in March 2020, no overseas securities regulator is allowed to directly conduct investigation or evidence collection activities within the PRC. Accordingly, without the consent of the competent PRC securities regulators or other relevant authorities, no entity or individual may provide any documents and materials relating to securities business activities to foreign entities or government agencies.

U.S. public companies that have substantially all of their operations in China have been the subject of intense scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity by investors, financial commentators and regulatory agencies, such as the SEC. Much of the scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity has centered on financial and accounting irregularities and mistakes, a lack of effective internal controls over financial accounting, inadequate corporate governance policies or a lack of adherence thereto and, in many cases, allegations of fraud. On December 7, 2018, the SEC and the PCAOB issued a joint statement highlighting continued challenges faced by the U.S. regulators in their oversight of financial statement audits of U.S.-listed companies with significant operations in China. On April 21, 2020, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton and PCAOB Chairman William D. Duhnke III, along with other senior SEC staff, released a joint statement highlighting the risks associated with investing in companies based in or have substantial operations in emerging markets including China, reiterating past SEC and PCAOB statements on matters including the difficulty associated with inspecting accounting firms and audit work papers in China and higher risks of fraud in emerging markets and the difficulty of bringing and enforcing SEC, Department of Justice and other U.S. regulatory actions, including in instances of fraud, in emerging markets generally. Enactment of the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act or other efforts to increase U.S. regulatory access to audit information could cause investor uncertainty for affected issuers, including us, and the market price of the ordinary shares could be adversely affected. In addition, enactment of the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act will result in prohibitions on the trading of the ordinary shares on NYSE or other U.S. exchange if our auditor fails to be inspected by the PCAOB for three consecutive years. The lack of access to the PCAOB inspection in China prevents the PCAOB from fully evaluating audits and quality control procedures of the auditors based in China. As a result, investors may be deprived of the benefits of such PCAOB inspections. The inability of the PCAOB to conduct inspections of auditors in China makes it more difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of these accounting firms' audit procedures or quality control procedures as compared to auditors outside of China that are subject to the PCAOB inspections, which could cause existing and potential investors in our stock to lose confidence in our audit procedures and reported financial information and the quality of our financial statements. Moreover, on June 22, 2021, the U.S. Senate passed the Accelerating Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, which, if enacted, would amend the HFCAA and require the SEC to prohibit an issuer's securities from trading on U.S. exchanges if its auditor is not subject to PCAOB audit for two consecutive years instead of three, thus reducing the time period before such securities would be delisted. As a result of these scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity, the publicly traded stock of many U.S. listed Chinese companies sharply decreased in value and, in some cases, has become virtually worthless. Many of these companies are now subject to shareholder lawsuits and SEC enforcement actions and are conducting internal and external investigations into the allegations. It is not clear what effect this sector-wide scrutiny, criticism and negative publicity will have on us, our offering, business and our share price. If we become the subject of any unfavorable allegations, whether such allegations are proven to be true or untrue, we will have to expend significant resources to investigate such allegations and/or defend our company. This situation will be costly and time consuming and distract our management from developing our growth. If such allegations are not proven to be groundless, we and our business operations will be severely affected and you could sustain a significant decline in the value of our share.

The trading price of our ADSs may be volatile and could fluctuate widely due to factors beyond our control. This may happen because of broad market and industry factors, like the performance and fluctuation of the market prices of other companies with business operations located mainly in China that have listed their securities in the United States. A number of Chinese companies have listed their securities on U.S. stock markets, and some of these companies have experienced significant volatility. The trading performances of these Chinese companies' securities after their offerings may affect the attitudes of investors toward Chinese companies listed in the United States in general and consequently may impact the trading performance of our ADSs, regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition to market and industry factors, the price and trading volume for our ADSs may be highly volatile for factors specific to our own operations, including the following: - variations in our revenues, earnings, cash flow and data related to our user base or user engagement;- announcements of new investments, acquisitions, strategic partnerships or joint ventures by us or our competitors;- announcements of new products, services and expansions by us or our competitors;- announcements of changes to regulations;- changes in financial estimates by securities analysts;- detrimental adverse publicity about us, our services or our industry;- additions or departures of key personnel;- release of lock-up or other transfer restrictions on our outstanding equity securities or sales of additional equity securities; and - Potential litigation or regulatory investigations. Any of these factors may result in large and sudden changes in the volume and price at which our ADSs trade. In the past, shareholders of public companies have often brought securities class action suits against those companies following periods of instability in the market price of their securities. If we were involved in a class action suit, it could divert a significant amount of our management's attention and other resources from our business and operations and require us to incur significant expenses to defend the suit, which could harm our results of operations. Any such class action suit, whether or not successful, could harm our reputation and restrict our ability to raise capital in the future. In addition, if a claim is successfully made against us, we may be required to pay significant damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In December 2019, the Company instructed its Depositary Bank to implement a ratio change for its American Depositary Shares ("ADSs"). The new ratio is 10 Class A ordinary shares per 1 ADS. The effective date for the ratio change is December 3, 2019.

Our sixth amended and restated memorandum and articles of association contains provisions that 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 ordinary shares, in the form of ADSs 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 ordinary shares and ADSs may be materially and adversely affected.

Our ordinary shares are divided into Class A ordinary shares and Class B ordinary shares. Holders of Class A ordinary shares are entitled to one vote per share, while holders of Class B ordinary shares are entitled to 10 votes per share, subject to the limitations set forth in "Item 10. Additional Information-B. Memorandum and Articles of Association-Ordinary Shares." Each Class B ordinary share is convertible into one Class A ordinary share at any time by the holder thereof. Class A ordinary shares are not convertible into Class B ordinary shares under any circumstances. Upon any transfer of Class B ordinary shares by a holder thereof to any person or entity which is not an affiliate of such holder, such Class B ordinary shares shall be automatically and immediately converted into an equal number of Class A ordinary shares.

We are an exempted company limited by shares registered under the laws of the Cayman Islands. Our corporate affairs are governed by our memorandum and articles of association, the Companies Law (2018 Revision) 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 United States. In particular, the Cayman Islands has a less developed body of securities laws than the United States. 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 our 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 (other than our memorandum and articles of association and any special resolutions passed by our shareholders). This may make it more difficult for you to obtain the information needed to establish any facts necessary for a shareholder motion or to solicit proxies from other shareholders in connection with a proxy contest. Certain corporate governance practices in the Cayman Islands, which is our home country, differ significantly from requirements for companies incorporated in other jurisdictions such as the U.S. Currently, we do not plan to rely on home country practice with respect to any corporate governance matter. However, if we choose to follow home country practice in the future, our shareholders may be afforded less protection than they otherwise would under rules and regulations applicable to U.S. domestic issuers. As a result of all of the above, 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 United States. For a discussion of significant differences between the provisions of the Companies Law of the Cayman Islands and the laws applicable to companies incorporated in the United States and their shareholders, see "Item 10. Additional Information-B. Memorandum and Articles of Association-Differences in Corporate Law."

We are a Cayman Islands company and substantially all of our assets are located outside of the United States. Substantially all of our current operations are conducted in China. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for you to bring an action against us in the United States in the event that you believe that your rights have been infringed under the U.S. federal securities laws or otherwise. Even if you are successful in bringing an action of this kind, the laws of the Cayman Islands and of China may render you unable to enforce a judgment against our assets.

We are an "emerging growth company," as defined in the JOBS Act, and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from 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 for so long as we are an emerging growth company. 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. However, we have elected to "opt out" of this provision and, as a result, we will comply with new or revised accounting standards as required when they are adopted for public companies. This decision to opt out of the extended transition period under the JOBS Act is irrevocable.

Because we are a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act, we are exempt from certain provisions of the securities rules and regulations in the United States that are applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, including: - the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q or current reports on Form 8-K with the SEC;- the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents, or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act;- 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 - the selective disclosure rules by issuers of material non-public 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 have published prior to 2019, and intend to continue to publish in the future, our results on a quarterly basis through 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, which would be made available to you, were you investing in a U.S. domestic issuer. In addition, if and to the extent we fail to qualify as a foreign private issuer in any future period, we would have increased disclosure and other requirements, which would increase our compliance and other costs.

As a holder of our ADSs, you will only be able to direct the exercise of the voting rights attaching to the Class A ordinary shares which are represented by your ADSs in accordance with the provisions of the deposit agreement. Under the deposit agreement, you must vote by giving voting instructions to the depositary. Upon receipt of your voting instructions, the depositary will endeavor, insofar as practical and lawful to vote the Class A ordinary shares which are represented by your ADSs in accordance with your instructions. You will not be able to directly exercise any right to vote with respect to the shares represented by your ADSs unless you withdraw the shares from the depositary. Under our sixth amended and restated memorandum and articles of association, the minimum notice period required for convening a general meeting is 15 calendar days. When a general meeting is convened, you may not receive sufficient advance notice to withdraw the shares represented by your ADSs to allow you to vote with respect to any specific resolution or matter to be considered and voted upon at such general meeting. If we give notice to our shareholders of any general meeting, the depositary will notify you of the upcoming vote and will arrange to deliver our voting materials to you. We cannot assure you that you will receive the voting materials in time to ensure that you can instruct the depositary to vote the shares represented by your ADSs. In addition, the depositary and its agents are not responsible for failing to carry out voting instructions or for their manner of carrying out your voting instructions. Also, as a party to the deposit agreement, you waive your right to trial by jury in any legal proceedings arising out of the deposit agreement or the ADSs against us and/or the depositary. This means that you may not be able to exercise your right to vote and you may have no legal remedy if the shares underlying your ADSs are not voted as you requested.