Yunji (YJ) Risk Analysis

S&P Dow Jones and FTSE Russell have previously announced changes to their eligibility criteria for inclusion of shares of public companies on certain indices, including the S&P 500, to exclude companies with multiple classes of shares and companies whose public shareholders hold no more than 5% of total voting power from being added to such indices. In addition, several shareholder advisory firms have announced their opposition to the use of multiple class structures. As a result, the dual class structure of our ordinary shares may prevent the inclusion of the ADSs representing our Class A ordinary shares in such indices and may cause shareholder advisory firms to publish negative commentary about our corporate governance practices or otherwise seek to cause us to change our capital structure. Any such exclusion from indices could result in a less active trading market for the ADSs representing our Class A ordinary shares. Any actions or publications by shareholder advisory firms critical of our corporate governance practices or capital structure could also adversely affect the value of the ADSs.

We have a dual-class ordinary share structure. Our ordinary shares will be divided into Class A ordinary shares and Class B ordinary shares. 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 ten 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 transfer of Class B ordinary shares by a holder thereof to any person or entity that is not an affiliate of such holder, such Class B ordinary shares shall be automatically and immediately converted into the equal number of Class A ordinary shares. As of February 29, 2020, the chairman of our board of directors and our chief executive officer, Mr. Shanglue Xiao, beneficially own an aggregate of 949,960,000 Class B ordinary shares, which represent 89.0% of our total voting power. Therefore, Mr. Shanglue Xiao have decisive influence over matters requiring shareholders' approval, including election of directors and significant corporate transactions, such as a merger or sale of our company or our assets. This concentrated control will limit your ability to influence corporate matters and could discourage others from pursuing any potential merger, takeover or other change of control transactions that holders of our Class A ordinary shares and the ADSs may view as beneficial.

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

On August 28, 2019, our board of directors authorized a share repurchase program to repurchase up to US$20 million of our ADSs over the following six months through February 28, 2020. The share repurchase program, authorized by our board of directors, does not obligate us to repurchase any specific dollar amount or to acquire any specific number of ADSs. The share repurchase program could affect the price of our ADSs and increase volatility and may be suspended or terminated at any time, which may result in a decrease in the trading price of our ADSs. We accumulatively repurchased approximately US$20 million of ADSs under the share repurchase program and closed the share repurchase program in January 2020.

As of February 29, 2020, our executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders and their affiliated entities together beneficially own approximately 87.7% of our total outstanding ordinary shares. As a result of the concentration of ownership, these shareholders will have considerable influence over matters such as decisions regarding mergers, consolidations and the sale of all or substantially all of our assets, election of directors and other significant corporate actions. Such shareholders may take actions that are not in the best interest of us or our other shareholders. This concentration of ownership may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company, which could have the effect of depriving our other shareholders of the opportunity to receive a premium for their shares as part of a sale of our company and may reduce the price of our ADSs. This concentrated control will limit your ability to influence corporate matters and could discourage others from pursuing any potential merger, takeover or other change of control transactions that holders of our ordinary shares and ADSs may view as beneficial.

Since our ADSs became listed on the Nasdaq Global Market on May 3, 2019, the trading price of our ADSs has ranged from US$3.80 to US$18.20 per ADS in 2019. The trading prices of our ADSs is likely to 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 in the market prices or the underperformance or deteriorating financial results of other listed companies based in China. The securities of some of these companies have experienced significant volatility since their initial public offerings, including, in some cases, substantial price declines in the trading prices of their securities. The trading performances of other PRC companies' securities after their offerings, including internet and e-commerce companies, may affect the attitudes of investors toward PRC companies listed in the United States, which consequently may impact the trading performance of our ADSs, regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition, any negative news or perceptions about inadequate corporate governance practices or fraudulent accounting, corporate structure or matters of other PRC companies may also negatively affect the attitudes of investors towards PRC companies in general, including us, regardless of whether we have conducted any inappropriate activities. In addition, securities markets may from time to time experience significant price and volume fluctuations that are not related to our operating performance, such as the large decline in share prices in the United States, China and other jurisdictions in late 2008, early 2009 and the second half of 2011, which may have a material and adverse effect on the trading price of our ADSs. In addition to the above factors, the price and trading volume of our ADSs may be highly volatile due to multiple factors, including the following: -   regulatory developments affecting us or our industry, users, suppliers or third-party sellers;-   announcements of studies and reports relating to the quality of our product and service offerings or those of our competitors;-   changes in the economic performance or market valuations of other e-commerce companies;-   actual or anticipated fluctuations in our quarterly results of operations and changes or revisions of our expected results;-   changes in financial estimates by securities research analysts;-   conditions in the e-commerce market;-   announcements by us or our competitors of new product and service offerings, acquisitions, strategic relationships, joint ventures, capital raisings or capital commitments;-   additions to or departures of our senior management;-   public perception or negative news about our products or us;-   our share repurchase program;-   litigation, government investigation or other legal or regulatory proceedings;-   fluctuations of exchange rates between the RMB and the U.S. dollar;-   release or expiry of lock-up or other transfer restrictions on our issued and outstanding shares or ADSs;-   sales or perceived potential sales of additional Class A ordinary shares or ADSs; and -   general economic or political conditions in China or elsewhere in the world. Any of these factors may result in large and sudden changes in the volume and price at which our ADSs will trade. We are named as a defendant in putative shareholder class action lawsuits in the United States, and we may be involved in more class action lawsuits in the future. Such lawsuits 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.

The shareholders of our VIEs may have potential conflicts of interest with us. For example, Mr. Shanglue Xiao and Mr. Huan Hao are the shareholders of Yunji Preferred, one of our VIEs. Mr. Shanglue Xiao is the chairman of our board of directors and our chief executive officer and Mr. Huan Hao is a beneficial owner of shares of our company. The shareholders may breach, or cause our VIEs to breach, or refuse to renew, the existing contractual arrangements we have with them and our VIEs, which would have a material and adverse effect on our ability to effectively control our VIEs and receive substantially all the economic benefits from them. For example, the shareholders may be able to cause our agreements with our VIEs 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, any or all of these 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 these shareholders and our company, except that we could exercise our purchase option under the exclusive option agreements with these shareholders to request them to transfer all of their equity interests in the VIEs to a PRC entity or individual designated by us, to the extent permitted by PRC law. For individuals who are also our directors and officers, we rely on them 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 our VIEs have executed shareholders' voting rights proxy agreement to appoint our WFOE or a person designated by our WFOE to vote on their behalf and exercise voting rights as shareholders of our VIEs. If we cannot resolve any conflict of interest or dispute between us and the shareholders of our VIEs, 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 VIEs may be involved in personal disputes with third parties or other incidents that may have an adverse effect on their respective equity interests in the relevant VIEs and the validity or enforceability of our contractual arrangements with the relevant entity and its shareholders. For example, in the event that any of the shareholders of our VIEs divorces his or her spouse, the spouse may claim that the equity interest of the relevant VIE held by such shareholder is part of their community property and should be divided between such shareholder and his or her spouse. If such claim is supported by the court, the relevant equity interest may be obtained by the shareholder's spouse or another third party who is not subject to obligations under our contractual arrangements, which could result in a loss of the effective control over the relevant VIE by us. Similarly, if any of the equity interests of our VIEs is inherited by a third party with whom the current contractual arrangements are not binding, we could lose our control over the relevant VIE or have to maintain such control by incurring unpredictable costs, 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, (i) each of the spouses of Mr. Shanglue Xiao and Mr. Huan Hao has respectively executed a spousal consent letter, under which each spouse agrees that she will not raise any claims against the equity interest, and will take every action to ensure the performance of the contractual arrangements, and (ii) the VIEs and the their shareholders shall not assign any of their respective rights or obligations to any third party without the prior written consent of our WFOE, we cannot assure you that these undertakings and arrangements will be complied with or effectively enforced. In the case 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.

If our VIEs or their respective 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 law, including seeking specific performance or injunctive relief, and claiming damages, which we cannot assure you will be effective. For example, if the shareholders of our VIEs were to refuse to transfer their equity interest in our VIEs to us or our designee when we exercise the purchase option pursuant to these contractual arrangements, or if they were otherwise to act in bad faith toward us, we may have to take legal actions to compel them to perform their contractual obligations. All of the agreements under our contractual arrangements are governed by PRC law and provide for the resolution of disputes through arbitration in China. Accordingly, these contracts would be interpreted in accordance with PRC law and any disputes would be resolved in accordance with PRC legal procedures. The legal system in China is not as developed as in some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. As a result, uncertainties in the PRC legal system could limit our ability to enforce these contractual arrangements. See "Item 3. Key Information-D. Risk Factors-Risks Related to Doing Business in China-Uncertainties with respect to the PRC legal system and changes in laws and regulations in China could adversely affect us." Meanwhile, there are very few precedents and little formal guidance as to how contractual arrangements in the context of a variable interest entity should be interpreted or enforced under PRC law, and as a result it may be difficult to predict how an arbitration panel would view such contractual arrangements. Additionally, under PRC law, rulings by arbitrators are final, parties cannot appeal the arbitration results in courts, and if the losing parties fail to carry out the arbitration awards within a prescribed time limit, the prevailing parties may only enforce the arbitration awards in PRC courts through arbitration award recognition proceedings, which would require additional expenses and delay. Jishang Preferred, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Yunji Preferred, one of our VIEs, holds our VATS License for online data processing and transaction processing business (operating e-commerce, excluding internet finance and e-hailing services) and internet content-related services (excluding information search and inquiry services and real-time interactive information services). In the event we are unable to enforce our contractual arrangements, we may not be able to exert effective control over Yunji Preferred, and our ability to conduct these businesses may be negatively affected.

Starting in 2011, the PRC affiliates of the "big four" accounting firms, including our independent registered public accounting firm, were affected by a conflict between U.S. and PRC law. Specifically, for certain U.S.-listed companies operating and audited in mainland China, the SEC and the PCAOB sought to obtain from the PRC firms access to their audit work papers and related documents. The firms were, however, advised and directed that under PRC law, they could not respond directly to the U.S. regulators on those requests, and that requests by foreign regulators for access to such papers in China had to be channeled through the CSRC. In late 2012, this impasse led the SEC to commence administrative proceedings under Rule 102(e) of its Rules of Practice and also under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 against the PRC accounting firms, including our independent registered public accounting firm. A first instance trial of the proceedings in July 2013 in the SEC's internal administrative court resulted in an adverse judgment against the firms. The administrative law judge proposed penalties on the firms including a temporary suspension of their right to practice before the SEC, although that proposed penalty did not take effect pending review by the Commissioners of the SEC. On February 6, 2015, before a review by the Commissioner had taken place, the firms reached a settlement with the SEC. Under the settlement, the SEC accepted that future requests by the SEC for the production of documents will normally be made to the CSRC. The firms were to receive matching Section 106 requests, and are required to abide by a detailed set of procedures with respect to such requests, which in substance require them to facilitate production via the CSRC. If they failed to meet specified criteria, during a period of four years starting from the settlement date, the SEC retained authority to impose a variety of additional remedial measures on the firms depending on the nature of the failure. Under the terms of the settlement, the underlying proceeding against the four PRC-based accounting firms was deemed dismissed with prejudice four years after entry of the settlement. The four-year mark occurred on February 6, 2019. It is uncertain whether the SEC will further challenge the four PRC-based accounting firms' compliance with U.S. laws in connection with U.S. regulatory requests for audit work papers or if the results of such challenge would result in the SEC imposing penalties such as suspensions. If additional remedial measures are imposed on the Chinese affiliates of the "big four" accounting firms, including our independent registered public accounting firm, we could be unable to timely file future financial statements in compliance with the requirements of the Exchange Act. In the event the Chinese affiliates of the "big four" become subject to additional legal challenges by the SEC or PCAOB, depending upon the final outcome, listed companies in the United States with major PRC operations may find it difficult or impossible to retain auditors in respect of their operations in China, which could result in financial statements being determined to not be in compliance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, including possible delisting. Moreover, any negative news about any such future proceedings against these audit firms may cause investor uncertainty regarding China-based, U.S.-listed companies and the market price of our common stock may be adversely affected. If our independent registered public accounting firm was denied, even temporarily, the ability to practice before the SEC and we were unable to timely find another registered public accounting firm to audit and issue an opinion on our financial statements, our financial statements could be determined not to be in compliance with the requirements of the Exchange Act. Such a determination could ultimately lead to the delisting of our ADSs from the Nasdaq Global Market or deregistration from the SEC, or both, which would substantially reduce or effectively terminate the trading of our ADSs in the United States.

Our independent registered public accounting firm that issues the audit report included in our annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, as an auditor of companies that are traded publicly in the United States and a firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or the PCAOB, is subject to the laws in the United States pursuant to which the PCAOB conducts regular inspections to assess its compliance with applicable professional standards. Because our auditors are located in China, a jurisdiction where the PCAOB has been unable to conduct inspections without the approval of the PRC authorities, our auditors are not currently inspected by the PCAOB. In May 2013, PCAOB announced that it had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on Enforcement Cooperation with the China Securities Regulatory Commission, or the CSRC, and the PRC Ministry of Finance, which establishes a cooperative framework between the parties for the production and exchange of audit documents relevant to investigations undertaken by PCAOB, the CSRC or the PRC Ministry of Finance in the United States and the PRC, respectively. PCAOB continues to be in discussions with CSRC and the PRC Ministry of Finance to permit joint inspections in the PRC of audit firms that are registered with PCAOB and audit PRC companies that are listed on U.S. securities exchanges. 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, the SEC and the PCAOB issued another joint statement reiterating the greater risk that disclosures will be insufficient in many emerging markets, including China, compared to those made by U.S. domestic companies. In discussing the specific issues related to the greater risk, the statement again highlights the PCAOB's inability to inspect audit work paper and practices of accounting firms in China, with respect to their audit work of U.S. reporting companies. The joint statements reflect a heightened interest in an issue that has vexed U.S. regulators in recent years. However, it remains unclear what further actions, if any, the SEC and PCAOB will take to address the problem. Inspections of other firms that the PCAOB has conducted outside of China have identified deficiencies in those firms' audit procedures and quality control procedures, which may be addressed as part of the inspection process to improve future audit quality. The lack of PCAOB inspections in China prevents the PCAOB from regularly evaluating our auditors' audits and its quality control procedures. As a result, investors may be deprived of the benefits of PCAOB inspections. The inability of the PCAOB to conduct inspections of auditors in China makes it more difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of our auditors' audit procedures or quality control procedures as compared to auditors outside of China that are subject to PCAOB inspections. Investors may lose confidence in our reported financial information and procedures and the quality of our financial statements. As part of a continued regulatory focus in the United States on access to audit and other information currently protected by national law, in particular China's, in June 2019, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced bills in both houses of the U.S. Congress, which if passed, would require the SEC to maintain a list of issuers for which PCAOB is not able to inspect or investigate an auditor report issued by a foreign public accounting firm. The proposed Ensuring Quality Information and Transparency for Abroad-Based Listings on our Exchanges (EQUITABLE) Act prescribes increased disclosure requirements for these issuers and, beginning in 2025, the delisting from U.S. national securities exchanges of issuers included on the SEC's list for three consecutive years. Enactment of this legislation 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 our ADSs could be adversely affected. It is unclear if this proposed legislation would be enacted. Furthermore, there has been recent media reports on deliberations within the U.S. government regarding potentially limiting or restricting China-based companies from accessing U.S. capital markets. If any such deliberations were to materialize, the resulting legislation may have material and adverse impact on the stock performance of China-based issuers listed in the United States.

We will have to defend against putative shareholder class action lawsuits described in "Item 8. Financial Information-A. Consolidated Statements and Other Financial Information-Legal Proceedings," including any appeals of such lawsuits should our initial defenses be unsuccessful. We are currently unable to estimate the possible outcome or loss or possible range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits. In the event that our initial defenses of these lawsuits are unsuccessful, there can be no assurance that we will prevail in any appeal. Any adverse outcome of these cases, including any plaintiff's appeal of a judgment in these lawsuits, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operation, cash flows and reputation. In addition, there can be no assurance that our insurance carriers will cover all or part of the defense costs, or any liabilities that may arise from these matters. The litigation process may utilize a significant portion of our resources and divert management's attention from the day-to-day operations of our company, all of which could harm our business. We also may be subject to claims for indemnification related to these matters, and we cannot predict the impact that indemnification claims may have on our business or financial results.

We adopted a share incentive plan in 2017, which was amended and restated in its entirety in March 2019 and referred to as the 2019 Plan in this annual report, for the purpose of granting share-based compensation awards to employees, directors, officers, consultants and other personnel to incentivize their performance and align their interests with ours. We recognize expenses in our consolidated financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Under the 2019 Plan, we are authorized to grant options, restricted shares, restricted share units and other types of awards. As of February 29, 2020, the awards that had been granted to our directors, officers, employees, consultants and other personnel and remained outstanding included (i) 85,897,600 restricted share units, excluding restricted share units that were forfeited, cancelled, or vested after the relevant grant date, and (ii) options to purchase an aggregate of 92,682,510 Class A ordinary shares, excluding options that were forfeited, cancelled, or exercised after the relevant grant date. In particular, on May 3, 2019, we were authorized by our board of directors to grant stock options and restricted share units to non-employees under the 2019 Plan, and granted options to purchase an aggregate of 10,409,050 Class A ordinary shares and 3,332,040 restricted share units to non-employees by batches during the year ended December 31, 2019. See "Item 6. Directors, Senior Management and Employees-B. Compensation of Directors and Executive Officers-2019 Share Incentive Plan." We believe the granting of share-based compensation is of significant importance to our ability to attract and retain key personnel and employees, and we will continue to grant share-based compensation to employees in the future. As a result, our expenses associated with share-based compensation may increase, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations. We may re-evaluate the vesting schedules, lock-up period, exercise price or other key terms applicable to the grants under our currently effective share incentive plans from time to time. If we choose to do so, we may experience substantial change in our share-based compensation charges in the reporting periods.

We are a "controlled company" as defined under the Nasdaq Stock Market Rules because Mr. Shanglue Xiao, the chairman of our board of directors and our chief executive officer, will own more than 50% of our total voting power. 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 corporate governance rules, including an exemption from the rule that a majority of our board of directors must be independent directors or that we have to establish a nominating committee and a compensation committee composed entirely of independent directors. As a result, you will not have the same protection afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to these corporate governance requirements.

As a Cayman Islands company listed on the Nasdaq Global Market, we are subject to Nasdaq's corporate governance requirements. However, Nasdaq rules permit a foreign private issuer like us to follow the corporate governance practices of its home country. Certain corporate governance practices in the Cayman Islands, which is our home country, may differ significantly from Nasdaq's corporate governance requirements. For example, neither the Companies Law of the Cayman Islands nor our memorandum and articles of association requires a majority of our directors to be independent and we could include non-independent directors as members of our compensation committee and nominating committee, and our independent directors would not necessarily hold regularly scheduled meetings at which only independent directors are present. We intend to rely on home country practice to be exempted from the corporate governance requirement that we have a majority of independent directors on our board of directors. As a result of this and other home country practice we may follow in the future, our shareholders may be afforded less protection than they otherwise would under Nasdaq's corporate governance requirements applicable to U.S. domestic issuers.

Because we qualify as a foreign private issuer under the Exchange Act, we are exempt from certain provisions of the securities rules and regulations in the United States that are applicable to U.S. domestic issuers, including: -   the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the SEC of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q or current reports on Form 8-K;-   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 nonpublic information under Regulation FD. We will be required to file an annual report on Form 20-F within four months of the end of each fiscal year. In addition, we intend to publish our results on a quarterly basis as press releases, distributed pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Nasdaq Stock Market. Press releases relating to financial results and material events will also be furnished to the SEC on Form 6-K. However, the information we are required to file with or furnish to the SEC will be less extensive and less timely compared to that required to be filed with the SEC by U.S. domestic issuers. As a result, you may not be afforded the same protections or information that would be made available to you were you investing in a U.S. domestic issuer.

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

We are an exempted company incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands with limited liability. Our corporate affairs are governed by our memorandum and articles of association, the Companies Law (2020 Revision) of the Cayman Islands and the common law of the Cayman Islands. The rights of shareholders to take action against our directors, actions by our 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 memorandum and articles of association to determine whether or not, and under what conditions, our corporate records may be inspected by our shareholders, but are not obliged to make them available to our shareholders. This may make it more difficult for you to obtain the information needed to establish any facts necessary for a shareholder motion or to solicit proxies from other shareholders in connection with a proxy contest. As a result of all of the above, our public shareholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions taken by management, members of the board of directors or controlling shareholders than they would as public shareholders of a company incorporated in the United States.

The deposit agreement governing the ADSs representing our Class A ordinary shares provides that, subject to the depositary's right to require a claim to be submitted to arbitration, the federal or state courts in the City of New York have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine claims arising under the deposit agreement and in that regard, to the fullest extent permitted by law, ADS holders waive the right to a jury trial of any claim they may have against us or the depositary arising out of or relating to our shares, the 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 U.S. state and federal law. To our knowledge, the enforceability of a contractual pre-dispute jury trial waiver in connection with claims arising under the U.S. 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. 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 the ADSs. It is advisable that you consult legal counsel regarding the jury waiver provision before investing in the ADSs. 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 the ADSs, including claims under U.S. federal securities laws, you or such other holder or beneficial owner may not be entitled to a jury trial with respect to such claims, which may have the effect of limiting and discouraging lawsuits against us and/or the depositary. If a lawsuit is brought against us and/or the depositary under the deposit agreement, it may be heard only by a judge or justice of the applicable trial court, which would be conducted according to different civil procedures and may result in different outcomes than a trial by jury would have had, including results that could be less favorable to the plaintiff(s) in any such action. Nevertheless, if this jury trial waiver provision is not enforced, to the extent a court action proceeds, it would 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 the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

Under the deposit agreement, any action or proceeding against or involving the depositary, arising out of or based upon the deposit agreement or the transactions contemplated thereby or by virtue of owning the ADSs may only be instituted in a state or federal court in New York, New York, and you, as a holder of our ADSs, will have irrevocably waived any objection which you may have to the laying of venue of any such proceeding, and irrevocably submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts in any such action or proceeding. The depositary may, in its sole discretion, require that any dispute or difference arising from the relationship created by the deposit agreement be referred to and finally settled by an arbitration conducted under the terms described in the deposit agreement, which may include claims arising under the federal securities laws, although the arbitration provisions of the deposit agreement do not preclude you from pursuing claims under the U.S. federal securities laws in federal courts. 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 the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. The state and federal courts sitting in New York generally respect the contractual decision of the parties to submit their disputes to arbitration and such arbitration provisions are generally enforceable under federal law and the laws of the State of New York, subject to certain exceptions, such as corruption, fraud or undue means. Therefore, we believe that the arbitration provision in the deposit agreement is enforceable under federal law and the laws of the State of New York.