尽管面临着疫情下的旅行限制以及美国监管升级引发的不确定性，2020年，仍旧有30余家中概股公司在美国资本市场完成上市，募资额约130.3亿美元，相比2019年增长了270%。这一势头在2021年得以延续：仅在第一季度，就有20家中概股公司在美国资本市场完成亮相。律师指出这一热潮不会很快消退，但发行人应对恰当时间点、赴美上市优劣势做充分考量。
疫情爆发之初人们大多对经济图景抱持着消极态度，资本市场却用事实证明了自己的坚韧度。2020年，中概股公司赴美上市创下了自2014年以来的募资额新高，而这一纪录眼看就要被2021年打破。
根据彭博社的一份统计数据，截至4月底，来自中国内地和香港特别行政区的公司共在美国资本市场通过首次公开发行揽得66亿美元资金。“中国企业正以破纪录的速度在美上市。”彭博社感慨道，“对于世界两大经济体间的紧张关系和可能被踢出美国交易所的风险不屑一顾。”
多家明星企业排在了今年可能完成赴美上市的名单上，其中包括滴滴出行和小红书。根据CNBC引述纽交所中国区首席代表杨旭的预测，2021年计划赴美上市的中国企业将有约60家。
“今年是我自2004年从事法律工作以来，所经历过最忙的一年。”竞天公诚律师事务所合伙人高翔律师告诉ALB。高律师曾参与主导爱奇艺、贝壳等中概股赴美上市项目。“许多境外律师目前已经进入了不接单的阶段，这是今年一个特别显著的特点。”
“赴美上市公司一方面考虑自身上市的流畅性，尽量提前检查出障碍；另一方面也要考虑自己在中国经营的妥善性，不能一味随着美国制裁的指挥棒转。要平衡好两者间的关系。”
一方刘，高伟绅律师事务所
高伟绅律师事务所合伙人方刘律师补充说：“其实大家现在看到的赴美上市热潮，已经是有一部分企业转去香港上市后的结果……考虑到美国上市的各种外部因素，在过去的一段时间，有些原本计划去美国的企业都转了香港，否则数量会更多。”
“在挑战不断的背景下，中概股企业登陆美国资本市场的数量和热情不减反增，相信便利且宽松的融资渠道是原因之一。”
一沈军，通商律师事务所
谈及背后原因，通商律师事务所合伙人沈军律师首先指出：“各地的资本市场都是中概股企业融资的渠道，美国资本市场也不例外……在挑战不断的背景下，中概股企业登陆美国资本市场的数量和热情不减反增，相信便利且宽松的融资渠道是原因之一，因为源源不断的现金流是企业赖以生存的血液。”
和中国企业惯常选择的其他资本市场——即中国内地和香港资本市场相比，方刘律师指出，美国资本市场的优势主要体现在两方面。首先是“上市时间和流程的确定性”，由于美国的审批过程以披露制度为核心，且“基本上随到随审”，相关确定性要远高于A股市场，相对高于港股股市场。
另一个优势，则是“美国目前仍旧拥有全世界最大的资本市场，它的流动性较高，并有大量偏好于投资新经济企业的机构投资人，因此对于新经济企业来说，去美国上市有着投资人基础、流动性，以及估值方面的好处”，方律师说。
跨境监管压力攀升
谈到中概股企业赴美上市近期面临的监管变化，三位受访律师都着重提到了美国《外国公司问责法案》所可能引发的影响。
这部去年12月由美国众议院全票通过的法案在今年3月通过了最终修正案，并在面向公众征求意见30天后生效。《法案》规定美国上市公司应许可美国上市公司会计师监督委员会（PCAOB）审查审计底稿，连续三年无法审查则面临摘牌风险，而中国法律恰恰禁止中国企业未经批准提供这一底稿。
“这就像把悬在中概股公司头上的达摩克利斯之剑。”方刘律师说，“特朗普政府在任时酝酿了一些新措施，致使大家怀疑赴美上市的势头是否还能继续。虽然拜登政府执政已经几个月时间，考虑不少措施是国会立法层面确立，对中概股收紧限制的趋势看来并不会因为换了总统而有重大变化。”
“美国券商开始对拟上市公司的合规问题产生更多担忧……我们明显感觉和券商合规部门的沟通变多了，他们的问题内容也开始类似于监管机关。”
一高翔，竞天公诚律师事务所
“《问责法》的落地对发行人构成一定心理冲击，因为中国发行人不希望公司上市后，还面对此类政治层面的不确定性。”高翔律师坦言。
“但从另一个角度看，《问责法》也没有那么可怕。首先，中国证监会对于审计底稿问题的态度其实一直比较专业和友善，如果没有严重的外部政治干扰，我相信两国证券监管机构能够找到兼顾美国监管要求，同时保护中国经济主权的方法。此外，从利益上讲，《问责法》如果导致中国公司退市，最终受损的是美国投资人，这似乎是件‘杀敌一百自损一万’的事情。所以我不认为它对中概股赴美上市构成实质性影响。”高律师分析说。
事实上，审计底稿并非唯一的争议点。如沈军律师指出，“随着中国新《证券法》生效，关于境内单位和个人不得向境外提供与证券业务活动有关的文件和资料的规定受到境外上市监管部门的关注，我们在一些项目中收到了具体问询”。
沈律师将跨境上市中的这类问题总结为“差异化的跨境监管规则以及相互间可能存在的冲突”。由于紧张的国际局势可能导致此类冲突愈加频发，他认为这“对律师理解立法意图、解释相关差异、解决具体问题的能力提出了更高要求——尤其是应对监管部门的问询。律师工作已不能就事论事、浮于表面，要透过监管表象去认识更深层的问题，这样才能提出更具操作性的解决方案”。
二次上市或成“标配”
面对这些难以掌控的不确定性，沈军律师发现客户现在“在考虑赴美IPO时会多想一步，考虑二次资本化可行性及路径作为应对措施，包括在其他资本市场实现二次上市、分拆业务板块上市等。除了传统的估值、流动性等因素，安全性正在成为企业选择上市地时越来越重要的考量因素”。
根据彭博社数据，以中概股赴香港进行二次上市为例，2020年募资额为170亿美元，截至4月底，相关二次上市今年的募资额也已经达到80亿美元。滴滴、小鹏、蔚来、理想汽车等都出现在了二次上市报道的名单中。
“不排除这慢慢会成为一种‘标配’。”方刘律师说——他曾在不久前参与了京东和B站的香港二次上市项目，“《问责法》里规定了‘连续三年’的审查期限，而港交所第二上市规则要求相关企业已经在主上市地上市两个完整财年，时间刚好对上了。很多中概股公司应该会考虑上市完成两年之后就来香港做第二上市，一旦在美国面临摘牌风险，就可以把香港转为主上市地。大家开玩笑说，这相当于买了个‘保险’：万一美国的态势没有太多改善，至少有一个备份方案。”
合规要求提升
除了监管压力增大，过去几年中，律师还感受到了券商对合规要求的提升，而这对法律服务产生了更为直接的影响。
“美国上市项目由券商主导，从2019年起，他们开始对拟上市公司的合规问题产生更多担忧，会要求律师做更多、更完善的尽职调查。”高翔律师告诉ALB，“曾经披露即可的法律问题，现在则要求对这些问题的背景、可能带来的影响做更深入的讨论分析。我们明显感觉和券商合规部门的沟通变多了，他们的问题内容也开始类似于监管机关。”
高律师对上述变化持欢迎态度。一方面，他认为“这对于风险控制帮助很大。当资本市场过热、中介机构特别繁忙的时候，如果券商合规部门不做一些硬性要求，可能真的会出现中介机构履职粗糙的问题”。
另一方面，由于券商的中国律师需要就中概股公司的相关问题进行解释，以“帮助券商更好地理解中国国情和法律体制，券商中国律师正在发挥越来越大的作用”。
“过去大家会觉得承销商中国律师像是打酱油的，但从这两年起，我们的作用有了很大提升，存在感更强，实质性工作更多，甚至在复杂项目中的收费也提高了。”高律师说，“一方面因为券商合规部门的要求提高；另一方面，由于疫情，部分承销商美国律师可能连中国内地都来不了，很多原本就重合的工作需要更多依赖承销商中国律师完成。”
谈到这样的变化是否会导致承销商中国律师竞争加剧，高律师指出情况并非如此。“能服务承销商的律所和律师数量非常有限。”他坦言，“券商会要求律师符合基本的资质要求，并有很好的纪录。他们根据这些信息对律师进行排序，再依据具体项目决定用谁。即使是在库律所，券商也会再根据交易涉及的行业，进一步确定哪家律所更合适。”
“我自己就亲身经历过这样的事情：券商很认可我和律所的专业能力，但认为我在某个领域没有另外一名律师有经验，于是选择了对方。”他说。
新增热门领域
那么，2021年的中概股赴美上市，更需要深谙哪些领域的律师？
根据德勤的一份数据，第一季度完成赴美上市的中国企业在板块上发生了不小变化。去年同期，中概股融资额前三的行业为医疗医药、房地产和金融服务，今年则变更为了TMT、消费，以及医疗医药。
谈及相关变化，方刘律师告诉ALB：“过去十来年，中概股公司赴美上市最主流的是TMT公司，其中互联网公司又是主流中的主流。但过去两年慢慢发生了一些变化。”
方律师将近期的热门行业总结为几类。首先是TMT行业内部的互联网基础设施公司，其中既包括做物理基础设施的公司，例如数据中心，也包括做无形基础设施的各类云公司，最近的例子有金山云、秦淮数据。“这类企业相对互联网公司技术色彩更浓，是TMT里偏‘technology’（科技）这一块。”他指出。
第二类，则是“伴随互联网及其业务模式边缘的进一步拓展，出现的一些新类型互联网周边产业”，例如社区团购、直播经济等。第三类“属于消费升级，比如不久前上市的完美日记，它的产品打的是进口替代、消费升级的概念”。
最后一类，则是“以比特币为代表的数字货币板块，是互联网和金融科技叠加产生的产业”。方律师指出，“这一块争议较大，现在尚未形成很大的子板块，只有个别公司完成上市，未来还有待观察”。
SPAC渐成严肃选项
近期美国资本市场绕不开的另一个热点话题，即通过特殊目的收购公司（SPAC）完成上市。根据普华永道的统计，仅在第一季度，美国资本市场就迎来了298项SPAC上市交易，募资额为870亿美元。相比之下，第一季度传统上市数量为91件，募资额为380亿美元。
“SPAC热潮导致部分企业选择美国上市时，多了一个考虑角度。”高翔律师介绍道，“现在SPAC正越来越多成为中国企业上市时严肃的考虑选项。”
沈军律师观察到，虽然在美国证监会的压力下，近期SPAC有所降温，但“与此同时，新加坡交易所就SPAC上市刚结束正式咨询。另外，香港联交所也在探讨SPAC上市方式，有消息称或于年内允许SPAC上市”。对于律所来说，仍旧有在此新领域布局的需要，通商也“已参与包括美联英语在内的一些SPAC上市项目”。
高翔律师指出，对于中国律师来说，参与SPAC上市项目“在交易结构上也是要搭红筹或VIE，感觉差别不大”；方刘律师则说，对于美国律师，SPAC交易则“兼有并购和上市色彩……一方面要参与空白支票公司和收购标的的谈判，达成买卖交易，这很有并购色彩；另一方面，收购标的要借‘壳’转成正常的上市公司，也有类似IPO的审核过程”。
方律师告诉ALB，考虑SPAC上市的中国客户更多是“IPO上市有短板或估值偏差，或者规模中小型的企业”。不过，他认为也不能以偏概全，因为“去壳交易可以有不同目的，有的是希望通过这种方式借壳上市，有的则是为了实现自我出售，不是为了取得上市地位，SPAC交易也可以为这方面的商业需求提供出路”。
律师建议
面对赴美上市存在的诸多微妙变化，律师们对于有此意向的企业有哪些建议？
沈军律师首先指出，“窗口和时机对企业赴美上市非常重要”。他说，虽然美国资本市场的监管存在一定不确定性，但因噎废食大可不必。“对于在此时仍计划赴美IPO的企业来说，相信只是在正确的时间做了件正确的事情。”
方刘律师则建议道，考虑到中美关系的变化，以及美国陆续对中国企业施加的制裁措施，“赴美上市的公司要考虑在尽调中，考察业务过程中有没有涉及和在美国受制裁的企业的交易，随后梳理相关交易，并评估对上市的影响，并后续做好披露”。
在他看来，中概股公司在特殊环境下不仅要具备商业能力，也要有商业智慧。“赴美上市公司要妥善处理这类问题，一方面考虑自身上市的流畅性，尽量提前检查出障碍；另一方面也要考虑自己在中国经营的妥善性，不能一味随着美国制裁的指挥棒转。要平衡好两者间的关系。”他说。
Westward Ho!
Despite COVID-19 travel bans and tightening regulations from the U.S., more than 30 Chinese companies successfully filed for an initial public offering (IPO) in the U.S. in 2020, raising some $13.03 billion in total, a year-on-year increase of 270 percent. The IPO has rush extended well into 2021, with 20 Chinese companies debuting in the U.S. capital market in the first quarter alone. Lawyers say that while they don’t expect the ardour to subside any time soon, potential issuers should do well to weigh up the timing, as well as the pros and cons.
Most people felt pessimistic about economic growth when COVID-19 outbreak happened last year, but capital markets have turned out to be exceptionally robust. In 2020, Chinese companies brought in the largest amount of proceeds through U.S. IPOs since 2014, and the record is about to be broken this year.
As of the end of April, firms from the mainland and Hong Kong SAR raised $6.6 billion via U.S. IPOs this year, data compiled by Bloomberg show. “Chinese companies are listing in the U.S. at the fastest pace ever, brushing off tensions between the world’s two biggest economies and the continued risk of being kicked off American exchanges,” Bloomberg reported.
Many high-profile companies are expected to complete a U.S. IPO filing in 2021, and in total, about 60 Chinese companies plan to go public in the U.S. this year, said Vera Yang, chief China representative for the New York Stock Exchange, to CNBC.
“Investment banks have become increasingly concerned about issues such as tunneling among investors since 2019. We see clear increases in the frequency of communications between us and the investment banks’ compliance teams.”
一Gao Xiang, Jingtian & Gongcheng
“This is the busiest year I ever had since I started my career in 2004,” says Gao Xiang, a partner at Jingtian & Gongcheng, who was actively involved in the U.S. listings of Chinese companies such as iQiyi. “Many foreign lawyers are no longer accepting new orders, which makes 2021 a special year.”
“U.S.-listed Chinese companies should identify flaws beforehand to smooth out the IPO filing process; they also need to consider the adequacy of their operations in China, seeking to strike a balance between business operations and the U.S. sanctions.”
一Fang Liu, Clifford Chance
Fang Liu, a partner at Clifford Chance, adds: “Actually, the U.S. IPO rush as we see it today it’s already a diminished version after some companies went to Hong Kong instead of the U.S. … In view of the various external factors involved in an U.S. listing, some companies that originally planned to go public in the U.S. have recently gone to Hong Kong instead, otherwise the number would be bigger.”
“Chinese companies in general have become keener to get listed in the U.S. in spite of the mounting challenges because it provides a convenient and accommodative financing channel.”
一Shen Jun, Commerce & Finance Law Offices
As for the reasons, Shen Jun, a partner at Commerce & Finance Law Offices, points out: “Different capital markets are all financing channels for Chinese companies, and the U.S. market is no exception… Chinese companies in general have become keener to get listed in the U.S. in spite of the mounting challenges because it provides a convenient and accommodative financing channel.”
Compared with the other capital markets, such as the ones in mainland China and Hong Kong, Fang notes, the U.S. market has two advantages. Firstly, “there is a predictable IPO timeline and process in the U.S.,” as IPO filing approval is largely focused on information disclosure. Also, filings are more or less reviewed once they are submitted, so it is much more predictable than the A-share and H-share markets.
The other advantage is the fact that “as the largest capital market in the world today, the U.S. market has greater liquidity, and a large number of investors and funds interested in investing in ‘new economy’ companies, so for these companies, a U.S. IPO is a better choice in terms of investor base, liquidity and stock valuations,” Fang elaborates.
TIGHTENING REGULATIONS
Speaking of the recent changes in regulatory policies for Chinese companies seeking an IPO in the U.S., all the three lawyers emphasise the ramifications of the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (HFCA) in the U.S.
The HFCA bill was unanimously passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 2020, followed by the endorsement of the final amendment in March this year; it went into effect 30 days after it was released for comments. The act requires companies listed in the U.S. to allow the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to check their audit papers – companies failing to do so for three consecutive years may be delisted. However, Chinese laws prohibit Chinese companies from supplying such papers.
“It poses a threat hanging over Chinese companies like a sword of Damocles,” says Fang of Clifford Chance. “The measures adopted by the Trump administration gave rise to doubts as to whether the trend toward listing in the U.S. will last. It has been several months that the Biden Administration took over office, and we believe that the tightening regulation of Chinese companies will not ease off under the new presidency.”
“The HFCA act indeed has a psychological impact on issuers, because they don’t want to face such political uncertainties after the share offering,” Gao of Jingtian & Gongcheng admits. “However, the act is not that frightening if viewed from a different angle. Firstly, the China Securities Regulatory Commission has always been open-minded regarding the issue of audit papers, and we believe financial professionals will be able to figure out solutions that meet the U.S. regulatory requirements, and serve China’s economic sovereignty interests at the same time. Furthermore, from the perspective of financial interests, if Chinese companies were delisted resulting from the HFCA act, it would ultimately cause losses to American investors, so I don’t think it’ll materially affect listings of Chinese company stocks in the U.S.”
In fact, the audit papers are not the only contentious issue. “As China’s new Securities Law came into force, the ban on organizations and individuals in China from supplying documents and materials related to securities activities to overseas authorities has attracted the attention of foreign stock listing regulators, and we have received specific inquiries in some projects,” Shen of Commerce & Finance points out.
Shen attributes issues related to offshore listings to “differences in regulatory rules across national borders and possible conflicts arising from them.” As global tensions may increase the frequency of such conflicts, he thinks that it “requires that lawyers sharpen their understanding of the legislative intent and their ability to clarify such differences and solve practical issues – especially when it comes to responding to regulatory inquiries. The lawyers’ work is no longer limited to superficially handling individual cases in isolation. Instead, they need to acquire an understanding at a deeper-level so as to work out highly practical solutions.”
SECONDARY OPTIONS
Shen finds that in the face of challenging uncertainties, his clients now “take extra caution when planning an IPO in the U.S., and consider the feasibility of and route to recapitalization as a contingency measure, including carrying a secondary share offering on another capital market, and listing a business segment as a spinoff. Apart from traditional factors such as valuation and liquidity, security has become an increasingly important consideration in selecting the IPO location.”
For example, a total of $17 billion was raised via secondary listings of U.S.-traded Chinese companies in Hong Kong last year, and such listings have fetched over $8 billion this year as of the end of April, Bloomberg data shows. Companies like DiDi, Xpeng Motors, Nio and Li Auto are seen in the list of the reported secondary offerings.
“It might gradually become the norm going forward,” says Fang, who was recently involved in the Hong Kong secondary listings of JD.com and Bilibili. “The HFCA act laid down the ‘three consecutive non-inspection years’ rule, and the HKEx requires that the issuer of a secondary IPO should have been listed on the primary market for at least two full fiscal years, which dovetail exactly with the HFCA timeframe. May Chinese companies seeking a U.S. IPO will consider filing for a secondary listing in Hong Kong two years afterwards, such that they can make Hong Kong the primary location in the event of a delisting in the U.S. They say that it’s like buying insurance – if the situation in the U.S. doesn’t improve, at least we’ll have a backup plan.”
SPONSOR PRESSURE
In addition to the tightening regulation, the lawyers have seen increasingly strict regulatory requirements adopted by investment banks in recent years, which as had a more direct impact on legal service providers.
“In the U.S., IPOs are mostly led by investment banks. They have become increasingly concerned about issues such as tunneling among investors since 2019, and thus ask the lawyers to conduct more thorough due diligence investigations,” Gao says. “Some legal matters were only required to be disclosed in the past, but now in-depth discussions and analysis are conducted regarding the relevant background information and the potential implications. We see clear increases in the frequency of communications between us and the investment banks’ compliance teams, and they have started ask questions similar to those raised by the regulators.”
But he welcomes such changes. Gao thinks “it is very helpful on risk control – that is, when the market is overheating and the agencies are very busy, if the investment banks’ compliance teams don’t set any mandatory requirements, lawyers may indeed perfunctorily perform their duties.”
On the other hand, as the banks’ Chinese lawyers need to explain certain matters concerning the Chinese companies to "help them get a better understanding of the actual situation and legal system in China, so the banks’ Chinese lawyers are playing an increasingly important role.”
“In the past, people thought of underwriters’ Chinese lawyers merely as makeweights, but our role has improved substantially in the past couple of years, and we have even increased charges on complex projects,” Gao says. “The pandemic has made it impossible for the American lawyers of some underwriters to travel to the mainland, so the underwriters have to count more on their Chinese lawyers to take care of the many overlapping tasks.”
Will it lead to increased competition between the Chinese lawyers? Gao doubts the conclusion. “There’s only a very limited number of law firms and lawyers capable of serving the underwriters,” he admits. “The investment banks require the lawyers to satisfy basic qualification criteria, and have a sound track record. They rank the lawyers based on such information and select the lawyers on a case-by-case basis. Even with the panel firms, the banks determine the most suitable law firm according to the exact business area involved in the case.”
“I have gone through something like this myself: the investment bank thoroughly approves of my and my law firm’s professional competence, but they think that another lawyer is more experienced in the specific industry, so they chose the other lawyer,” he adds.
ATTRACTIVE SECTORS
Data from Deloitte reveal some major changes in the types of businesses operated by Chinese companies listed in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2021. During the same period of 2020, U.S.-listed Chinese companies specializing in healthcare/pharmaceutical, real estate and financial services obtained the largest amount of proceeds from their U.S. IPOs, but the top three sectors have changed to TMT, consumer goods and healthcare/pharmaceutical this year.
“Over the past decade, the Chinese companies listed in the U.S. were mostly TMT companies – among them internet companies, in particular – but things have changed in the last couple of years,” Fang says.
He divides the most popular areas into four categories. The first is internet infrastructure companies within the TMT industry, including physical infrastructure developers such as data centres, as well as Cloud Computing companies that build virtual infrastructure facilities. Kingsoft Cloud and China Data are some of the most recent examples. “These companies are kind of hard tech companies, and they represent the ‘technology’ element of TMT,” Fang points out.
The second category includes “new types of internet-related businesses that emerged amid the continuous expansion of the internet and internet business models,” such as residential community-based group buying and live-stream shopping. The third category comprises “‘consumption upgrading’ businesses. Perfect Diary, a Chinese start-up that sells cosmetics online, for example, specializes in consumption upgrading businesses.”
The last one refers to the “digital currency market represented by bitcoin, an industry that combines the internet and fintech.” Fang notes. “It’s a contentious business and only a few companies have been floated on the stock market. It remains to be seen how this market will evolve in the future.”
SERIOUS ABOUT SPAC
Special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) have been a growing trend in U.S. capital markets in recent months. Some 298 SPAC IPOs were filed in the U.S. in the first quarter alone this year, raising $87 billion in total, statistics released by PwC show. By contrast, the quarter only saw 91 conventional IPOs, which raised $38 billion.
“The SPAC phenomenon allows the companies to consider with a new perspective when planning an IPO in the U.S.,” Gao elaborates. “Now, SPAC has become an increasingly serious option for Chinese companies seeking a U.S. listing.”
For Shen of Commerce & Finance, the SPAC fever has started to cool off under the pressure from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “But on the other hand, the Singapore Exchange has just completed formal consultation on SPAC listings, and the HKEx is also considering SPAC as a listing method, and is reportedly planning to greenlight SPAC IPOs by year’s end.” Therefore, law firms need to prep themselves for this new business, he says adding that Commerce & Finance has “taken part in some SPAC listings, including the one for Meten, a chain English education school in China.
Gao believes that for Chinese lawyers, SPAC listings “also involve setting up a red-chip or VIE structure, so there’s not much difference.” In Fang’s opinion, however, American lawyers consider SPAC deals to involve “both M&A and stock listing elements…on the one hand, it involves conducting negotiations between the blank check company and the acquisition target to conclude the deal, which is typical of M&A projects; on the other hand, the acquisition target needs to transform from a ‘shell’ into a normal public company, which is subject to regulatory review similar to the IPO filing process.”
Fang tells ALB that Chinese clients considering a SPAC listing tend to “have flaws for a separate IPO, or tend to be medium-sized companies.” But he also warns against over-generalization, because “shell company deals are conducted for different purposes – some companies want to get listed on the stock market through such deals, while others seek to sell themselves rather than get listed, and SPAC deals can also cater to such business needs.”
FUTURE SUGGESTIONS
For those who are still interested in listing in the U.S., lawyers share some suggestions about how to respond to the subtle changes in IPO policies.
Shen first points out that “window and timing is very important for companies seeking a U.S. listing.” Although there is a certain degree of uncertainty, one should not throw away the apple because of the core, he adds. “For the companies that are still planning to go public in the U.S. this year, they need to do the right thing at the right time.”
Fang’s suggestion is that in view of the changes in Sino-U.S. relations and the sanctions that the U.S. have successively imposed on Chinese companies, “companies planning to get listed in the U.S. should examine, in the due diligence process, if their business operations involve any transactions with any company sanctioned or blacklisted by the U.S. government, and then screen related transactions, assess their impact on the stock listing, and ensure effective information disclosure at later stages.”
But he also points out that in today’s challenging world, U.S.-listed Chinese companies should possess not only strong business capacities but also business wisdom. They need to “identify flaws beforehand to smooth out the IPO filing process; on the other hand, they also need to consider the adequacy of their operations in China, seeking to strike a balance between business operations and the U.S. sanctions, instead of being totally servile to the U.S. regulators,” he advises.
To contact the editorial team, please email ALBEditor@thomsonreuters.com.
