UTime (FXHO) Risk Analysis

We may choose to raise additional capital due to market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. To the extent that additional capital is raised through the sale of our equity or convertible debt securities, the issuance of such securities could result in further dilution to our shareholders or result in downward pressure on the price of our ordinary shares

As of the date of this annual report, we had 8,267,793 ordinary shares outstanding. All of the ordinary shares of held by affiliates are restricted or control securities under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act. Sales of ordinary shares under Rule 144 or another exemption under the Securities Act or pursuant to a registration statement could have a material adverse effect on the price of the ordinary shares and could impair our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of equity securities.

Our amended and restated memorandum and articles of association authorize our board of directors to issue one or more series of preference shares and set the terms of the preference shares without seeking any further approval from our shareholders. Any preference shares that are issued may rank ahead of our ordinary shares, in terms of dividends, liquidation rights and voting rights.

The trading market for our ordinary shares will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts may publish about us, our business, our market or our competitors. Securities and industry analysts currently publish limited research on us. If there is limited or no securities or industry analyst coverage of our company, the market price and trading volume of our ordinary shares would likely be negatively impacted. Moreover, if any of the analysts who may cover us downgrade our ordinary shares, provide more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors or if our operating results or prospects do not meet their expectations, the market price of our ordinary shares could decline. If any of the analysts who may cover us were to cease coverage or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.

Under the extant provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 read with Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019, every Indian company receiving foreign direct investment for issuance of shares shall within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of shares to the foreign entity file a form FC-GPR (now part of Single Entity Master Form) with the Reserve Bank of India. There has been some delay on the part of Do Mobile in complying with aforesaid filing of form FC-GPR within the stipulated timelines. Also, in terms of the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019, an Indian company receiving foreign direct investment must file an annual report titled ‘Foreign Liabilities and Assets' ("FLA") on or before July 15 of each year. Do Mobile has not filed its FLA for the financial year 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 with the Reserve Bank of India. While no penalties have been imposed on Do Mobile for the aforesaid non-compliances thus far; there cannot be any assurance that Reserve Bank of India will not impose any penalty on Do Mobile or will not take any penal action in relation aforesaid non-compliances. If any penalties or other penal measures are enforced, this could adversely affect our business and operations.

Do Mobile, being an Indian company, is required to comply with certain procedures with respect to its share capital. However, there have been some lapses on the part of Do Mobile with respect to its share capital. Procedural lapses include but are not limited to: a) Under the extant provisions of Companies Act, 2013, an Indian company cannot issue and allot shares in excess of its authorized share capital. The board of directors of Do Mobile at their meeting dated December 15, 2017 had approved and allotted 483,940 shares of Rs. 10 to Bridgetime. The authorized share capital of Do Mobile as on December 15, 2017 was Rs. 35,000,000. Whereas, on account of the aforesaid allotment the paid-up share capital of Do Mobile increased to Rs. 35,509,150, which was in excess of its then authorized share capital of Rs. 35,000,000. b) There have been certain inconsistencies regarding historical increases in authorized share capital of Do Mobile from Rs. 35,000,000 to Rs. 50,000,000. c) In terms of Section 89 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014, a person whose name is entered in the register of members of a company but who does not hold the beneficial interest in such shares must file a declaration to such effect with the company in the prescribed form. Further, every person holding beneficial interest in shares of a company must file with the company, a declaration disclosing such interest in the prescribed form. Such declarations are to be noted by the company in its register of members and make filings with the Registrar of Companies evidencing the same. Ms. Grover held 1 share of Do Mobile as a nominee of Bridgetime, parent company of Do Mobile, and her name was entered in the register of members. Thus, Ms. Grover had the registered ownership and Bridgetime Limited has beneficial ownership of said 1 share. No declaration with respect to registered and beneficial ownership of 1 share has been made by Ms. Grover and Bridgetime Limited respectively, nor has Do Mobile made any filing in this regard with the Registrar of Companies. Pursuant to Ms. Grover's resignation, the said share was transfer to Ms. Aayushi Gautam who is now its registered owner while Bridgetime Limited continues to the beneficial owner of the said share. A declaration with respect to the registered and beneficial ownership of this one share is yet to be made by Do Mobile with the Registrar of Companies. Do Mobile may be subject to regulatory action by the Registrar of Companies and Ministry of Corporate Affairs on account of the aforesaid non-compliances in relation to issuance of its share capital, thus exposing it to certain fines and penalties. Directors and key management of Do Mobile are also liable for such non-compliance and may be subjected to fines and penalties. In addition to the aforesaid, Do Mobile has not maintained its statutory registers and minutes of the meetings of the board of directors and shareholders as mandated under the extant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Do Mobile has also not been in compliance with regard to the holding of its board meetings at regular intervals as provided under the Companies Act, 2013 read with rules and regulations made thereunder. While no penalties have been imposed on Do Mobile for the aforesaid non-compliance thus far, Do Mobile cannot assure that any regulatory authorities will not impose any penalty on Do Mobile or will not take any penal action with respect to the aforesaid non-compliance. If any adverse actions are taken against Do Mobile, results of operations and profitability of Do Mobile could be adversely affected.

Sales of a substantial number of our ordinary shares in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our ordinary shares and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that sales may have on the prevailing market price of our ordinary shares. All of the ordinary shares owned by our directors, officers and existing shareholders are subject to lock-up agreements with the underwriters in our initial public offering that restrict the shareholders' ability to transfer our ordinary shares until after October 3, 2021. Substantially all of our outstanding ordinary shares will become eligible for unrestricted sale upon expiration of the lock-up period. In addition, ordinary shares issued or issuable upon exercise of options and warrants vested as of the expiration of the lock-up period will be eligible for sale at that time. Sales of ordinary shares by these shareholders could have a material adverse effect on the trading price of our ordinary shares.

The market price of the ordinary shares on Nasdaq may fluctuate after listing as a result of several factors, including the following: - volatility in the mobile telecommunications and IoT industry, both in China and internationally;- variations in our operating results;- risks relating to our business and industry, including those discussed above;- strategic actions by us or our competitors;- reputational damage from accidents or other adverse events related to our company or its operations;- investor perception of us, the technology sector in which we operate, the investment opportunity associated with the ordinary shares and our future performance;- addition or departure of our executive officers or directors;- changes in financial estimates or publication of research reports by analysts regarding our ordinary shares, other comparable companies or our industry generally;- trading volume of our ordinary shares;- future sales of our ordinary shares by us or our shareholders;- domestic and international economic, legal and regulatory factors unrelated to our performance; or - the release or expiration of lock-up or other transfer restrictions on our outstanding ordinary shares. Furthermore, the stock markets often experience significant price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many companies. These fluctuations often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. These broad market and industry fluctuations, as well as general economic, political and market conditions such as recessions or interest rate changes may cause the market price of ordinary shares to decline.

Under PRC laws, legal documents for corporate transactions are executed using the chops or seal of the signing entity or with the signature of a legal representative whose designation is registered and filed with the relevant branch of the Administration for Market Regulation. Although we usually utilize company seals to enter into contracts, the designated legal representatives of our PRC Subsidiary, VIE and UTime GZ have the apparent authority to enter into contracts on behalf of such entities without chops and bind such entities. All designated legal representatives of our PRC Subsidiary, VIE and UTime GZ are members of our senior management team who have signed employment agreements with us or our PRC Subsidiary, VIE and UTime GZ under which they agree to abide by various duties they owe to us. In order to maintain the physical security of our chops and chops of our PRC entities, we generally store these items in secured locations accessible only by the authorized personnel in the legal or finance department of PRC Subsidiary, VIE and UTime GZ. Although we monitor such authorized personnel, there is no assurance such procedures will prevent all instances of abuse or negligence. Accordingly, if any of our authorized personnel misuse or misappropriate our corporate chops or seals, we could encounter difficulties in maintaining control over the relevant entities and experience significant disruption to our operations. If a designated legal representative obtains control of the chops in an effort to obtain control over PRC Subsidiary, VIE and UTime GZ, we or our PRC Subsidiary, VIE and UTime GZ would need to pass a new shareholder or board resolution to designate a new legal representative and we would need to take legal action to seek the return of the chops with the relevant authorities, or otherwise seek legal redress for the violation of the representative's fiduciary duties to us, which could involve significant time and resources and divert management attention away from our regular business. In addition, the affected entity may not be able to recover corporate assets that are sold or transferred out of our control in the event of such a misappropriation if a transferee relies on the apparent authority of the representative and acts in good faith.

As of the date of this annual report, Mr. Bao and Mr. He hold 96.95% and 3.05% equity interest in UTime SZ, respectively. The shareholders of our VIE may have potential conflicts of interest with us. The shareholders may breach, or cause our VIE to breach, or refuse to renew, the existing contractual arrangements we have with them and our VIE, which would have a material and adverse effect on our ability to determine the most significant economic activities of the VIE and receive economic benefits from it. For example, the shareholders may be able to cause our agreements with our VIE to be performed in a manner adverse to us by, among other things, failing to remit payments due under the contractual arrangements to us on a timely basis. We cannot assure you that when conflicts of interest arise the shareholders will act in the best interests of our Company or such conflicts will be resolved in our favor. Currently, we do not have any arrangements to address potential conflicts of interest between the shareholders and our Company. If we cannot resolve any conflict of interest or dispute between us and the shareholders, 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. Currently, we do not have any arrangements to address potential conflicts of interest between these shareholders and our company, except that we could exercise our purchase option under the exclusive call option agreements with these shareholders to request them to transfer all of their equity interests in the VIE to a PRC entity or individual designated by us, to the extent permitted by PRC law. For Mr. Bao, who is our director and also a major shareholder of the VIE, we rely on him to abide by the laws of the Cayman Islands, which provide that directors and officers owe a fiduciary duty to the company that requires them to act in good faith and in what they believe to be the best interests of the company and not to use their position for personal gains. The shareholders of the VIE have executed powers of attorney to appoint our WFOE to vote on their behalf and exercise voting rights as shareholders of the VIE. If we cannot resolve any conflict of interest or dispute between us and the shareholders of the 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. The shareholders of our VIE may be involved in personal disputes with third parties or other incidents that may have an adverse effect on their equity interests in our VIE and the validity or enforceability of our contractual arrangements with our VIE and its shareholder. For example, in the event that one of the shareholders of our VIE divorces his spouse, the spouse may claim that the equity interest of our VIE held by such shareholder is part of their community property and should be divided between such shareholder and his spouse. If such claim is supported by the court, the relevant equity interest may be obtained by the shareholder's spouse or any third party who is not subject to obligations under our contractual arrangements, which could result in a loss of our major influence on the VIE. Similarly, if any of the equity interests of our VIE is inherited by a third party on whom the current contractual arrangements are not binding, we could lose our economic benefits over the VIE or have to incur unpredictable costs to maintain such economic benefits, which could cause significant disruption to our business and operations and harm our financial condition and results of operations. Although under our current contractual arrangements, each of the spouses of Mr. Bao and Mr. He have executed spousal consent letters, under which each of them agreed that she will not take any actions or raise any claims to interfere with the performance by her spouse of the obligations under these contractual arrangements, including claiming community property ownership on the equity interest, and renounce any and all right and interest related to the equity interest that she may be entitled to under applicable laws. We cannot assure you that these undertakings and arrangements will be complied with or effectively enforced. In the event that any of them is breached or becomes unenforceable and leads to legal proceedings, it could disrupt our business, distract our management's attention and subject us to substantial uncertainties as to the outcome of any such legal proceedings.

The HFCA Act, which was signed into law on December 18, 2020, states if the SEC determines that we have filed audit reports issued by a registered public accounting firm that has not been subject to inspection for the PCAOB for three consecutive years beginning in 2021, the SEC shall prohibit our shares from being traded on a national securities exchange or in the over-the-counter trading market in the United States. On December 2, 2021, the SEC adopted final amendments implementing the disclosure and submission requirements of the HFCA Act, pursuant to which the SEC will identify an issuer as a "Commission-Identified Issuer" if the issuer has filed an annual report containing an audit report issued by a registered public accounting firm that the PCAOB has determined it is unable to inspect or investigate completely, and will then impose a trading prohibition on an issuer after it is identified as a Commission-Identified Issuer for three consecutive years. On December 16, 2021, the PCAOB issued a report to notify the SEC of its determination that the PCAOB is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong. On August 26, 2022, the PCAOB announced that it had signed the Statement of Protocol with the CSRC and the MOFCOM. The terms of the Statement of Protocol would grant the PCAOB complete access to audit work papers and other information so that it may inspect and investigate PCAOB-registered accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong. According to the PCAOB, its December 2021 determinations under the HFCA ACT remain in effect. The PCAOB is required to reassess these determinations by the end of 2022. Under the PCAOB's rules, a reassessment of a determination under the HFCAA may result in the PCAOB reaffirming, modifying or vacating the determination. Our auditor Audit Alliance LLP. ("AA"), as an auditor of companies that are traded publicly in the United States and a firm registered with the PCAOB, is subject to laws in the United States pursuant to which the PCAOB conducts regular inspections to assess its compliance with the applicable professional standards. Our auditor is headquartered in Singapore, and is subject to inspection by the PCAOB on a regular basis. However, majority of the audit workpapers for our company and the VIE's operations are located in China, and the PCAOB is currently unable to conduct inspections in China without the approval of Chinese government authorities, but access to audit work and papers may be available in the near future, as a result of the Statement of Proposal. If the PCAOB does gain such access, there is no assurance that it may not later be determined that the PCAOB is unable to inspect or investigate our auditor completely, and investors may be deprived of the benefits of such inspection. Any audit reports not issued by auditors that are completely inspected by the PCAOB, or a lack of PCAOB inspections of audit work undertaken in China that prevents the PCAOB from regularly evaluating our auditor' audits and their quality control procedures, could result in a lack of assurance that our financial statements and disclosures are adequate and accurate, then such lack of inspection could cause our securities to be delisted from the stock exchange. Whether the PCAOB will be able to conduct inspections of our auditor before the issuance of our financial statements on the annual report on Form 20-F for the year ending March 31, 2024 which is due by July 31, 2024, or at all, is subject to substantial uncertainty and depends on a number of factors out of our and our auditor's control. If our shares are prohibited from trading in the United States, there is no certainty that we will be able to list on additional non-U.S. exchange to facilitate the trading in our securities. Such a prohibition would substantially impair your ability to sell or purchase our shares when you wish to do so, and the risk and uncertainty associated with delisting would have a negative impact on the price of our shares. Also, such a prohibition would significantly affect our ability to raise capital on terms acceptable to us, or at all, which would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and prospects. On June 22, 2021, the U.S. Senate passed a bill which would reduce the number of consecutive non-inspection years required for triggering the prohibitions under the HFCA Act from three years to two, and on December 29, 2022, a legislation entitled "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023" (the "Consolidated Appropriations Act") was signed into law by President Biden, which contained, among other things, an identical provision to Accelerating Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act and amended the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act by reducing the period of time for foreign companies to comply with PCAOB audits to two consecutive years, instead of three, thus reducing the time period before our securities may be prohibited from trading or delisted

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. The joint statement emphasized the risks associated with lack of access for the PCAOB to inspect auditors and audit work papers in China and higher risks of fraud in emerging markets. On May 18, 2020, Nasdaq filed three proposals with the SEC to (i) apply a minimum offering size requirement for companies primarily operating in a "Restrictive Market," (ii) adopt a new requirement relating to the qualification of management or the board of directors for Restrictive Market companies, and (iii) apply additional and more stringent criteria to an applicant or listed company based on the qualifications of the company's auditor. On October 4, 2021, the SEC approved Nasdaq's revised proposal for the rule changes. On May 20, 2020, the U.S. Senate passed the HFCA Act, requiring a foreign company to certify it is not owned or manipulated 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 auditor for three consecutive years, the issuer's securities are prohibited to trade on a national exchange or in the over-the-counter trading market in the United States. On December 2, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the HFCA Act. On December 18, 2020, the HFCA Act was signed into law. On June 4, 2020, the U.S. President issued a memorandum ordering the President's working group on financial markets, or the "PWG," to submit a report to the President within 60 days of the date of the memorandum that should include recommendations for actions that can be taken by the executive branch and by the SEC or PCAOB to enforce U.S. regulatory requirements on Chinese companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges and their audit firms. On August 6, 2020, the PWG released a report recommending that the SEC take steps to implement the five recommendations outlined in the report. In particular, to address companies from jurisdictions that do not provide the PCAOB with sufficient access to fulfill its statutory mandate, or "NCJs", the PWG recommends enhanced listing standards on U.S. stock exchanges. This would require, as a condition to initial and continued exchange listing, PCAOB access to work papers of the principal audit firm for the audit of the listed company. Companies unable to satisfy this standard as a result of governmental restrictions on access to audit work papers and practices in NCJs may satisfy this standard by providing a co-audit from an audit firm with comparable resources and experience where the PCAOB determines it has sufficient access to audit work papers and practices to conduct an appropriate inspection of the co-audit firm. The report permits the new listing standards to provide for a transition period until January 1, 2022 for listed companies, but would apply immediately to new listings once the necessary rulemakings and/or standard-setting are effective. On August 10, 2020, the SEC announced that SEC Chairman had directed the SEC staff to prepare proposals in response to the PWG Report, and that the SEC was soliciting public comments and information with respect to these proposals. If we are listed on Nasdaq and fail to meet the new listing standards before the deadline specified thereunder due to factors beyond our control, we could face possible de-listing from the Nasdaq Capital Market, deregistration from the SEC, and/or other risks, which may materially and adversely affect, or effectively terminate, the trading of our Ordinary Shares in the United States. The HFCA Act requires certain issuers of securities to establish that they are not owned or controlled by a foreign government. Specifically, an issuer must make this certification if the PCAOB is unable to audit specified reports because the issuer has retained a foreign public accounting firm not subject to inspection by the PCAOB. Furthermore, if the PCAOB is unable to inspect the issuer's public accounting firm for three consecutive years, the issuer's securities are banned from trade on a national exchange or in the over-the-counter trading market in the United States or through other methods. On March 24, 2021, the SEC announced that it had adopted interim final amendments to implement congressionally mandated submission and disclosure requirements of the HFCA Act. The interim final amendments will apply to registrants that the SEC identifies as having filed an annual report on Forms 10-K, 20-F, 40-F or N-CSR with an audit report issued by a registered public accounting firm that is located in a foreign jurisdiction and that the PCAOB has determined it is unable to inspect or investigate completely because of a position taken by an authority in that jurisdiction. The SEC will implement a process for identifying such a registrant and any such identified registrant will be required to submit documentation to the SEC establishing that it is not owned or controlled by a governmental entity in that foreign jurisdiction, and will also require disclosure in the registrant's annual report regarding the audit arrangements of, and governmental influence on, such a registrant. On June 22, 2021, the U.S. Senate passed the Accelerating HFCA Act, which, if passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and signed into law, would decrease the number of non-inspection years for foreign companies to comply with PCAOB audits from three to two, thus reducing the time period before their securities may be prohibited from trading or delisted. On September 22, 2021, the PCAOB adopted a final rule implementing the HFCA Act, which provides a framework for the PCAOB to use when determining, as contemplated under the HFCA Act, whether the PCAOB is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms located in a foreign jurisdiction because of a position taken by one or more authorities in that jurisdiction. On November 5, 2021, the SEC approved the PCAOB's Rule 6100, Board Determinations Under the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act. Rule 6100 provides a framework for the PCAOB to use when determining, as contemplated under the HFCA Act, whether it is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms located in a foreign jurisdiction because of a position taken by one or more authorities in that jurisdiction. On December 2, 2021, the SEC issued amendments to finalize rules implementing the submission and disclosure requirements in the HFCA Act, which became effective on January 10, 2022. The rules apply to registrants that the SEC identifies as having filed an annual report with an audit report issued by a registered public accounting firm that is located in a foreign jurisdiction and that PCAOB is unable to inspect or investigate completely because of a position taken by an authority in foreign jurisdictions. On December 16, 2021, the PCAOB issued a report on its determinations that it is unable to inspect or investigate completely PCAOB-registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and in Hong Kong because of positions taken by mainland China and Hong Kong authorities in those jurisdictions. The PCAOB has made such designations as mandated under the HFCA Act. Pursuant to each annual determination by the PCAOB, the SEC will, on an annual basis, identify issuers that have used non-inspected audit firms and thus are at risk of such suspensions in the future. As of the date of this annual report, our auditor is not subject to the determinations announced by the PCAOB on December 16, 2021. On August 26, 2022, the PCAOB signed the Statement of Protocol (SOP) Agreements with the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) and China's Ministry of Finance. The SOP, together with two protocol agreements governing inspections and investigations (together, the "SOP Agreements"), establish a specific, accountable framework to make possible complete inspections and investigations by the PCAOB of audit firms based in mainland China and Hong Kong, as required under U.S. law. On December 15, 2022, the PCAOB Board determined that the PCAOB was able to secure complete access to inspect and investigate registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong and voted to vacate its previous determinations to the contrary. However, should PRC authorities obstruct or otherwise fail to facilitate the PCAOB's access in the future, the PCAOB Board will consider the need to issue a new determination. On December 23, 2022, the Accelerating HFCA Act was signed into law, which amended the HFCA Act by requiring the SEC to prohibit an issuer's securities from trading on any U.S. stock exchanges if its auditor is not subject to PCAOB inspections for two consecutive years instead of three. On December 29, 2022, the Consolidated Appropriations Act was signed into law by President Biden. The Consolidated Appropriations Act contained, among other things, an identical provision to Accelerating HFCA Act, which reduces the number of consecutive non-inspection years required for triggering the prohibitions under the HFCA Act from three years to two. The SEC may propose additional rules or guidance that could impact us if our auditor is not subject to PCAOB inspection in the future. It remains unclear what the SEC's implementation process related to the above rules will entail or what further actions the SEC, the PCAOB or Nasdaq will take to address these issues and what impact those actions will have on the companies that have significant operations in the PRC and have securities listed on a U.S. stock exchange (including a national securities exchange or over-the-counter stock market). In addition, the above amendments and any additional actions, proceedings, or new rules resulting from these efforts to increase U.S. regulatory access to audit information could create some uncertainty for investors, the market price of our Class A Ordinary Shares could be adversely affected, and we could be delisted if we and our auditor are unable to meet the PCAOB inspection requirement or being required to engage a new audit firm, which would require significant expense and management time. Furthermore, new laws and regulations or changes in laws and regulations in both the United States and China could affect our ability to list our securities on the Nasdaq Capital Market, which could materially impair the market for and the market price of our securities.

We refer to the shareholders of our VIE as its nominee shareholders because although they remain the holders of equity interests on record in our VIE, pursuant to the terms of the relevant power of attorney, such shareholders have irrevocably authorized our WFOE or any individual duly appointed by WFOE to exercise their rights as a shareholder of the relevant VIE. However, if our VIE or its shareholders fail to perform their respective obligations under the contractual arrangements, we may have to 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, will be effective under PRC law. For example, if the shareholders of our VIE refuse to transfer their equity interest in our VIE to us or our designee if we exercise the purchase option pursuant to these contractual arrangements, or if they otherwise act in bad faith toward us, then we may have to take legal actions to compel them to perform their contractual obligations.

Provisions in our amended and restated memorandum and articles of association may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control that shareholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which shareholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. In addition, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempt by our shareholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult to replace or remove our board of directors. Such provisions may reduce the price that investors may be willing to pay for our ordinary shares in the future, which could reduce the market price of our ordinary shares. These provisions include: - a prohibition on shareholder action through written consent;- a requirement that extraordinary general meetings of shareholders be called only by a majority of the board of directors or, in limited circumstances, by the board upon shareholder requisition;- an advance notice requirement for shareholder proposals and nominations to be brought before an annual general meeting;- the authority of our board of directors to issue preference shares with such terms as our board of directors may determine; and - a requirement of approval of not less than two-thirds of the votes cast by shareholders entitled to vote thereon in order to amend any provisions of our amended and restated memorandum and articles of association.

We are a Cayman Islands exempted company with limited liability and substantially all of our assets will be located outside the United States. In addition, most of our directors and officers are nationals or residents of jurisdictions other than the United States and all or a substantial portion of their assets are located outside the United States. As a result, it may be difficult for investors to effect service of process within the United States upon us or our directors or executive officers, or enforce judgments obtained in the United States courts against us or our directors or officers. Further, mail addressed to us and received at our registered office will be forwarded unopened to the forwarding address supplied by our directors. Our directors will only receive, open or deal directly with mail which is addressed to them personally (as opposed to mail which is only addressed to us). We, our directors, officers, advisors or service providers (including the organization which provides registered office services in the Cayman Islands) will not bear any responsibility for any delay, howsoever caused, in mail reaching this forwarding address. Our corporate affairs are governed by our amended and restated memorandum and articles of association, the Companies Act (As Revised) (as the same may be supplemented or amended from time to time) 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 responsibilities 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 judicial precedent in the Cayman Islands as well as from English common law, the decisions of whose courts are of persuasive authority, but are not technically binding on a court in the Cayman Islands. The rights of our shareholders and the fiduciary responsibilities 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 exhaustive body of securities laws as compared to the United States, and certain states, such as Delaware, have more fulsome and judicially interpreted bodies of corporate law. As a result, there may be significantly less protection for investors than is available to investors in companies organized in the United States, particularly Delaware. In addition, Cayman Islands companies may not have standing to initiate a shareholders' derivative action in a Federal court of the United States. The Cayman Islands courts are also unlikely: - to recognize or enforce against us judgments of courts of the United States based on the civil liability provisions of United States securities laws; and - to impose liabilities against us, in original actions brought in the Cayman Islands, based on the civil liability provisions of United States securities laws that impose liabilities that are penal in nature. In those circumstances, although there is no statutory enforcement in the Cayman Islands of judgments obtained in the United States, the courts of the Cayman Islands will recognize and enforce a foreign money judgment of a foreign court of competent jurisdiction without retrial on the merits based on the principle that a judgment of a competent foreign court imposes upon the judgment debtor an obligation to pay the sum for which judgment has been given provided certain conditions are met. For a foreign judgment to be enforced in the Cayman Islands, such judgment must be final and conclusive and for a liquidated sum, and must not be in respect of taxes or a fine or penalty, inconsistent with a Cayman Islands judgment in respect of the same matter, impeachable on the grounds of fraud or obtained in a manner, and or be of a kind the enforcement of which is, contrary to natural justice or the public policy of the Cayman Islands (awards of punitive or multiple damages may well be held to be contrary to public policy). A Cayman Islands Court may stay enforcement proceedings if concurrent proceedings are being brought elsewhere. Like many jurisdictions in the United States, in certain circumstances Cayman Islands law permits mergers and consolidations between Cayman Islands companies and between Cayman Islands companies and non-Cayman Islands companies (provided that is facilitated by the laws of that other jurisdiction) and any such company may be the surviving entity for the purposes of mergers or the consolidated company for the purposes of consolidations. For these purposes, (a) "merger" means the merging of two or more constituent companies and the vesting of their undertaking, property and liabilities in one of such companies as the surviving company and (b) a "consolidation" means the combination of two or more constituent companies into a consolidated company and the vesting of the undertaking, property and liabilities of such companies to the consolidated company. In order to effect such a merger or consolidation, the directors of each constituent company must approve a written plan of merger or consolidation, which must, in most instances, then be authorized by a special resolution (usually a majority of 66 2/3% in value) of the shareholders of each constituent company and such other authorization, if any, as may be specified in such constituent company's articles of association. A merger between a Cayman parent company and its Cayman subsidiary or subsidiaries does not require authorization by a resolution of shareholders provided a copy of the plan of merger is given to every member of each subsidiary company to be merged (unless waived by such member). For this purpose a subsidiary is a company of which at least 90% of the votes cast at its general meeting are held by the parent company. The consent of each holder of a fixed or floating security interest over a constituent company is required unless this requirement is waived by a court in the Cayman Islands. The plan of merger or consolidation must be filed with the Registrar of Companies who, if satisfied that the requirements of the Companies Act (As Revised) which includes certain other formalities, have been complied with, will register it. The filing must include a declaration as to the solvency of the consolidated or surviving company, a list of the assets and liabilities of each constituent company and an undertaking that a copy of the certificate of merger or consolidation will be given to the members and creditors of each constituent company and published in the Cayman Islands Gazette. Dissenting shareholders have the right to be paid the fair value of their shares (which, if not agreed between the parties, will be determined by the Cayman Islands court) if they follow the required procedures, subject to certain exceptions. Court approval is not required for a merger or consolidation which is effected in compliance with these statutory procedures. In addition, there are statutory provisions that facilitate the reconstruction and amalgamation of companies in certain circumstances, provided that the arrangement is approved by a majority in number of each class of shareholders and creditors with whom the arrangement is to be made, and who must in addition represent two-thirds in value of each such class of shareholders or creditors, as the case may be, that are present and voting either in person or by proxy at a meeting, or meetings, convened for that purpose. The convening of the meetings and subsequently the arrangement must be sanctioned by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. While a dissenting shareholder has the right to express to the court the view that the transaction ought not be approved, the court can be expected to approve the arrangement if it determines that: - the company is not proposing to act illegally or beyond the scope of its corporate authority and the statutory provisions as to the required majority vote have been met;- the shareholders have been fairly represented at the meeting in question, the statutory majority are acting bona fide without coercion of the minority to promote interests adverse to those of the class and that the meeting was properly constituted;- the arrangement is such that it may reasonably be approved by an intelligent and honest man of that share class acting in respect of his interest; and - the arrangement is not one which would be more properly sanctioned under some other provision of the Companies Act, or that would amount to "fraud on the minority." If the arrangement and reconstruction is approved, the dissenting shareholder would have no rights comparable to appraisal rights, which would otherwise ordinarily be available to dissenting shareholders of U.S. corporations, providing rights to receive payment in cash for the judicially determined value of the shares. In addition, there are further statutory provisions to the effect that, when a take-over offer is made and approved by holders of 90.0% in value of the shares affected (within four months after the making of the offer), the offeror may, within two months following the expiry of such period, require the holders of the remaining shares to transfer such shares on the terms of the offer. An objection can be made to the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, but this is unlikely to succeed unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith, collusion or inequitable treatment of shareholders. Further, transactions similar to a merger, reconstruction and/or an amalgamation may in some circumstances be achieved through other means to these statutory provisions, such as a share capital exchange, asset acquisition or control, through contractual arrangements, of an operating business. 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 U.S. company.

We are a "controlled company" as defined under Nasdaq's Rules because Mr. Bao holds more than 50% of our voting power, and we continue to be a controlled company upon 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 may rely, on certain exemptions from the obligation to comply with certain corporate governance requirements, including: - the requirement that our directors must be selected or recommended solely by independent directors; and - the requirement that we have a corporate governance and nominating committee that is composed entirely of independent directors with a written charter addressing the committee's purpose and responsibilities. As a result, you will not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NASDAQ Stock Market Rules, if we utilize such exemptions. We currently do not intend to utilize the controlled company exemptions. To the extent we cease to qualify as a controlled company, we will no longer be able to rely on any of these exemptions.