由于难以满足审计要求，美国证券监管机构可能将大量中概股公司纳入“预摘牌名单”，就此，中国证监会公布新规，旨在解决中美间不间断的审计争议。
中美间关于中概股上市公司的争端还在继续。5月初，美国证券交易委员会（SEC）再将超过80家中概股公司纳入“预摘牌名单”，其中包括京东、拼多多、B站、网易等众多大体量“明星”公司。
该名单源于一部名为《外国公司问责法》的法规，其规定，如果外国上市公司连续三年未能提交美国上市公司会计监督委员会所要求的报告，SEC有权将其从交易所摘牌。
与此同时，中国正尝试缓解这一僵局。今年4月初，中国证监会公布《关于加强境内企业境外发行证券和上市相关保密和档案管理工作的规定（征求意见稿)》 （“《规定》”），旨在支持各类符合条件的企业赴境外上市。新规预计将减少不必要的涉密敏感信息进入工作底稿，提高跨境监管合作的效率。
证监会表示，其一直在密切关注《外国公司问责法》及后续美国SEC和美国公众公司会计监督委员会（PCAOB）监管规则的制定。在《外国公司问责法》、SEC的《外国公司问责法》正式实施细则、PCAOB的《〈外国公司问责法〉认定报告》通过或发布后，中国证监会都安排了新闻发布会表明立场和态度。同时，早在2021年12月24日，中国证监会已经就中国企业境外上市相关制度规则公开征求意见。
环球律师事务所合伙人湛晶心律师告诉ALB ，“这些都表明中国相关主管部门持续关注中国企业境外上市和跨境监管合作问题并着手相关法规和规则的制定和修订工作。因此，《规定》作为前述事项的配套规定之一，证监会和其他相关部门对其修订也是近一年多来的工作计划的一部分，并非突然为之。”
湛晶心律师认为，2021年12月16日PCAOB《〈外国公司问责法〉认定报告》公布无法执行检查的具体审计机构名单之后，《外国公司问责法》实际执行的最后一个前置程序已经完成。
“在2022年3月至4月年报发布期间，相关中概股公司陆续进入SEC的具有退市风险的名单是一个可预期的事件。” 湛晶心律师说。
消除障碍
3月初，SEC将五家在美上市的中国公司列入首批退市风险名单， 包括百济神州、百胜中国、再鼎医药、盛美半导体、以及和黄医药。
随后，中国证监会发布公告称，近一段时间，中国证监会和财政部持续与PCAOB开展沟通对话，并取得积极进展。因此，湛晶心律师相信中国证监会在4月初公布就《规定》修订公开征求意见也是对相关事项的一个回应。
具体到《规定》内容，首先，此次修订将适用范围扩大至间接境外上市企业。其次，在备受关注的跨境取证和检查方面，删除了原《规定》中 “现场检查应以我国监管机构为主进行，或者依赖我国监管机构的检查结果”的表述，代以“（跨境调查取证或开展检查）应当通过跨境监管合作机制进行，证监会或有关主管部门依据双多边合作机制提供必要的协助”。
湛晶心律师认为，上述修订如果正式实施，将消除PCAOB对位于境内的审计机构进行现场检查的法律障碍。
“该修订体现了中国监管部门对跨境审计监管合作的开放态度……但是本次修订带来的更多是市场情绪的缓解，而中概股退市危机是否实质解决还需要看中美跨境监管合作机制的后续落地情况。”
- 湛晶心，环球律师事务所
“如中国证监会在答记者问中所述，该修订体现了中国监管部门对跨境审计监管合作的开放态度。这意味着中美证券监管合作之门没有关上，是一个积极的信号。但是本次修订带来的更多是市场情绪的缓解，而中概股退市危机是否实质解决还需要看中美跨境监管合作机制的后续落地情况。” 湛晶心律师说。
后续影响
中国香港和美国一直是中国内地企业赴海外上市考虑的两大市场。此次“退市危机”使企业在选择上市地点时更加谨慎。
环球律师事务所合伙人张真真律师告诉ALB,“在中美跨境监管合作机制实际达成之前，香港上市的确定性仍然较之美国上市更高，中国公司选择香港还是美国上市需要综合多方面因素，而不会仅因为本次《规定》修订的征求意见而出现赴美上市潮。”
而且，张真真律师相信，《规定》并非唯一影响企业选择海外上市地点的因素。
她说：“除了《规定》所涉及跨境监管合作之外，还有包括修订后《网络安全审查法》以及《网络数据安全管理条例》《数据出境安全评估办法》两个征求意见稿的实施情况，都会影响企业境外上市地的选择。”
就在中美政府就此进行积极沟通的同时，中国企业也在积极布局来渡过此次危机。
“在中美跨境监管合作机制实际达成前，香港上市的确定性仍然较之美国上市更高，中国公司选择香港还是美国上市需要综合多方面因素，而不会仅因为本次《规定》修订而出现赴美上市潮。”
- 张真真，环球律师事务所
3月底，百济神州将原美股审计机构、位于中国北京的安永华明会计师事务所，更换为美国波士顿安永。
对此，张真真律师表示：“退市危机的关键点在于PCAOB认为其无法在中国境内对相关审计机构进行现场检查和审计底稿的调取。”
张真真律师指出，《证券法》第177条规定，境外证券监管机构不得在境内直接进行调查取证等活动，未经批准任何单位和个人不得擅自向境外提供与证券业务活动有关的文件和资料。《会计师事务所从事中国内地企业境外上市审计业务暂行规定》要求相关受托境外会计师事务所应当与中国内地会计师事务所开展业务合作，在境内形成的审计工作底稿应由中国内地会计师事务所存放在境内。此外，前述规定还要求境外会计师事务所就每个审计项目向财政部门履行备案程序，境内企业不得向未履行相应程序的境外会计师事务所提供会计档案。
她认为，“因此，美国注册会计师事务所无法独立在境内开展审计活动，审计底稿也无法出境。除非中美就跨境监管合作达成一致，聘用美国注册会计师事务并不能解决前述根本问题。”
同时，本次修订对律所也有着一定的影响。
“从近期来看，鉴于《规定》加强了中国企业和相关中介机构在涉密和敏感信息的保密和管理过程中应遵循的内控原则以及外部监管要求，律所应当建立健全保密和档案工作制度，采取必要措施落实保密和档案管理责任，不得泄露国家秘密，不得损害国家和公共利益，并关注其与相关企业签订的保密协议中各主体的保密义务和责任。” 张真真律师说。
而从长远来看，张真真律师告诉ALB，律所将持续关注中美相关主管部门在中国企业境外上市和跨境监管合作方面的进展与结果，特别在涉及国家安全和利益的数据披露、保密信息的认定和合规、数据安全和数据出境的合规方面，如何进一步明确责任边界、切实防范风险，还需要持续思考。
OLIVE BRANCH
Even as the U.S. securities regulator identified Chinese firms likely to be delisted from New York for not meeting auditing requirements, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) issued draft rules addressing confidentiality and document management for overseas listings of Chinese companies, in an effort to resolve China’s ongoing audit dispute with the U.S.
The long-running Sino-U.S. spat over listed companies continues. In early May, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) added more than 80 firms to its list of U.S.-listed Chinese entities facing possible expulsion from American exchanges, including JD.com, Pinduoduo, Bilibili, and NetEase.
The list has been created under a 2020 law known as The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (HFCAA), which aims to remove foreign-jurisdiction companies from U.S. bourses if they fail to comply with American auditing standards for three years in a row.
At the same time, China has been looking to ease the standoff. In early April this year, the CSRC issued draft rules to revise confidentiality regulations involving offshore listings in order to support the IPOs of Chinese companies overseas. Under the new rules, it is expected to reduce unnecessary confidential sensitive information entering audit working papers and improve the efficiency of cross-border regulatory cooperation.
The CSRC is keeping an eye on the HFCAA, following rules released by the U.S. SEC and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and recently held a press conferences to respond to several updates to the U.S. regulation.
There have been several updates the rules in the U.S., including the release of the HFCAA, final rules relating to the HFCAA, and HFCAA determinations by the PCAOB. In addition, the CSRC proposed rules governing Chinese companies listing abroad on Dec. 24 last year.
“All of these indicate that the Chinese authorities are paying attention to the overseas listing of Chinese enterprises and cross-border supervision cooperation. Also, the regulators have begun to formulate and revise relevant regulations and rules,” says Zhan Jingxin, partner at Global Law Office. “As one of the supporting regulations for the above-mentioned matters, the draft rules by the CSRC are also part of the work in the past year. It is not a sudden change.”
Zhan believes the final pre-implementation procedures for the HFCAA have been completed after the PCAOB announced on Dec. 16, a list of audit institutions that were unable to perform inspections.
“During the release of the annual report from March to April 2022, it was expected that some U.S.-listed Chinese companies would be included on the SEC's delisting list,” says Zhan.
REMOVING BARRIERS
In early March, the SEC included five U.S.-listed Chinese companies in the first batch of delisting lists, including BeiGene, Yum China Holdings, Zai Lab, ACM Research, and Hutchmed China. Almost immediately, the CSRC said that it along with China’s Ministry of Finance would continue communications with the PCAOB to achieve positive progress.
Therefore, Zhan believes the draft rules were also a response to this issue.
Firstly, the draft rules expanded the scope of this regulation to cover Chinese companies listed through the indirect overseas structure. They also removed the requirement that “on-site inspections should mainly be carried out by Chinese regulatory agencies and that foreign authorities should rely on results from Chinese regulatory agencies.”
The draft rules state that “(cross-border investigation and evidence collection or inspection) shall be conducted through the cross-border regulatory cooperation mechanism, and the CSRC or the relevant authorities shall provide necessary assistance per the bilateral and multilateral cooperation mechanism.”
Zhan points out that if the draft rules are formally implemented, the legal obstacles for the PCAOB to conduct on-site inspections of audit agencies based in China will be eliminated.
- Zhan Jingxin, Global Law Office
“As stated by the CSRC at the press release, the draft rules reflect how Chinese regulators are willing to make cross-border audit and supervision cooperation,” says Zhan. “This means that China-U.S. securities regulatory cooperation is not impossible, which is a positive signal. However, the draft rules’ impacts more on the easing of market sentiment. Whether the delisting crisis can be resolved depends on the subsequent implementation of the China-U.S. cross-border regulatory cooperation mechanism.”
MASSIVE IMPACT
Hong Kong SAR and the U.S. have long been the two major markets for mainland Chinese companies to list overseas. The delisting crisis has made companies more prudent when choosing where to list.
“Before the Sino-U.S. cross-border regulatory cooperation mechanism is formally achieved, it is safer to list in Hong Kong SAR than in the U.S. Chinese companies need to comprehensively consider various factors to choose Hong Kong or the U.S. for listing. The draft rules alone will not lead to a wave of Chinese listing in the U.S.,” says Zhang Zhenzhen, partner at Global Law office.
Zhang says the draft rules are not the only factor affecting Chinese companies when they choose overseas listing markets.
“In addition to the cross-border regulatory cooperation mentioned in the draft rules, the revised Cybersecurity Review Measures, the Regulations on Network Data Security Management (Draft for Comments), and the Measures on Data Export Security Assessment (Draft for Comments) will also impact companies’ market listing choice,” says Zhang.
While the Chinese and American governments are work things out, Chinese companies are also taking measures to deal with this crisis.
In late March, BeiGene hired EY in the U.S. as its principal auditor of financial statements to be filed with the SEC, in place of China-based Ernst & Young Hua Ming.
“The key point of the delisting risk is that the PCAOB says that it cannot conduct on-site inspections of audit institutions and obtain audit papers in China,” says Zhang.
- Zhang Zhenzhen, Global Law office
Article 177 of China’s Securities Law stipulates that overseas securities regulatory agencies shall not directly conduct investigations and evidence collection in China, and no entity or individual shall provide documents and materials related to securities business activities abroad without approval, according to Zhang.
The Interim Provisions on Accounting Firms' Provision of Auditing Services for the Overseas Listing of Enterprises in the Chinese Mainland requires that overseas accounting firms should conduct business cooperation with China’s accounting firms, and the audit working papers formed in China should be deposited by domestic accounting firms in China.
In addition, the regulations also require overseas accounting firms to perform filing procedures with the financial department for each audit item. Domestic enterprises are not allowed to provide accounting files to overseas accounting firms that have not performed the corresponding procedures.
“Therefore, U.S.-registered accounting firms cannot independently carry out auditing activities within China, and they cannot access audit manuscripts outside of China. Hiring U.S.-registered accounting firms will not solve the problems unless China and the U.S. reach an agreement on cross-border regulatory cooperation,” says Zhang.
The draft rules also expected to impact law firms.
“The draft rules tighten policies that Chinese enterprises and intermediaries should follow in the process of managing confidential and sensitive information. Law firms should establish a confidentiality and archives system,” says Zhang. “They need to take measures to implement confidentiality and file management responsibilities, and shall not divulge state secrets, nor damage national and public interests. They also need to pay attention to the confidentiality obligations and responsibilities of each subject in the confidentiality agreements.”
In the long run, law firms need to keep a close watch on the progress and results of China and the U.S. authorities’ rules on overseas listing of Chinese companies and cross-border regulatory cooperation, especially on data disclosures involving national security and interests, identification and compliance of confidential information, data security and data export compliance. They need to further clarify the boundaries of responsibility and effectively prevent risks, says Zhang.