Lion Group Holding (LGHL) Risk Analysis

As of the date of this annual report, Jian Wang, our chairman of the board and Chunning Wang, our chief executive officer collectively hold approximately 86.91% of our voting power total issued and outstanding share capital. As a result, we are considered as a "controlled company" within the meaning of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC listing rules. Under these rules, a listed company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, group, or another company is a "controlled company" and will be permitted to elect to not comply with certain corporate governance requirements, including the requirement that a majority of the board of directors consist of independent directors, the requirement that the nominating and corporate governance committee is composed entirely of independent directors, and the requirement that the compensation committee is composed entirely of independent directors. We currently do not intend to rely on exemptions available to us.

We are an "emerging growth company," as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the "JOBS Act"). We expect to remain an "emerging growth company" until December 31, 2024. As an emerging growth company, we are not required to comply with, among other things, the auditor attestation requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Further, the JOBS Act exempts emerging growth companies from being required to comply with new or revised financial accounting standards until private companies are required to comply with the new or revised financial accounting standards. The JOBS Act provides that a company can elect to opt-out of the extended transition period and comply with the requirements that apply to non-emerging growth companies but any such an election to opt-out is irrevocable. We have elected not to opt-out of such extended transition period, which means that when a standard is issued or revised and it has different application dates for public or private companies, we, as an emerging growth company, may not adopt the new or revised standard until the time private companies are required to adopt the new or revised standard. This may make comparison of our financial statements with other public companies difficult or impossible because of the potential differences in accountant standards used. Investors may find our securities less attractive because we rely on these provisions. If investors find our securities less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our securities and prices of the securities may be more volatile. If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our securities. Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. Any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or any subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that may require prospective or retroactive changes in our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. In addition, for as long as we are an "emerging growth company," our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management's assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to restatements of our financial statements and require us to incur the expense of remediation. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our securities. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB") inspection of our independent accounting firm could lead to findings in our auditors' reports and challenge the accuracy of our published audited consolidated financial statements. Auditors of U.S. public companies are required by law to undergo periodic PCAOB inspections that assess their compliance with U.S. law and professional standards in connection with performance of audits of financial statements filed with the SEC. These PCAOB inspections could result in findings in our auditors' quality control procedures, question the validity of the auditor's reports on our published consolidated financial statements and cast doubt upon the accuracy of our published audited financial statements.

Our currently effective Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association contain provisions that may discourage unsolicited takeover proposals that our shareholders may consider to be in their best interests. Among other provisions, the ability of our board of directors to issue preferred shares with preferences and voting rights determined by the board without shareholder approval may make it more difficult for our shareholders to remove incumbent management and accordingly discourage transactions that otherwise could involve payment of a premium over prevailing market prices for our securities. Moreover, our board of directors is divided into two classes, namely Class I and Class II. Class I consist of four directors, and Class II consist of four directors. Directors assigned to Class I shall initially serve until the first annual general meeting of shareholders following the effectiveness of our Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association, or the Articles Effectiveness Date. Directors assigned to Class II shall initially serve until the second annual general meeting of shareholders following the Articles Effectiveness Date. In 2021, we re-elected Class I directors. Furthermore, our ordinary shares consist of Class A Ordinary Shares and Class B Ordinary Shares. In respect of matters requiring the votes of shareholders, holders of Class A Ordinary Shares will be entitled to one vote per share, while holders of Class B Ordinary Shares will be entitled to one hundred votes per share. Each Class B Ordinary Share is convertible into one Class A Ordinary Share at any time by the holder thereof, while Class A Ordinary Shares are not convertible into Class B Ordinary Shares under any circumstances. Upon any sale of Class B Ordinary Shares by a holder thereof to any person other than an affiliate of such holder, such Class B Ordinary Shares shall be automatically and immediately converted into the same number of Class A Ordinary Shares. Due to the disparate voting powers associated with our dual-class share structure, as of the date of this annual report, the Class B Ordinary Shares constitute 20.89% of our total issued and outstanding share capital, and 86.84% of the aggregate voting power of and total issued and outstanding share capital. Other anti-takeover provisions in our Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association include the indemnification of our officers and directors, the requirement that directors may only be removed from our board of directors for cause and the requirement for a special resolution to amend provisions therein that affect shareholder rights. These provisions could also make it difficult for our shareholders to take certain actions and limit the price investors might be willing to pay for our securities.

Our corporate affairs is governed by our Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association, the Companies Act, and the common law of the Cayman Islands. The rights of shareholders to take action against the directors, actions by non-controlling shareholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors to us 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 English common law, which has persuasive, but not binding, authority on a court in the Cayman Islands. Your rights as a shareholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors under Cayman Islands law are different from under statutes or judicial precedent in some jurisdictions in the United States. In particular, the Cayman Islands has a different body of securities laws from the United States and may provide significantly less protection to investors. We have been advised by our Cayman Islands legal counsel, Ogier, that the courts of the Cayman Islands are unlikely (i) to recognize or enforce against us judgments of courts of the United States predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States or any State and (ii) in original actions brought in the Cayman Islands, to impose liabilities against us predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States or any State, so far as the liabilities imposed by those provisions are penal in nature. Subject to the foregoing, 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, given by a court of competent jurisdiction (The courts of the Cayman Islands will apply the rules of Cayman Islands private international law to determine whether the foreign court is a court of competent jurisdiction), 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.

The price of our ADSs may due to a variety of factors, including but not limited to: - actual or anticipated fluctuations in our semi-annual and annual results and those of other public companies in the industry;- changes in government regulation;- mergers and strategic alliances in the financial services industry;- market prices and conditions in the financial services market;- announcements concerning us or our competitors; and - the general state of the securities markets. These market and industry factors may materially reduce the market price of our ADSs, regardless of our operating performance. Volatility in the price of our ADSs may increase volatility in the price of our warrants.

The deposit agreement governing the ADSs representing our Class A Ordinary Shares provides that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, ADS holders waive the right to a jury trial of any claim that they may have against us or the depositary arising out of or relating to our ordinary shares, our ADSs or the deposit agreement, including any claim under the U.S. federal securities laws. If we or the depositary opposed a jury trial demand based on the waiver, the court would determine whether the waiver was enforceable based on the facts and circumstances of that case in accordance with the applicable state and federal law. To our knowledge, the enforceability of a contractual pre-dispute jury trial waiver in connection with claims arising under the federal securities laws has not been finally adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court. However, we believe that a contractual pre-dispute jury trial waiver provision is generally enforceable, including 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 contractual pre-dispute jury trial waiver provision, courts will generally consider whether a party knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to a jury trial. We believe that this is the case with respect to the deposit agreement and our ADSs. It is advisable that you consult legal counsel regarding the jury waiver provision before entering into the deposit agreement. If you or any other holders or beneficial owners of ADSs bring a claim against us or the depositary in connection with matters arising under the deposit agreement or our 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 or the depositary. If a lawsuit is brought against us 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. Nevertheless, if this jury trial waiver provision is not permitted by applicable law, an action could proceed under the terms of the deposit agreement with a jury trial. 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 substantive provision of the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

We and the depository are entitled to amend the deposit agreement and to change the rights of the ADS holders under the terms of such agreement, without the prior consent of the ADS holders. We and the depositary may agree to amend the deposit agreement in any way we decide is necessary or advantageous to us. Amendments may reflect, among other things, operational changes in the ADS program, legal developments affecting ADSs or changes in the terms of our business relationship with the depositary. In the event that the terms of an amendment are disadvantageous to ADS holders, ADS holders will only receive 30 days' advance notice of the amendment, and no prior consent of the ADS holders is required under the deposit agreement. Furthermore, we may decide to terminate the ADS facility at any time for any reason. For example, terminations may occur when we decide to list our ordinary shares on a non-U.S. securities exchange and determine not to continue to sponsor an ADS facility or when we become the subject of a takeover or a going-private transaction. If the ADS facility will terminate, ADS holders will receive at least 90 days' prior notice, but no prior consent is required from them. Under the circumstances that we decide to make an amendment to the deposit agreement that is disadvantageous to ADS holders or terminate the deposit agreement, the ADS holders may choose to sell their ADSs or surrender their ADSs and become direct holders of the underlying Class A Ordinary Shares, but will have no right to any compensation whatsoever.

A holder of our ADSs may only exercise the voting rights with respect to the underlying Class A Ordinary Shares in accordance with the provisions of the deposit agreement. Upon receipt of voting instructions of a holder of ADSs in the manner set forth in the deposit agreement, the depositary will endeavor to vote the underlying Class A Ordinary Shares in accordance with these instructions. When a general meeting is convened, holders of ADSs may not receive sufficient notice of a shareholders' meeting to permit them to withdraw the Class A Ordinary Shares underlying the ADSs to allow them to cast their votes with respect to any specific matter. In addition, the depositary and its agents may not be able to send voting instructions to holders of ADSs or carry out their voting instructions in a timely manner. We will make all reasonable efforts to cause the depositary to extend voting rights to ADSs holders in a timely manner, but we cannot assure such holders that they will receive the voting materials in time to ensure that they can instruct the depositary to vote their shares. Furthermore, the depositary will not vote on any matter for which voting is conducted on a show of hands basis in accordance with our Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association and will not have an obligation to demand voting on a poll basis. 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, holders of ADSs may not be able to exercise their right to vote and may lack recourse if their equity shares are not voted as requested.

Except as described in this annual report and in the deposit agreement, holders of our ADSs will not be able to exercise voting rights attaching to the underlying Class A Ordinary Shares evidenced by the ADSs on an individual basis. Under the deposit agreement, holders of ADSs must vote by giving voting instructions to the depositary, including instructions to give a discretionary proxy to a person designated by us. Upon receipt of such holder's voting instructions, the depositary will vote the underlying Class A Ordinary Shares in accordance with these instructions. ADSs holders will not be able to directly exercise their right to vote with respect to the underlying Class A Ordinary Shares unless they withdraw the underlying Class A Ordinary Shares. Holders of ADSs may not receive voting materials in time to instruct the depositary to vote, and it is possible that holders of ADSs, or persons who hold their ADSs through brokers, dealers or other third parties, will not have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.

We may issue additional Class A Ordinary Shares or other equity securities of equal or senior rank in the future in connection with, among other things, future acquisitions, repayment of outstanding indebtedness or our equity incentive plan, without shareholder approval, in a number of circumstances. Our issuance of additional Class A Ordinary Shares or other equity securities of equal or senior rank would have the following effects: - our existing shareholders' proportionate ownership interest and your holdings of ADSs in us will decrease;- the amount of cash available per share, including for payment of dividends in the future, may decrease;- the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding ordinary shares may be diminished; and - the market price of our ADSs may decline.

The depositary of the ADSs has agreed to pay ADSs holders the cash dividends or other distributions it or the custodian for the ADSs receives on our Class A Ordinary Shares or other deposited securities after deducting its fees and expenses in accordance with the deposit agreement. ADSs holders will receive these distributions in proportion to the number of the underlying Class A Ordinary Shares that their ADSs represent. However, the depositary is not responsible if it is unlawful or impracticable to make a distribution available to any ADSs holders. For example, it would be unlawful to make a distribution to a ADSs holder if it consists of securities that require registration under the Securities Act but such securities are not properly registered or distributed pursuant to an applicable exemption from registration. The depositary is not responsible for making a distribution available to any ADSs holders if any government approval or registration is required for such distribution. We have no obligation to take any other action to permit the distribution of our ADSs, equity shares, rights or anything else to ADSs holders. This means that holders of our ADSs might not receive the distributions that we make on our Class A Ordinary Shares or any value for them at all if it is unlawful or impracticable for us to make them available to ADS holders.

ADSs are transferable on the books of the depositary. However, the depositary may close its transfer books at any time or from time to time when it deems necessary in connection with the performance of its duties. The depositary may close its books from time to time for a number of reasons, including in connection with corporate events such as a rights offering, during which time the depositary needs to maintain an exact number of ADS holders on its books for a specified period. The depositary may also close its books in emergencies, and on weekends and public holidays. In addition, the depositary may refuse to deliver, transfer or register transfers of ADSs generally when our books or the books of the depositary are closed, or at any time if we or the depositary deems it advisable to do so because of any requirement of law or of any government or governmental body, or under any provision of the deposit agreement.

The Warrants do not confer any rights of common share ownership on their holders, such as voting rights or the right to receive dividends, but rather merely represent the right to acquire common shares at a fixed price.

On February 10, 2023, the Company received a written notification from the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC ("Nasdaq"), notifying the Company that it is not in compliance with the minimum bid price requirement set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rules for continued listing on the Nasdaq. Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) requires listed securities to maintain a minimum bid price of US$1.00 per American Depositary Share, and Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A) provides that a failure to meet the minimum bid price requirement exists if the deficiency continues for a period of 30 consecutive business days. In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), the Company has been provided 180 calendar days, or until August 9, 2023, to regain compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(a)(2). To regain compliance, the closing bid price of our ordinary shares must meet or exceed $1.00 per share for a minimum of ten consecutive business days during this 180-day period. Our American Depositary Shares will continue to be listed and traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market, subject to our compliance with the other listing requirements of the Nasdaq Capital Market. Although we will use all reasonable efforts to achieve compliance with Rule 5550(a)(2), there can be no assurance that we will be able to regain compliance with that rule or will otherwise be in compliance with other Nasdaq listing criteria. The delisting of our American Depositary Shares, or the threat of their being delisted, may materially and adversely affect the value of your investment, even making it worthless.

The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, or the HFCA Act, was enacted into U.S. law on December 18, 2020. The HFCA Act states that if the SEC determines that a company has filed audit reports issued by a registered public accounting firm that has not been subject to inspection by the PCAOB for three consecutive years beginning in 2021, the SEC shall prohibit its securities from being traded on a national securities exchange or in the over-the-counter trading market in the U.S. On December 16, 2021, the PCAOB issued a Determination Report which found that the PCAOB is unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms headquartered in: (i) China, and (ii) Hong Kong. On December 2, 2021, the SEC adopted final amendments implementing congressionally mandated submission and disclosure requirements of the HFCA Act. On December 23, 2022 the AHFCA Act was enacted, 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 23, 2022 the AHFCA Act was enacted, 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, a legislation entitled the Consolidated Appropriations Act, was signed into law by President Biden. The Consolidated Appropriations Act contained, among other things, an identical provision to AHFCA Act, which reduces the number of consecutive non-inspection years required for triggering the prohibitions under the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act from three years to two. Whether the PCAOB will continue to be able to satisfactorily conduct inspections of PCAOB-registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong is subject to uncertainty and depends on a number of factors out of our, and our auditor's, control. The PCAOB is continuing to demand complete access in mainland China and Hong Kong moving forward and is already making plans to resume regular inspections in early 2023 and beyond, as well as to continue pursuing ongoing investigations and initiate new investigations as needed. The PCAOB has indicated that it will act immediately to consider the need to issue new determinations with the HFCA Act if needed, without having to wait another year to reassess its determinations. In the future, if there is any regulatory change or step taken by PRC regulators that does not permit our auditor to provide audit documentations located in China or Hong Kong to the PCAOB for inspection or investigation, or the PCAOB expands the scope of the determination so that we are subject to the HFCA Act, as the same may be amended, you may be deprived of the benefits of such inspection which could result in limitation or restriction to our access to the U.S. capital markets and trading of our securities, including trading on the national exchange and trading on "over-the-counter" markets, may be prohibited under the HFCA Act. The management of Company believes that this determination does not impact the Company, as the auditor of the Company, UHY LLP, (i) is headquartered in New York, U.S., (ii) is an independent registered public accounting firm with the PCAOB, and (iii) has been inspected by the PCAOB on a regular basis. Nonetheless, there can be no assurance that future changes in laws or regulations will not impact the Company, UHY LLP or any future auditor of the Company. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that UHY LLP will be able to meet the requirements of the HFCA Act and that the Company will not suffer the resulting material and adverse impact on its stock performance, as a company listed in the United States. Lack of access to PCAOB inspections prevents the PCAOB from fully evaluating audits and quality control procedures of the accounting firms headquartered in mainland China or Hong Kong. As a result, investors in companies using such auditors may be deprived of the benefits of such PCAOB inspections. On August 26, 2022, the CSRC, the Ministry of Finance of the PRC, and PCAOB signed a Statement of Protocol, or the Protocol, governing inspections and investigations of audit firms based in China and Hong Kong. Pursuant to the Protocol, the PCAOB has independent discretion to select any issuer audits for inspection or investigation and has the unfettered ability to transfer information to the SEC. However, uncertainties still exist whether this new framework will be fully complied with. On December 15, 2022, the PCAOB announced that it was able to secure complete access to inspect and investigate PCAOB-registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong in 2022, and the PCAOB board vacated its previous determinations that the PCAOB was unable to inspect or investigate completely registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong. However, whether the PCAOB will continue to be able to satisfactorily conduct inspections of PCAOB-registered public accounting firms headquartered in mainland China and Hong Kong is subject to uncertainty and depends on a number of factors out of our, and our auditor's, control. The PCAOB is continuing to demand complete access in mainland China and Hong Kong moving forward and is already making plans to resume regular inspections in early 2023 and beyond, as well as to continue pursuing ongoing investigations and initiate new investigations as needed. The PCAOB has indicated that it will act immediately to consider the need to issue new determinations with the HFCA Act if needed. UHY LLP is not included in the list of determinations announced by the PCAOB on December 21, 2021 in their HFCA Act Determination Report under PCAOB Rule 6100. If notwithstanding this new framework, the PCAOB was unable to fully inspect UHY LLP (or any other auditor of the Company) in the future, or if PRC or American authorities further regulate auditing work of Chinese or Hong Kong companies listed on the U.S. stock exchanges in a manner that would restrict UHY LLP (or any future auditor of the Company) from performing work in Hong Kong, the Company may be required to change its auditor. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that the SEC, Nasdaq, or other regulatory authorities would not apply additional and more stringent criteria to the Company in connection with audit procedures and quality control procedures, adequacy of personnel and training, or sufficiency of resources, geographic reach or experience as it relates to the audit of the Company's financial statements. The failure to comply with the requirement in the HFCA Act, as amended by the AHFCA Act, that the PCAOB be permitted to inspect the issuer's public accounting firm within two years, would subject us to consequences including the delisting of our Company in the future if the PCAOB is unable to inspect the Company's accounting firm (whether UHY LLP or another firm) at such future time.

Currently, one director is based in mainland China, and all or a substantial portion of their respective assets may be located outside the United States. As a result, it may be difficult for U.S. investors to effect service of process within the United States upon these persons. It may also be difficult for U.S. investors to enforce within the United States judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States or any state thereof. In addition, there is uncertainty as to whether the courts in China would recognize or enforce judgments of U.S. courts obtained against these directors and officers predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States or any state thereof. Therefore, it may be difficult to enforce U.S. judgments against these directors and officers. We have been advised by our PRC legal counsel, JunHe LLP, according to its interpretation of the currently in-effect PRC laws and regulations, that it is uncertain (i) whether and on what basis a PRC court would enforce judgment rendered by a court in the United States based upon the civil liability provisions of U.S. federal securities laws; and (ii) whether an investor will be able to bring an original action in a PRC court based on U.S. federal securities laws. As such, you may not be able to or may experience difficulties or incur additional costs in order to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts based upon the civil liability provisions of U.S. federal securities laws in mainland China or bring original actions in mainland China based on U.S. federal securities laws. Currently, four of the directors are based in Hong Kong. A judgment of a court in the United States predicated upon U.S. federal or state securities laws may be enforced in Hong Kong at common law by bringing an action in a Hong Kong court on that judgment for the amount due thereunder, and then seeking summary judgment on the strength of the foreign judgment, provided that the foreign judgment, among other things, is (1) for a debt or a definite sum of money (not being taxes or similar charges to a foreign government taxing authority or a fine or other penalty) and (2) final and conclusive on the merits of the claim, but not otherwise. Such a judgment may not, in any event, be so enforced in Hong Kong if (a) it was obtained by fraud; (b) the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained were opposed to natural justice; (c) its enforcement or recognition would be contrary to the public policy of Hong Kong; (d) the court of the United States was not jurisdictionally competent; or (e) the judgment was in conflict with a prior Hong Kong judgment. Hong Kong has no arrangement for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments with the United States. As a result, there is uncertainty as to the enforceability in Hong Kong, in original actions or in actions for enforcement, of judgments of United States courts of civil liabilities predicated solely upon the federal securities laws of the United States or the securities laws of any State or territory within the United States. As a result of all 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.