The following selected consolidated statements of operations data for the three years ended December 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017, and the selected consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2016 and 2017, have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017, and are included elsewhere in this annual report. Our selected consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2014, and our consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015, have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements that are not included in this annual report. Our selected consolidated financial statements are prepared and presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The financial data presented herein reflect the direct sales of Ozing branded electronic learning devices incorporating mobile internet interactive features, such as online tutoring services (the “HJX Business”) as discontinued operations. Our historical results for any period are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for any future period. The selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with those consolidated financial statements and related notes and Item 5. “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” in this annual report.

Note:  Accumulated other comprehensive income in 2017 primarily reflects dividends and gains from sale of available-for-sales securities. See Notes 8 and 9 to our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.

Note:  we started to reduce our TV advertising purchases for infomercials beginning in 2014, and we suspended our TV direct sales operations in the first quarter of 2015. 

Exchange Rate Information

We have reported our financial statements in U.S. dollars. Our business is primarily conducted in China and substantially all of our revenues are denominated in Renminbi. Periodic reports will be made to shareholders and will be expressed in U.S. dollars using the then current exchange rates. The conversion of Renminbi into U.S. dollars in this annual report is based on the official base exchange rate published by the People’s Bank of China. Monetary assets and liabilities denominated in Renminbi are translated into U.S. dollars at the respective official base exchange rate published by the PBOC as of the balance sheet date. Equity accounts denominated in Renminbi are translated into U.S. dollars at the applicable historical exchange rate. Revenues, expenses, gains and losses denominated in Renminbi are translated into U.S. dollars at the official annual average exchange rate for the applicable year as published by the PBOC., gains and losses are translated using the average rate for the year as published by the People’s Bank of China. Unless otherwise noted, all conversions from Renminbi to U.S. dollars in this annual report were made at RMB6.5342 to $1.00, which was the official base exchange rate published by PBOC on December 31, 2017. The prevailing rate on April 30, 2018 was RMB9.3393 to $1.00. We make no representation that any Renminbi or U.S. dollar amounts could have been, or could be, converted into U.S. dollars or Renminbi, as the case may be, at any particular rate, the rates stated below, or at all. The PRC government imposes controls over its foreign currency reserves in part through direct regulation of the conversion of Renminbi into foreign exchange and through restrictions on foreign trade.

The following table sets forth various information concerning exchange rates between the Renminbi and the U.S. dollar for the periods indicated. These rates are provided solely for your convenience and are not necessarily the exchange rates that we used in this annual report or will use in the preparation of our periodic reports or any other information to be provided to you.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Risks Relating to Our Business and Industry

If various measures to reduce operating expenses or generate additional cash flows are unsuccessful, we may continue to experience significant net losses and negative cash flows . Moreover, we believe we must achieve operating profitability in order to position the business for long term sustainable success.

We had a net loss of approximately $39.9 million, $44.3 million and $40.2 million in 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively. While we had net income of approximately $3.4 million in 2016 and approximately $12.3 million in 2017, our operating loss from continuing operations was around $2.4 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017 respectively, and we achieved profitability only due to other income of approximately $17.7 million in 2016 and $11.6 million in 2017 respectively, which primarily resulted from sales of approximately 8 million shares and 4.6 million shares of Shanghai Yimeng Software Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yimeng”) in 2016 and 2017 respectively. In our 2014 annual report filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in May 2015, we indicated that there was substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern. In response, we began implementing a series of initiatives, some of which are ongoing, designed to liquidate our non-core assets, stabilize our core businesses, reduce our expenses and losses, and generate additional cash flow. Our liquidity position improved in 2015, 2016 and 2017, in part due to these measures, allowing us to realize our assets and satisfy our liabilities in the normal course of business. Such measures include, among other related actions, the following, with a number of them continued during 2017:

Our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow from operating activities depends on various factors, including our ability to grow revenue and control our costs and expenses, the effectiveness of our selling and marketing activities, consumer acceptance of our products and the growth and maintenance of our customer base. We may fail to achieve or sustain profitability or positive cash flow from operating activities. See Item 5. “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—A. Operating Results—Overview” and “—B. Liquidity and Capital Resources”.

We do not believe our 2017 results of operations are comparable to our historical operating results or are necessarily a reliable indicator of our future operating results, making it difficult for you to evaluate our business or future prospects; our 2018 total net revenues may be lower than 2017 total net revenues .

Our 2017 operating results were affected by, among other factors, the sale of our Yimeng shares; the treatment of HJX Business as a discontinued operation; the utilization of our distribution network solely for Youngleda oxygen generating products; the continued suspension of our TV direct sales channel (except for the purchase of a small amount of TV advertising time for the purpose of testing whether we should re-initiate the TV direct sales channel. The aforesaid purchase of TV advertising time resulted in non-material sales and we subsequently decided to continue the suspension of the TV direct sale channel); our focus on direct sales through e-commerce platforms; a certain shareholders dispute; other efforts and measures to generate cash and cut cost; and the streamlining of our business model. Our 2018 results may be affected by these events and our ongoing efforts to evolve our business model in response to changing conditions.

Historically, a significant portion of our revenues were generated through TV direct sales and one of our largest expenses was our purchase of TV advertising time (90% of which was typically dedicated to TV infomercial time). Consistent with deemphasizing in 2014, and then discontinuing in the first quarter of 2015, our TV direct sales channel, TV direct sales revenues decreased from $5.7 million in 2014 to $0.3 million in 2015 and further to less than 0.1% in 2016 and 2017 (i.e. approximately 6.0%, 0.7% and 0% of our total gross revenues in those periods respectively). We believe that product sales through our distribution channel are also adversely affected by decreased advertising expenditures.

Our 2017 operating results include various charges and expenses in connection with our efforts to generate cash and cut costs, including severance fees paid in connection with our headcount reductions.

In addition, as a result of the shareholder dispute that is more specifically described in Item 8.A. “Financial Information—Consolidated financial statements and other financial information—Legal Proceedings,” we incurred substantial direct costs associated with the legal proceedings in the Cayman Islands prior to their settlement on July 28, 2017, including fees and expenses of various professionals (primarily legal advisors) to advise us on this matter, as well as substantial indirect costs to us resulting from the dispute, including without limitation, inappropriate severance payments, excess payment to third-party vendors and suppliers, distraction of management and staff from the core business to focus, and lost opportunities. We estimate that the total direct costs associated with the legal proceedings related to the shareholder dispute were approximately $0.4 million for 2015. Although the shareholder dispute was generally resolved in May 2015, on December 1, 2016, we filed a related action in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, or Cayman Islands Court, against Mr. Andrew Yan, Gordon Xiaogang Wang, and Jing Wang (the “Former Directors”) for damages resulting from breach of fiduciary duties and related misconduct and mismanagement, and incurred further expenses of approximately $333,365 in relation to this action prior to its settlement on July 28, 2017.

As more fully described below under “Historical and future disputes regarding control of our strategic direction and control of our board of directors could adversely impact our business, operating results and prospects,” Item 7. “Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions— Transitional Services and Separation Agreement,” and in Item 7. “Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions— Reimbursement to Mr. Robert W. Roche,” with respect to the action which started in mid-2014 and generally resolved in mid-2015, we entered into settlement arrangements with Mr. Yang and Mr. Roche and exchanged certain liability releases, including most recently in January, 2016.

As more fully described below under “Litigation against certain former directors for their misconducts during their service,” with respect to the action filed on December 1, 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with Roche Enterprises Ltd. (“REL”), the Former Directors and SB Asia Investment Fund II L.P., an exempted limited partnership registered in the Cayman Islands (“SAIF”), pursuant to which, all parties would discontinue and/or withdraw all claims, counterclaims and taxation proceedings in the Cayman Islands Court. Agreement was also reached for the Company to repurchase all of the ordinary shares of the Company owned by SAIF, representing 27.7% of the total outstanding ordinary shares of the Company, for the purchase price of approximately $4.17 million, the equivalent of $4.05 per ADS.

Other than those arrangements, we have not entered into any agreements settling any claims or provided or received any releases from any of the directors or shareholders involved in the dispute with respect to the matters leading up to or resulting from the dispute. We may be subject to indemnification claims or legal proceedings with respect to these matters, and consequently incur fees and expenses (including attorney’s fees) which would negatively impact our future financial results. 

The overall impact of these events on our future operating results depends on, among other things, our success in reshaping our business model, including incubation of new businesses, our ability to promote our products through our other existing platforms and distribution networks, and our ability to grow our e-commerce channel.

Our evolving business model and the evolution of China’s direct sales industry make it difficult to evaluate our business and future prospects.

Our business model has varied throughout our operating history in response to changes in the direct sales industry and the regulatory environment in China. In response to regulatory changes, our direct sales model now consists of primarily outbound marketing and Internet sales. Furthermore, as the direct sales industry has evolved, we have begun to focus on sourcing other branded products to complement our own proprietary-branded product lines (e.g. Youngleda oxygen generating products), for distribution through our direct sales channel and our distribution channel. More recently we have begun to incubate new businesses, which represents a more significant departure from our historical business model.

The evolution of our business model makes it difficult for you to evaluate our business and future prospects. Our longer term goal is to become a leading direct marketing and branding company in China that markets and distributes, particularly through our e-commerce channel, which we are continuing to develop, both our proprietary, self-owned brands and products and well-established or promising new third-party brands and products, as well as to incubate new businesses, within our Group. To achieve this goal, we need to continue to grow our business across platforms and product lines. Our ability to successfully implement our strategy is subject to various risks and uncertainties, including:

There can be no assurance that we will be able to effectively manage these risks or execute our business strategies, which could have a material adverse effect on our growth, results of operations and business prospects.

Our operating results fluctuate from period to period, making them difficult to predict.

Our operating results are highly dependent upon, and will fluctuate based on, the following product-related factors:

In addition, factors not directly relating to our products which could cause our operating results to fluctuate in a particular period or in comparison to a prior period include:

Due to these and other factors, our operating results will vary from period to period, will be difficult to predict for any given period, may be adversely affected from period to period and may not be indicative of our future performance. If our operating results for any period fall below our expectations or the expectations of investors or any market analyst that may issue reports or analyses regarding our ADSs, the price of our ADSs is likely to decrease.

Changes in the quoted prices for Yimeng on the China National Equities Exchange and Quotations (“NEEQ”) will cause the carrying value of our Yimeng shares to vary impacting our comprehensive net income; and our ability to sell our Yimeng shares at desired prices or in desired volumes will be impacted by related developments in the NEEQ market and the market for Yimeng shares.

In July 2015, Yimeng (NEEQ: 832950) began trading on the NEEQ and on December 31, 2016 our 8.5% ownership stake in Yimeng was valued at $74.7 million. During 2017, we continued to sell Yimeng shares on the NEEQ. Through April 25, 2018 we reduced our ownership stake in Yimeng to 7.4% and at such date our remaining ownership stake (consisting of approximately 32.7 million Yimeng shares) was valued at $44.4 million. Our management will consider additional sales of Yimeng shares as it deems appropriate.

The NEEQ is an over-the-counter (“OTC”) market in China listing companies not otherwise eligible for listing on China’s other markets including the Shanghai and Shenzhen Main Boards. Both the NEEQ and Yimeng’s shares on the NEEQ have experienced significant volatility and limited liquidity, as well as periods when trading halted. For example, on March 28, 2017, Yimeng announced that it was temporarily halting the trading of its stock on NEEQ in anticipation of a potential material event and did not resume trading until May 23, 2017. We may be unable to sell our Yimeng shares at prices equal to the then-quoted price and or in desired volumes. Sales of Yimeng shares by us or others could also impact the price of Yimeng shares due to the limited trading volume. Actions by Yimeng may also restrict our ability to sell Yimeng shares. For example, on November 2, 2015, Yimeng publicly announced that it has engaged in a counseling period for an initial public offering. On June 5, 2017, Yimeng’s board of directors passed resolutions on the proposal for Yimeng’s initial public offering. If Yimeng’s application for the initial public offering is accepted by China Securities Regulatory Commission, or the CSRC, it will apply to temporarily halt trading at NEEQ and if the application is approved, we will not be able to sell our Yimeng shares within one (1) or more years after the date of such initial public offering. There is also no assurance that Yimeng’s application for initial public offering will be accepted or approved or Yimeng will conduct an initial public offering at all.

If we are deemed an “investment company” under the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940 (as amended, the “Investment Company Act”), it would adversely affect the price of our ADSs and ordinary shares and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

As of the date of this annual report, our assets include an approximately 7.4% interest in Yimeng. This may be deemed to be “investment securities” within the meaning of the Investment Company Act. Our investment in Yimeng and other factors may cause us to be deemed an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act. As a foreign private issuer, we would not be eligible to register under the Investment Company Act, so if we are deemed an investment company within the meaning of the Investment Company Act, we would either have to obtain exemptive relief from the SEC or dispose of investments in order to fall outside the definition of an investment company. Additionally, we may have to forego potential future acquisitions of interests in companies that may be deemed investment securities within the meaning of the Investment Company Act. Failure to avoid being deemed an investment company under the Investment Company Act coupled with our inability as a foreign private issuer to register under the Investment Company Act could make us unable to comply with our reporting obligations as a public company in the United States and lead to our being delisted from the NYSE, which would have a material adverse effect on the liquidity and value of our ADSs and ordinary shares.

Our best-selling featured product lines, such as our Babaka product line, have varied significantly but account for, and are expected to continue to account for, the substantial majority of our sales in the near term. Featured products sales may decline, these products may have limited product lifecycles, and we may fail to introduce new products to offset declines in sales of our featured products.

Our five best-selling featured product lines accounted for 91.8%, 97.8% and 97.0% of our gross revenues in 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively. Our featured products may fail to maintain or achieve sufficient consumer market popularity, and sales may decline due to, among other factors, the introduction of competing products, entry of new competitors, customer dissatisfaction with the value or quality offered by our products, negative publicity or market saturation. Consequently, our future sales success depends on our ability to successfully identify, develop, introduce and distribute in a timely and cost- effective manner new and upgraded products.

Our product sales for a given period will depend upon, among other things, a positive customer response to our direct sales efforts, including our e-commerce channel, as well as the efforts of our distributors, our effective management of product inventory, and the stage of our products’ lifecycles during the period. Positive customer responses depend on many factors, including the appeal of the products and services being marketed, the effectiveness of our direct sales platforms and the viability of competing products. Our new products may not receive market acceptance. In addition, from time to time, we experience delays in the supply of our products to customers due to production delays or shortages or inadequate inventory management, and we lose potential product sales as a result. Furthermore, during a product’s lifecycle, problems may arise regarding regulatory, intellectual property, product liability or other issues which may affect the continued viability of the product for sale.

If we fail to identify and introduce additional successful products, including those to replace existing featured products suffering from declining sales or approaching the end of their product lifecycle, our gross revenues may not grow or may decline and our market share and value of our brand may be materially and adversely affected.

Our failure to quickly identify and adapt to changing industry conditions may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The online and offline consumer marketing and sales industries are subject to changing consumer preferences and industry conditions. Consequently, we must stay abreast of emerging fashion, lifestyle, design, technological and other industry and consumer trends. This requires timely collection of market feedback, accurate assessments of market trends, deep understanding of industry dynamics and flexible manufacturing capabilities.

We must also maintain relationships with suppliers who can adapt to fast-changing consumer preferences. If one or more of our existing suppliers cannot meet these requirements effectively, we will need to find and source from new suppliers, which may be costly and time-consuming. We or our suppliers may overestimate customer demand, face increased overhead expenditures without a corresponding increase in sales and incur inventory write-downs, which will adversely affect our results of operations.

If we cannot offer appealing products on our websites or through our other direct sales platforms or distributors, our customers may purchase fewer products from us or stop purchasing products from us altogether. Our reputation may also be negatively affected. If we do not anticipate, identify and respond effectively to consumer preferences or changes in consumer trends at an early stage, we may not be able to generate our desired level of sales. Failure to properly address these challenges may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our business depends significantly on the strength of our product brands and corporate reputation; our failure to develop, maintain and enhance our product brands and corporate reputation may materially and adversely affect the level of market recognition of, and trust in, our products.

In China’s fragmented, developing and increasingly competitive consumer market, product brands and corporate reputation have become critical to the success of our new products and the continued popularity of our existing products. Our brand promotion efforts, particularly our brand promotional activities, may be materially and adversely affected by our suspending purchases of TV airtime for TV direct sales programs, and our other promotional activities may prove to be expensive and may fail to either effectively promote our product brands or generate additional sales.

In addition, our product brands, corporate reputation and product sales could be harmed if, for example:

Furthermore, some of our customers reported that they have received phone calls from certain unidentified third parties impersonating our staff. These unidentified individuals called our customers to request that they modify their order because the ordered products were out of stock, or reject an ordered product upon delivery because it was damaged. In some cases, these unidentified individuals delivered counterfeit or inferior products to our customers. After our internal investigation and the investigation conducted by relevant PRC authorities, a group of impersonators was arrested by the police and was sentenced by the court in August 2011. Since 2011, we have identified other occurrences involving individuals impersonating our staff and calling our customers to achieve similar results, and in each case we identified such activities, have taken steps necessary to thwart and prosecute the impersonators. Although we continue to take steps reasonably aimed at preventing such events from recurring, including periodic internal investigations, there can be no assurance that we will be able to effectively prevent the recurrence of such events in the future, and in case such events recur in the future, it could materially adversely affect our reputation among our customers and potential customers and our result of operations.

We rely on our distribution network for a substantial portion of our revenues. Failure to maintain good distributor relations could materially disrupt our distribution business and harm our net revenues.

In 2015, 2016 and 2017, 21.6%, 18.9% and 6.6% respectively, of our net revenues were generated through our distributors across China. Our largest distributor accounted for approximately 2.2%, 4.4% and 2.9% of our gross revenues in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. We primarily sell Youngleda oxygen generating products through our distribution network. We do not maintain long-term contracts with our distributors. Maintaining relationships with existing distributors and replacing any distributor may be difficult or time consuming. In addition, we are in the process of rationalizing and streamlining our distribution network to adapt to our evolving business model. If we cannot negotiate favorable terms regarding our distribution agreement with our existing distributors, they may discontinue their relationships with us and we may not be able to identity and attract new distributors or find suitable replacement of our existing distributors. Our failure to maintain good relationships with our distributors could materially disrupt our distribution business and harm our net revenues.

We may be unable to effectively manage our distribution network. Any failure by our distributors to operate in compliance with our distribution agreements and applicable law may result in liability to us, may interrupt the effective operation of our distribution network, may harm our brands and our corporate image and of which may result in decreased sales.

We have limited ability to manage the activities of our distributors, who operate independently from us. In addition, our distributors or the retail outlets to which they sell our products may violate our distribution agreements with them or the sales agreements between our distributors and the retail outlets. Such violations may include, among other things:

In particular, we have discovered that some of the retail outlets to which our distributors sell our products are selling imitation products that compete with our products. Although we continue to rigorously monitor this situation and require our distributors to abide by their contractual obligation to eliminate any such violation by the retail outlets, we may be unable to police or stop violations such as the selling of imitation products by retail outlets.

If we determine to fine, suspend or terminate our distributors for acting in violation of our distribution agreements, or if the distributors fail to address material violations committed by any of their retail outlets, our ability to effectively sell our products in any given territory could be negatively impacted. In addition, these and similar actions could negatively affect our brands and our corporate image, possibly resulting in loss of customers and a decline in sales.

We may not realize the anticipated benefits of our potential future joint ventures, acquisitions or investments or be able to integrate any acquired employees, businesses, products, which in turn may negatively affect their performance and respective contributions to our results of operations.

From time to time, we conduct acquisitions, make investments or enter into joint ventures or other investment structures with other entities as a means of developing new products, acquiring managerial expertise or further expanding our complementary distribution network infrastructure. In addition to the two joint ventures and other minority investments that we currently maintain, we may continue to enter into similar joint ventures or make other acquisitions or investments when proper opportunities occur. Risks related to our existing and future joint ventures, acquisitions and investments include, as applicable:

Any of these events could distract our management’s attention and result in our not obtaining the anticipated benefits of our joint ventures, acquisitions or investments and, in turn, negatively affect the performance of such joint ventures, acquisitions and investments and their respective contributions to our results of operations.

Our business could be disrupted and our business prospects could be adversely affected if we were to lose the services of our co-founder, Mr. Robert W. Roche .

Mr. Roche has played an important role in the growth and development of our business since its inception. If Mr. Roche is unable or unwilling to continue in his present position, we may be unable to replace him easily or at all, our business could be severely disrupted, and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. We do not maintain key-man life insurance for Mr. Roche.

If we are unable to attract, retain and motivate key personnel or hire qualified personnel, or if such personnel do not work well together, our growth prospects and profitability will be harmed.

 Our business is supported and enhanced by a team of highly skilled employees who are critical to maintaining the quality and consistency of our business and reputation. It is important for us to attract qualified employees, especially marketing personnel, supply chain managers, call center operators and employees with high levels of experience in e-commerce.

During 2016 and 2017, we have effected a substantial reduction in our work force across all functions of our operations and restructured our senior management, which reductions are primarily driven by cost control efforts as well as restructuring and streamlining our business structure and operation. In addition, through voluntary attrition, certain key personnel have recently left, and we have yet to recruit replacements. The reductions and adjustments in our workforce and the loss of such key personnel could seriously harm the morale of existing employees and our ability to attract prospective employees in key areas of need or retain current key personnel in critical areas of operations, which could disrupt our business and operations and negatively affect our financial performance.

We must also provide continuous training to our employees so that they have up-to-date knowledge of various aspects of our operations and can meet our demand for high quality services. If we fail to do so, the quality of our services may deteriorate in one or more of the markets where we operate, which may cause a negative perception of our brand and adversely affect our business. Finally, disputes between us and our employees may arise from time to time and if we are not able to properly handle our relationship with our employees, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

In fulfilling sales through our direct sales platforms, we face customer acceptance, delivery, payment and collection risks that could adversely impact our direct sales net revenues and overall operating results. We are dependent on China Express Mail Service Corporation, or EMS and local delivery companies, to make our product deliveries and from time to time we have been required to write off certain accounts receivable from them.

We rely on EMS, the largest national express mail service operated by the China Post Office, and certain local delivery companies such as Yuantong and Zhai-ji-song to deliver products sold through our direct sales platforms, including our e-commerce channel. EMS and local delivery companies made deliveries of products representing 16.4% and 24.4% of our sales in 2015 respectively, 16.3% and 40.1% of our sales in 2016 respectively, and 8.9% and 6.1% in 2017 respectively. Although we offer credit/debit card and other payment options for our customers, substantially all of the products that we sell through our direct sales platforms are delivered and paid for by customers on a cash-on-delivery, or COD, basis. We rely on EMS and local delivery companies to remit customer payment collections to us for products delivered on COD basis. Of the total attempted product deliveries by EMS and local delivery companies on a COD basis, approximately 54%, 45%, and 53% were successful in 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively. Reasons for delivery failure primarily include customer refusal to accept a product upon delivery or failure to successfully locate the delivery address. Although we continue to explore alternative payment methods and expand our credit card payment options, we expect to continue to be dependent on COD customer payments for the foreseeable future.

EMS typically requires two to three weeks to remit to us the COD payments received from our customers. Of our total accounts receivable balance as of December 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017, no single delivery company accounted for more than 10% of our total accounts receivable. In addition, from time to time, we have been required to write off certain EMS accounts receivable due to a difference between EMS’s collections according to our records and cash amounts actually received by EMS according to their records. While we did not record any write-off in connection with EMS-related accounts receivable in 2015, 2016 or 2017, we may be required to make such write-off in the future. We do not maintain a long-term contract with EMS or local delivery companies. Failure or inability to renew our contract with EMS or local delivery companies could disrupt our business and operations and negatively affect our financial performance.

We expect competition in China’s consumer market to intensify. If we do not compete successfully against new and existing competitors, we may lose our market share, and our profitability may be adversely affected.

Competition from current or future competitors could cause our products to lose market acceptance or require us to significantly reduce our prices or increase our promotional activities to maintain and attract customers. Many of our current or future competitors may have longer operating histories, better brand recognition and consumer trust, strong media management capabilities, better media and supplier relationships, a larger technical staff and sales force and/or greater financial, technical or marketing resources than we do. We face competition from the following companies operating in our value chain:

Interruption or failure of our telephone system and management information systems could impair our ability to effectively sell and deliver our products, collect payments on product sales, or result in a loss or corruption of data, which could damage our reputation and negatively impact our results of operations.

In 2015, we consolidated our four call centers into one call center located in Wuxi, China. In 2015, 2016 and 2017, approximately 29.7%, 14.5% and 15.9% of our total net revenues, respectively, were generated through our direct sales platforms with orders processed by our call center. Our call center relies heavily on our telephone and management information systems, or MIS, to receive customer calls at our call center, process customer orders, arrange product delivery and assess the effectiveness of advertising placements and consumer acceptance of our products, among other things. In addition to our call center, our e-commerce business also relies heavily on MIS to process customer orders, arrange product delivery and collect sales-related data. Our telephone system and MIS are each primarily provided and maintained by a third party vendor and we have limited in house capacity to address any interruptions or failure of the telephone system or MIS. Interruptions to or failures in our telephone system or MIS could prevent the timely or proper delivery of products to consumers, or payment to the delivery companies, which would harm our reputation and cause the loss of our customers. Interruptions to or failures in our MIS could also lead to loss or inaccuracy of data stored in the MIS, causing inaccuracies in our payment processing (e.g. our failure to collect payment on orders) or analysis of the data. These interruptions or failures may be due to events that are beyond our control, such as inclement weather, natural disasters, transportation disruptions or labor. As our business evolves and our MIS requirements change, we may need to modify, upgrade and replace our systems. We work closely with third-party vendors and our related party vendors to provide service tailored to our specific needs. We are and will continue to be substantially reliant on these third-party vendors for the provision of maintenance, modifications, upgrades and replacements to our systems. Any such modification, upgrading or replacement of our systems may be costly and could create disturbances or interruptions to our operations. If these third-party vendors can no longer provide these services, it may be difficult, time consuming and costly to replace them. Similarly, errors or inadequacies in our MIS may be difficult or expensive to timely correct and could result in substantial service interruptions.

From time to time, our computer systems may experience short periods of power outage resulted from unexpected damage of the facilities where our computers system is located, natural disasters or other reasons. Any telephone or MIS failure (including as a result of natural disaster or power outage), particularly during peak or critical periods, could inhibit our ability to receive calls and complete orders or evaluate the effectiveness of our promotions or consumer acceptance of our products or otherwise operate our business. These events could, in turn, impair our ability to effectively sell and deliver our products or result in the loss or corruption of customer, supplier and distributor data, which could damage our reputation and negatively impact our results of operations.

Failure to protect personal and confidential information of our customers could damage our reputation and substantially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations and expose us to liability. 

We collect and store personally identifiable information of our customers in our database through which we sell and market our products. We may not be able to prevent our employees or other third parties, such as hackers, criminal organizations, our external service providers and business partners, from stealing or leaking information provided by our customers to us. In addition, significant capital and other resources may be required to protect against security breaches or to alleviate problems caused by such breaches. The methods used by hackers and others engaged in online criminal activities are increasingly sophisticated and constantly evolving. Even if we are successful in adapting to and preventing new security breaches, any perception by the public that the privacy of customer information is becoming increasingly unsafe or vulnerable to attack could inhibit the growth of online business generally, which in turn may reduce our customers’ confidence and materially and adversely affect our business and prospects. Moreover, we are required to comply with laws and regulations in connection with protection of electronic personal information of our customers in China and we may be obligated to comply with the privacy and data security laws of foreign countries where our customers reside. With the promulgation of the PRC Cyber Security Law on November 7, 2016 and effective from June 1, 2017 and the subsequent promulgation of related measures or regulations, we face more stringent requirements to protect the personal information we collect from being divulged or tampered with. Failure to comply with such requirements will result in more severe administrative penalties. Our exposure to the PRC and foreign countries’ privacy and data security laws impacts our ability to collect and use personal data, increases our legal compliance costs and may expose us to liability. As such laws proliferate, there may be uncertainty regarding their application or interpretation, which consequently increases our exposure to potential compliance costs and liability. Even if a claim of noncompliance against us does not ultimately result in liability, investigating or responding to a claim may present significant costs and demands on our management.

We could be liable for security breaches of our service and third-party payment systems, which may have a material and adverse effect on our reputation and business.

In recent years, we have generated an increasingly significant proportion of our net revenues from payments collected through third-party online payment systems, which are primarily generated from our Internet sales. In such transactions, confidential information, such as customers’ debit and credit card numbers and expiration dates, personal information and billing addresses, is transmitted over public networks and security of such information is essential for maintaining customer confidence. While we have not experienced any security breaches to date, current security measures may prove to be inadequate. In addition, we expect that an increasing number of our sales will be conducted over the Internet as a result of our expanding customer base and the growing use of online payment systems. We also expect that associated online criminal activities will likely increase accordingly. We strive to be prepared to increase our security measures and efforts in order to maintain customer confidence in the reliability of our online payment systems. However, we may not be able to prevent future breaches of our security, which may have a material and adverse effect on our reputation and business.

We may not be able to prevent others from unauthorized use of our intellectual property, which could harm our product brand, reputation and competitive position. In addition, we may have to enforce our intellectual property rights through litigation. Such litigation may result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management attention.

We rely on a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and unfair competition laws, nondisclosure agreements and other methods to protect our intellectual property rights. In particular, we rely on the trademark law in China to protect our product brands. We currently maintain 647 trademark registrations in China which will expire between 2018 and 2025. We are in the process of extending the trademarks which are expected to expire in the near future. Separately, we are in the process of applying for registration or transfer of approximately 117 trademarks among our group companies in China. The legal regime in China for the protection of intellectual property rights is still at a relatively early stage of development. Despite many laws and regulations promulgated and other efforts made by China over the years to enhance its regulation and protection of intellectual property rights, private parties may not enjoy intellectual property rights in China to the same extent as they would in many western countries, including the United States, and enforcement of such laws and regulations in China has not achieved the levels reached in those countries. Although the PRC State Council approved the State Outlines on the Protection of Intellectual Property on April 9, 2008 in an effort to protect intellectual property, we shall keep on making endeavors to prevent the misappropriation of our intellectual property.

We may be unable to enforce our proprietary rights in connection with these trademarks before such registrations or transfers are approved by the relevant authorities and it is possible that such registrations or transfers may not be approved at all. Currently we are seeking to register a trademark containing the Chinese name of the Babaka posture correction products in China, but are being challenged by certain of our competitors who claim that the mark “Beibeijia in Chinese characters” has become a generic term for orthopedic belt products. If we are not able to defend our position and obtain the trademark, there would likely be negative impact on our sale of Babaka posture correction products . In addition, manufacturers or suppliers in China may imitate our products, copy our various brands and infringe our intellectual property rights. We have discovered unauthorized products on e-commerce platforms and in the marketplace that are counterfeit reproductions of our products sold by the retailers within our distribution network and by third parties in retail stores and on websites. The most common counterfeit products that we found are counterfeits of our Babaka posture correction products.

It is difficult and expensive to police and enforce against infringement of intellectual property rights in China. Imitation or counterfeiting of our products or other infringement of our intellectual property rights, including our trademarks, could diminish the value of our various brands, harm our reputation and competitive position or otherwise adversely affect our net revenues. We may have to enforce our intellectual property rights through litigation. Such litigation may result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management attention.

We have in the past been and in the future may again be, subject to intellectual property rights infringement claims by third parties, which could be time-consuming and costly to defend or litigate, divert our attention and resources, or require us to enter into licensing agreements. These licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

We have in the past been and in the future may again be, the subject of claims for infringement, invalidity, or indemnification relating to other parties’ proprietary rights. The defense of intellectual property suits, including copyright infringement suits, and related legal and administrative proceedings can be costly and time consuming and may significantly divert the efforts and resources of our technical and management personnel. Furthermore, an adverse determination in any such litigation or proceeding to which we may become a party could cause us to pay damages, seek licenses from third parties, pay ongoing royalties, redesign our products or become subject to injunctions, each of which could prevent us from pursuing some or all of our businesses and result in our customers or potential customers deferring or limiting their purchase or use of our products, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We may from time to time be involved in legal or other disputes, or become a party to legal, administrative or other proceedings which, if adversely decided, could lead to significant liabilities and materially adversely affect us.

We may from time to time be involved in disputes with various parties we encounter in our daily operations, including but not limited to our suppliers, customers and distributors. These disputes may lead to legal, administrative or other proceedings to which we are a party, and defense of which may increase our expenses and divert management attention and resources. For example, in September 2015, Beijing Mai-La-Ke Technology Center, or the Mai-La-Ke, the previous holder of the trademark of our Youngleda oxygen generating products, filed a suit in the Haidian People’s Court in Beijing against Beijing Acorn and Beijing Acorn Younglide Science and Technology Co., Ltd., alleging that the two defendants should provide relevant sales data of our Youngleda products from November 2000 to November 2005 in order for them to claim for 50% of the net profit we obtained from such sales during such period pursuant to a prior agreement with the two defendants. On July 25, 2016, the Haidian People’s Court in Beijing issued the first-instance judgment in which all claims raised by Mai-La-Ke were rejected. Mai-La-Ke did not appeal and this judgment is final.

We were also the subject of the legal dispute between our shareholders as described immediately below.

Any adverse outcome in any legal, administrative or other similar proceedings that we are a party could lead to significant liabilities and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Historical and future disputes regarding control of our strategic direction and control of our board of directors could adversely impact our business, operating results and prospects .

From mid-2014 through mid-2015, we and our board of directors were involved in a protracted dispute between various shareholders for the control of our strategic direction and our board of directors. The alignment of the various parties to this dispute generally fell across two lines, with Mr. Robert W. Roche, our co-founder and executive chairman, and the shareholders that are allied with him, in one camp, and the other camp comprised of our other largest shareholders, Mr. Don Dongjie Yang, our other co-founder and our former executive chairman and chief executive officer, and SAIF, an exempted limited partnership registered in the Cayman Islands.

As described in greater detail in Item 8.A, “Financial Information—Consolidated statements and other financial information— Legal Proceedings,” this dispute involved, among other things (i) the improper removal of Mr. Roche by our then-board of directors, comprising Mr. Robert W. Roche, Mr. Don Dongjie Yang, Mr. Andrew Y. Yan, Mr. Gordon Xiaogang Wang, Mr. Jing Wang and Mr. William Liang, from his role as executive chairman in August 2014 and, as a result, his preclusion from involvement in our day-to-day operations and management, (ii) various efforts by Mr. Roche (which were rejected by our then-board of directors) to call an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders, or EGM, for the purpose of removing certain of our directors, (iii) Mr. Roche, through a shareholder of our Company controlled by him, filing a petition in the Cayman Islands in September 2014, seeking a winding up of the company (or, in the alternative, other remedies), (iv) a cross-petition brought by shareholders of our Company controlled or aligned with Mr. Yang also seeking a winding up of the company (or, in the alternative, other remedies) based on, among other things, allegations that Mr. Roche engaged in conduct and/or threatened to engage in conduct harmful to the company, and (v) four new directors being elected in December 2014 at our annual general meeting over Mr. Roche’s objection.

In March 2015, the Cayman Islands Court, found in Mr. Roche’s favor and made an order dismissing the cross-petition and, in lieu of making a winding-up order, granting Mr. Roche certain of the alternative remedies he (through REL, then known as Acorn Composite Corporation) sought by directing that we call an EGM on May 4, 2015 for the purpose of considering resolutions: (i) to remove four then current directors from our board of directors; (ii) to elect to our board of directors three new individuals nominated by Mr. Roche; and (iii) to amend our articles of association to allow shareholders who, together hold not less than 30% of our issued shares, to convene an EGM unilaterally. The EGM was held on May 4, 2015 with each of the resolutions passed. Following the EGM, our board of directors elected Mr. Roche as our executive chairman and chief executive officer.

In addition, the Cayman Islands Court found that certain of these directors “acted in bad faith and exercised their powers, both in connection with Mr. Roche’s removal from office and in connection with the AGM and the related refusal to convene an EGM, for an improper purpose”.

On May 27, 2015, we entered into the Transitional Services and Separation Agreement (the “TSSA”) with Mr. Yang in connection with his resignation as a director and officer of the Company (as described in greater detail in “Item 7 Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions— Transitional Services and Separation Agreement”). Among other things, pursuant to the terms of the TSSA:

In 2015, our board of directors approved the settlement with Mr. Roche and in January 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with Mr. Roche and REL, a company wholly owned by Mr. Roche, for the purpose of settling (i) various amounts incurred by REL and/or its associated companies on behalf of and for the benefit of securing the commercial and business interests of our Company prior to his 2014 removal from the office; and (ii) damages and legal fees incurred by Mr. Roche arising from that removal. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, we reimbursed Mr. Roche approximately $0.9 million for various costs incurred by him and REL in connection with securing certain business contracts for our Company and for the employment-related damages and legal fees incurred by Mr. Roche from August 2014 to April 2015.

The May 4, 2015 EGM and related events, including the TSSA and the settlement agreement with Mr. Roche, may not serve to completely resolve the dispute. Other than the TSSA with Mr. Yang and the settlement agreement with Mr. Roche, we have not entered into any similar releases or agreements settling any claims we or any other person may have in connection with the dispute or matters leading up to the dispute, with any of the other directors that were involved in the dispute, and therefore we may be subject to ongoing legal proceedings with them in the future.

On December 1, 2016, we filed a related action in the Cayman Islands Court against Mr. Andrew Yan, Gordon Xiaogang Wang, and Jing Wang (the “Defendants”) for damages resulting from breach of fiduciary duties and related misconduct and mismanagement. More specifically, the complaint alleges that that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and are responsible for alleged misconduct in and/or mismanagement of our business resulting from, in addition to other actions outlined in the complaint, the wrongful removal of Mr. Roche as our then chief executive officer, exposing us to contractual breach of contract claims, refusing to pursue valuable business opportunities and wrongful termination of certain employees resulting in unnecessary severance costs. Relief sought in connection with the alleged breach of fiduciary duties and misconduct and/or mismanagement consists of (i) initial monetary damage claims comprised of (x) US dollar denominated damages of approximately US$26,326,389.76, and (y) Renminbi denominated damages of approximately RMB 120,045,222 (equivalent to US$17,433,989.57 utilizing a conversion rate of 0.1452 as of November 30, 2016), (ii) costs and (iii) such further or other relief as the Cayman Islands Court considers just.

On July 28, 2017, we have entered into a settlement agreement with REL, the Former Directors and SAIF. Pursuant to the settlement, all parties would, among other things, discontinue and/or withdraw all claims, counterclaims and taxation proceedings in the Cayman Islands Court related to the above mentioned matters. An agreement was also reached for the Company would repurchase all of the ordinary shares of the Company owned by SAIF, representing 27.7% of the total outstanding ordinary shares of the Company, for the purchase price of approximately $4.17 million, the equivalent of $4.05 per ADS. The purchase price represents an approximately 60.5%, 64.8% and 62.8% discount to the closing price of the Company’s ADSs based on the 30-day, 60-day and 90-day moving average, respectively. The repurchased shares have already been cancelled.

Although no appeal has been brought as of the date of this annual report, it is possible an appeal of all or part of the Cayman Islands Court’s order may occur with the winding up of our Company being one of the possible remedies sought. Continuing ramifications of the dispute may also include a public perception that our future direction, strategy or leadership is uncertain, potentially causing us to lose business opportunities, or harming our ability to attract new investors or business partners, and causing our ADS price to experience periods of volatility or stagnation. The dispute has resulted in, and, if it continues or if other related shareholder activities ensue, could result in disruption to our operations and diversion of the attention of management and our employees as a result of responding to these matters, which has been and may continue to be costly and time-consuming. This could result in our business being adversely affected. We have retained the services of various professionals to advise us on this matter, including legal advisors, the costs of which may negatively impact our future financial results. 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, cash position or financial results.

Mr. Robert W. Roche, our executive chairman, is a significant beneficial shareholder, which makes it possible for him to have significant influence over the outcome of all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval and which influence may be alleged to conflict with our interests and the interests of our other shareholders .

As of April 30, 2018, Mr. Roche beneficially owned approximately 76.20% of our outstanding ordinary shares, including the approximately 32.60% of our outstanding ordinary shares for which Ms. Ritsuko Hattori-Roche, the wife of Mr. Roche, is the record owner, giving him substantial influence over the outcome of all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, although Mr. Roche disclaims beneficial ownership of such shares. Our current memorandum and articles of association provide that the chairman of our board of directors or any one or more shareholders who collectively own at least 30% of our outstanding ordinary shares may convene an EGM, or an extraordinary meeting of our shareholders, to vote on matters proposed for consideration at such EGM. As a 30.0% plus shareholder and chairman of our board of directors, Mr. Roche has the ability to unilaterally convene an EGM. This influence may conflict with the interests of our other shareholders. In addition, such concentration of ownership and influence by Mr. Roche may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our Company, which could deprive our shareholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their ADSs as part of any contemplated sale of our Company and may reduce the price of our ADSs or could create actual or perceived governance instabilities that could adversely affect the price of our ADSs.

We have limited general business insurance coverage and we may be subject to losses that might not be covered by our existing insurance policies, which may result in our incurring substantial costs and the diversion of resources.

Except the insurance for certain of our inventory at the Zhai-ji-song warehouse, we currently do not have any business liability, disruption or litigation insurance coverage for our operations in China. Any business disruption or litigation may result in our incurring substantial costs and the diversion of resources.

Our sale of our and other parties’ products could subject us to product liability claims, potential safety-related regulatory actions or product recalls. These events could damage our brand and reputation and the marketability of the products that we sell, divert our management’s attention and result in lower net revenues and increased costs.

The manufacture and sale of our products, in particular, our Youngleda oxygen generating products in our health product category, and our sale of other parties’ products could each expose us to product liability claims for personal injuries. Also, if our products are deemed by the PRC authorities to fail to conform to product quality and personal safety requirements in China, we could be subject to PRC regulatory action. Violation of PRC product quality and safety requirements by our or others’ products sold by us may subject us to confiscation of the products, imposition of penalties or an order to cease sales of the violating products or to cease operations pending rectification. If the offense is determined to be serious, our business license could be suspended and subject to criminal liabilities. Any product liability claim or governmental regulatory action could be costly and time-consuming to defend. If successful, product liability claims may require us to pay substantial damages. Also, a material design, manufacturing or quality failure in our and other parties’ products sold by us, other safety issues or heightened regulatory scrutiny could each warrant a product recall by us and result in increased product liability claims. Furthermore, customers may not use the products sold by us in accordance with our product usage instructions, possibly resulting in customer injury. All of these events could materially harm our brand and reputation and marketability of our products, divert our management’s attention and result in lower net revenues and increased costs.

Any disruption of our or our manufacturing service providers’ manufacturing operations could negatively affect the availability of our products and our net revenues derived therefrom.

We manufactured approximately 6.1% of the products we sell in terms of revenues in 2017, with the balance provided by third-party suppliers and manufacturers in China. We purchase the materials we need to manufacture our Youngleda oxygen generating products from outside suppliers in China. We typically purchase all production materials, including critical components, on a purchase order basis and do not have long-term contracts with our suppliers.

We rely on the manufacturing services of third party suppliers to produce the substantial majority of our products. If we fail to develop or maintain our relationships with our suppliers, we may be unable to obtain our products, and we could be prevented from supplying our products to our customers in the required quantities. Problems of this kind could cause us to experience loss of market share and result in decreased net revenues. In addition, the failure of a supplier to supply materials and components that meet our quality, quantity and cost requirements in a timely manner could impair our ability to manufacture our products or increase our costs, particularly if we are unable to obtain these materials and components from alternative sources on a timely basis or on commercially reasonable terms.

Other risks for the products manufactured by us, include, among others:

Currently, products manufactured and supplied by third parties for us include our mobile phones, cosmetics, fitness products, collectibles and other products. Some of our products are supplied by third-party manufacturers based on designs or technical requirements provided by us. These manufacturers may fail to produce products that conform to our requirements. In addition, for products manufactured or supplied by third-party manufacturers, we indirectly face many of the risks described above and other risks. For example, our third-party manufacturers may not continue to supply products to us of the quality and/or in the quantities we require. It may also be difficult or expensive for us to replace a third-party manufacturer.

We may incur impairment losses on our investments in equity securities.

We have made non-controlling investments in the equity securities of a number of companies. Under U.S. GAAP that we are subject to, if there is a decline in the fair value of the shares we hold in these companies, or any other company we invest in, over a period of time, and we determine that the decline is other-than-temporary, we will need to record an impairment loss for the applicable fiscal period. We may incur expenses related to the impairment of existing or future equity investments. Any such impairment charge could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our asset impairment reviews may result in future write-downs.

We are required, among other things, to test intangible assets and other long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amounts may not be recoverable. In connection with our business acquisitions, we make assumptions regarding estimated future cash flows and other factors to determine the fair value of goodwill and intangible assets. In assessing the useful lives of the intangible assets, we must make assumptions regarding their fair value, the recoverability of those assets and our ability to successfully develop and ultimately commercialize acquired technology. If those assumptions change in the future when we conduct our periodic reviews in accordance with applicable accounting standards, we may be required to record impairment charges.

We may not be able to properly implement the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and this failure could have a material adverse impact on our ability to provide financial information in a timely and reliable manner.

As a public company with shares listed in the United States, we are subject to provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we include a report from management on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in our annual reports on Form 20-F. In 2014, our management identified several material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting. While our management concluded that these material weaknesses were remediated in 2015, and that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2015, December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, there is no assurance that our management will conclude that our internal controls are effective in future periods. If we are unable 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, which could result in a loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our reporting processes and could materially and adversely affect the trading price of our ADSs.

Our businesses and growth prospects are dependent upon the expected growth in China’s consumer retail markets. Any future slowdown or decline in China’s consumer retail markets could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Currently, all of our revenues are generated by sales of consumer products in China. Presently, the success of our business depends on the continued growth of China’s consumer retail markets. The consumer retail markets in China are characterized by rapidly changing trends and continually evolving consumer preferences and purchasing patterns and power. China’s consumer retail market is expected to grow in line with expected growth in consumer disposable income and the economy in China generally. However, projected growth rates for the Chinese economy and China’s consumer retail markets may not be realized. Any slowdown or decline in China’s consumer retail markets, or evolving consumer purchases and purchasing patterns away from our products, would have a direct adverse impact on us and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Relating to the Regulation of Our Business and Industry

PRC regulations relating to our industry are evolving. Any adverse or unanticipated regulatory changes, particularly those regarding the regulation of our direct sales business, could significantly harm our business or limit our ability to operate.

We and our distributors are subject to various laws regulating our advertising and any violation of these laws by us or our distributors could result in fines and penalties, harm our product brands and result in reduced net revenues.

PRC advertising laws and regulations require advertisers and advertising operators to ensure that the content of the advertising they prepare, publish or broadcast is fair and accurate, is not misleading and is in full compliance with applicable laws. Specifically, we, as an advertiser or advertising operator, and our distributors, as advertisers, are each required to independently review and verify the content of our respective advertising for content compliance before displaying the advertising through print media, radio or Internet portals. Moreover, the PRC unfair competition law prohibits us and our distributors from conveying misleading, false or inaccurate information with respect to quality, function, use, or other features of products, through advertising. Violation of these laws or regulations may result in penalties, including fines, confiscation of advertising income, orders to cease dissemination of the advertising, orders to publish an advertisement correcting the misleading information and criminal liabilities. In circumstances involving serious violations, the PRC government may suspend or revoke a violator’s business license.

For advertising related to certain types of our products, such as those products constituting medical devices and health related products, we and our distributors must also file the advertising content with the provincial counterpart of the China’s State Administration for Food and Drug, or SAFD, or other competent authorities, and obtain required permits and approvals for the advertising content from the SAFD or other competent authorities, in each case, before publication or broadcasting of the advertising. In addition, pursuant to the Food Safety Law of the PRC effective from October 1, 2015, the contents of food advertisements should be true and no disease-prevention or remedial function should be mentioned. We endeavor to comply, and encourage our distributors to comply, with such requirements. However, we and our distributors may fail to comply with these and other laws. Commencing on January 1, 2008, advertisements related to medical devices and health related foods are subject to the credit rating administration. The provincial counterpart of SAFD is responsible for collecting, recording, identifying and publishing the credit rating information of the advertiser. The credit rating of every advertiser will be categorized as one of good credit, dishonor credit or material dishonor credit and this rating is reviewed each year. An advertiser who receives a rating of dishonor credit or material dishonor credit may be ordered to improve its rating within a specified time limit and its business activities may be subject to special scrutiny if necessary. Therefore, any violations by us or our distributors relating to our Youngleda oxygen generating devices may result in SAFD imposing on us or our distributors a dishonor credit or material dishonor credit rating. Our and our distributors’ past and any future violations and a dishonor credit or material dishonor credit rating imposed upon us, if any, could seriously harm our corporate image, product brands and operating results.

In addition, the PRC Advertising Law, promulgated in April 24, 2015 and effective from September 1, 2015, outlines the regulatory framework for the advertising industry and requires advertisers, advertising operators and advertising distributors to ensure that the contents of the advertisements they prepare or distribute are true and in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Pursuant to PRC Advertising Law, advertisements must not contain, among other prohibited contents, terms such as “the state-level,” “the highest grade,” “the best” or other similar words. In addition, where a special government review is required for certain categories of advertisements before publishing, the advertisers, advertising operators and advertising distributors are obligated to confirm that such review has been performed and the relevant approval has been obtained. Pursuant to the PRC Advertising Law, the use of internet to distribute advertisements shall not affect the normal use of the internet by users. Particularly, advertisements distributed on internet pages such as pop-up advertisements shall be indicated with conspicuous mark for “close” to ensure the close of such advertisements is possible by one click. Where internet information service providers know or should know that illegal advertisements are distributed using their services, they shall prevent such advertisements from being distributed. Violation of these regulations may result in penalties, including fines, confiscation of advertising income, orders to cease dissemination of the advertisements and orders to publish an advertisement correcting the misleading information. In the case of serious violations, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, or SAIC, or its local branches may force the violator to terminate its advertising operation or even revoke its business license. Furthermore, advertisers, advertising operators or advertising distributors may be subject to civil liability if they infringe on the legal rights and interests of third parties.

Moreover, government actions and civil claims may be filed against us for misleading or inaccurate advertising, fraud, defamation, subversion, negligence, copyright or trademark infringement or other violations due to the nature and content of our advertising produced by us or our distributors. We have been fined by the relevant authorities for certain advertising that was considered misleading or false by the authorities. Historically, such fines have not been significant and related investigations into our advertising practices did not consume significant amounts of our management resources. In some cases, we were required to accept product returns. However, it is possible that we may have to expend significant resources in the future in defending against such actions and these actions may damage our reputation, result in reduced net revenues, negatively affect our results of operations, and even result in our business licenses being suspended or revoked and in criminal liability for us and our officers and directors.

Interim Measures for the Administration of Internet Advertisements was promulgated on July 4, 2016 and became effective on September 1, 2016. The Interim Measures and the Advertising Law govern advertising activities through Internet. Among other things, the Interim Measures provides that for the advertising of special goods or services, such as medical treatment, drugs, formula food for special medical purposes, medical equipment, pesticides, veterinary drugs and health food, etc. which shall be subject to examination by the advertisement examination authority in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, such advertisements shall not be published without examination.

If the PRC government takes the view that we did not obtain the necessary approval for our acquisition of Shanghai Advertising under Guideline Catalog of Foreign Investment Industries (2004 Revision), we could be subject to penalties.

On September 24, 2007, we acquired 100% of the legal ownership of Shanghai Advertising, which had been one of our affiliated entities, through Shanghai Acorn Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd., or Acorn Consulting. At the time of our acquisition, the advertising industry was a restricted industry for foreign investment under the Guideline Catalog of Foreign Investment Industries (2004 Revision). Acorn Consulting, as a domestic subsidiary of foreign invested enterprises, might have been required under PRC law to obtain the approval of the Ministry of Commerce, or MOFCOM, or its local counterpart to invest in restricted industries, such as the advertising industry. However, on October 31, 2007, the National Development and Reform Commission, or NDRC, and MOFCOM jointly issued the Guideline Catalog of Foreign Investment Industries (2007 Revision) which identified the advertising industry as permitted industry for foreign investment. On December 24, 2011 the NDRC and MOFCOM jointly issued the Guideline Catalog of Foreign Investment Industries (2011 Revision) as amended on March 10, 2015 (2015 Revision), and further amended on July 28, 2017 (2017 Revision), under which the advertising industry continues to remain as permitted industry. As a permitted industry, approval of MOFCOM or its local counterpart is no longer required for a foreign invested enterprise or its domestic subsidiary to invest in advertising unless required by other specific PRC laws and regulations. Based upon the published interpretation on the website of Shanghai Foreign Investment Commission, or SFIC, MOFCOM’s local counterpart in Shanghai, and oral advice we received from SFIC prior to the acquisition, we believe that it was not necessary for us to seek such approval at the time when we made the acquisition. However, because our acquisition occurred prior to, yet approaching, the removal of the advertising industry from the restricted list for foreign investment, and we did not receive the approval of SFIC, we may be deemed not in strict compliance with the then effective rules and could be subject to penalties. We were advised by SFIC in an anonymous consultation prior to the acquisition that this acquisition was a purely domestic acquisition without any foreign-related issues. Based on the advice of SFIC, Pudong Administration of Industry and Commerce in Shanghai accepted the registration of such acquisition and issued a new business license to Shanghai Advertising on September 24, 2007. We understand that it is unlikely that we would be required by the PRC regulatory authorities, in particular SAIC and MOFCOM or their local counterparts, to seek such approval to make up for our deficiency, or that any penalties would be imposed upon us for failure to obtain such approval.

However, we cannot assure you that SAIC or MOFCOM will not take a different view from ours and we would not be subject to penalties that, if imposed, could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operation.

If the PRC government takes the view that our acquisition of Shanghai Advertising does not comply with PRC governmental restrictions on foreign investment in advertising under Administrative Regulation on Foreign-Invested Advertising Enterprises, we could be subject to severe penalties.

Direct investment by foreign investors in the advertising industry in China was previously subject to the Administrative Regulation on Foreign-Invested Advertising Enterprises jointly promulgated by MOFCOM and SAIC on March 2, 2004 and further revised on October 1, 2008. Under this advertising regulation, foreign investors are required to have had at least three years of experience in directly operating an advertising business outside of China before they may receive approval to own 100% of an advertising business in China. Foreign investors that do not have three years of experience are permitted to invest in advertising businesses, provided that such foreign investors have at least two years of direct operations in the advertising business outside of China and that such foreign investors may not own 100% of advertising businesses in China. Furthermore, all foreign invested advertising companies must obtain approval from SAIC or MOFCOM or their local counterparts. On June 29, 2015, the Administrative Regulation on Foreign-Invested Advertising Enterprises was abolished.

On September 24, 2007, we acquired 100% of the legal ownership of Shanghai Advertising, which had been one of our affiliated entities, through Acorn Consulting. Pudong Administration of Industry and Commerce in Shanghai did not require us to show that Acorn Consulting had the requisite years of operating experience in an advertising business outside of China either before or after it accepted the registration of the acquisition and issued a new business license to Shanghai Advertising. Furthermore, according to an anonymous consultation with SFIC, because our acquisition of Shanghai Advertising was completed through Acorn Consulting, a domestic subsidiary of a foreign invested enterprise, the acquisition was not subject to the requirement that foreign investors have the requisite years of operating experience in an advertising business outside of China.

Since our acquisition of Shanghai Advertising occurred prior to the revocation of Administrative Regulation on Foreign-Invested Advertising Enterprises, if the PRC government determines that our acquisition of Shanghai Advertising violated the then-effective requirements on foreign investment or re-investment in advertising businesses in China, as neither Acorn Consulting nor its shareholders had the requisite years of experience in the advertising industry required of foreign investors, we could be subject to severe penalties including among others, the revocation of the business licenses of our related subsidiaries, discontinuance of our advertising operations, the imposition of conditions with which we or our PRC subsidiaries may be unable to comply, or the restructuring of Shanghai Advertising. The imposition of any of these penalties could result in a material adverse effect on our ability to do business.

We may not fully comply with regulations on personal information protection which may subject us to administrative penalties.

Recently China has been imposing more stringent requirements on personal information protection. In particular, on December 28, 2012, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated the Decision on Strengthening Internet Information Protection, or Internet Information Protection Rules, which required that, among other things, internet service providers and other entities must obtain consent from relevant persons before collecting and using personal electronic information during business activities and must make public rules on collecting and using personal information; personal electronic information collected must be strictly kept confidential and must not be divulged, tampered with, damaged, sold or illegally provided to others; anyone is not allowed to send commercial electronic information to an recipient without his or her consent or request, or after he or she has given an explicit refusal. The MIIT promulgated Provisions on Protecting Personal Information of Telecommunications and Internet Users, or Personal Information Protection Rules, on July 16, 2013 which provides detailed rules for standards on collection and use of users’ personal information by telecommunications business operators and internet information service providers and security measures on protecting users’ personal information. In addition, the Law on the Protection of Consumers’ Rights and Interests amended on October 25, 2013 and effective from March 15, 2014 provides that business operators may not send commercial information to consumers without their consent or request, or after the consumers have expressly refused to receive such information. Furthermore, the Measures for Punishments against Infringements on Consumer Rights and Interests promulgated on January 5, 2015 and effective from March 15, 2015 provides that a business operator must refrain from any of the following acts: (i) collecting or using the consumers' personal information without the consent of the consumers; (ii) divulging, selling or illegally providing others with the consumers' personal information collected; and (iii) sending commercial information to consumers without their consent or request, or after the consumers have expressly refused to receive such information. On November 7, 2016, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated the PRC Cyber Security Law which, effective from June 1, 2017, imposes the following new requirements for the internet operators like us: (i) internet operators must notify the relevant consumers and the applicable government authority of the occurrence or potential occurrence of any divulging, damaging or loss of the personal information collected; and (ii) the internet operators must take proper measures to delete or correct the personal information collected at the request of the consumers whose personal information is used inappropriately or contains erroneous information. The PRC Cyber Security Law also increased the administrative punitive measures that the competent government authorities can take as well as the monetary penalty for any noncompliance.

During our business activities we have collected a large amount of our customers’ information, such as names, addresses and phone numbers and from time to time send to our customers’ promotion messages and mail in connection with our products through the contact information we have collected. After effectiveness of Internet Information Protection Rules, we have taken certain actions to comply with the requirements. However, given the limited interpretation on the rules, we cannot assure you that our business practices and the additional steps we take in response to the rules will be sufficient to fully comply with the Internet Information Protection Rules and the PRC Cyber Security Law, and that all of our customers’ personal information are legally collected and used and fully protected in all respects. If relevant competent governmental authority holds that our business activities have violated Internet Information Protection Rules, we may be subject to certain administrative penalties, such as fines, and confiscating illegal gains.

If we are deemed to have failed to obtain permits or approvals applicable to our past release, broadcasting and transmission of e-books and video and audio programs and internet information service, we may be subject to financial penalties and other government sanctions.

Prior to June, 2017, during operation of our business, we have posted information, including e-books and video and audio programs on our website (www.hjx.com) for customers to download. We have ceased posting such information on that website since June 2017. Under applicable PRC laws, rules and regulations, the release, broadcasting and transmission of e-books and video and audio programs may be deemed as providing internet publication services as well as transmission of video and audio programs on the internet, which could require internet publication licenses and licenses for online transmission of audio-visual programs. We applied for the internet publication licenses but have not yet successfully obtained such licenses. In addition, our relevant operating entity is not qualified to obtain the licenses for online transmission of audio-visual programs under the current legal regime as it is not a wholly state-owned or state-controlled company. Therefore if our past conduct is deemed a violation of the applicable laws and regulations, we may be subject to financial penalties and other government sanctions. Furthermore, according to relevant laws and regulations, the internet information service provided through our website in the past might be deemed an operating business, which would require us to obtain an ICP License from the relevant information industry authorities. Accordingly, on January 17, 2014, Beijing HJX Technology, one of our affiliated entities, obtained an ICP License with a validity period of five years subject to annual inspection. On October 26, 2017, Beijing HJX Technology successfully renewed the ICP License, though we no longer post the aforesaid information on our website and our business now no longer requires much utilization of such license. We have in the past, due to management turnover and improper management of the ICP License, had failed to renew the ICP License, which, if deemed to be a violation of the applicable laws and regulations, we may be subject to financial penalties and other government sanctions.

Risks Relating to Our Corporate Structure

If the PRC government takes the view that the agreements that establish the structure for operating our direct sales business in China do not comply with PRC governmental restrictions on foreign investment in these areas, we could be subject to severe penalties.

Our direct sales business is regulated by MOFCOM and SAIC. Historically, foreign investment in the direct sales business was highly restricted and had to be approved by MOFCOM. To address these past restrictions, two affiliated domestic entities of our Company, Shanghai Network, and Beijing Acorn, were structured to operate our direct sales business. Furthermore, due to these restrictions on the direct sales business as well as certain restrictions or prohibitions on foreign ownership of companies that engage in internet and other related businesses imposed by current PRC laws and regulations, including the provision of internet content that were in place then, we have set up another consolidated affiliated entity, Beijing HJX Technology, to conduct internet interactive services through Beijing HJX Technology (which holds an ICP License). Our three affiliated domestic entities are currently owned by two PRC citizens, Mr. Kuan Song and Ms. Pan Zong, who are nominee shareholders engaged by us to hold the equity interests in our three affiliated domestic entities on our behalf. We have entered into contractual arrangements with these affiliated entities pursuant to which our wholly owned subsidiaries, Acorn Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Acorn Information, and Acorn Trade (Shanghai) Co. Ltd., or Acorn Trade (Shanghai), provide technical support and operation and management services to these affiliated entities. In addition, we have entered into agreements with these affiliated entities and Mr. Song and Ms. Zong as their shareholders, providing us substantial ability to control each of these affiliated entities. For detailed descriptions of these contractual arrangements, see Item 4.C, “Information on the Company—Organizational Structure”.

On March 10, 2015, the NDRC and MOFCOM jointly issued the Guideline Catalog of Foreign Investment Industries (2015 Revision) as amended on July 28, 2017 (2017 Revision) which has removed the direct sales and internet sales from the restricted industries category. However, under the Regulations on Administration of Direct Sales, effective as of August 23, 2005 and amended on March 1, 2017, the entities engaged in direct sales are still required to be approved by MOFCOM, and if foreign investment in such entities, such foreign investor shall have more than three years’ experience of engaging in direct sales activities outside the territory of China.

We understand that the ownership structures of (i) Acorn Information, Shanghai Network and Beijing Acorn; and (ii) Acorn Trade (Shanghai) and Beijing HJX Technology, are in compliance with existing PRC laws and regulations and our contractual arrangements among (i) Acorn Information, Shanghai Network and Beijing Acorn and their shareholders; and (ii) Acorn Trade (Shanghai) and Beijing HJX Technology and their shareholders are valid, binding and enforceable. However, there are uncertainties regarding the interpretation and application of current and future PRC laws and regulations. If we, Acorn Information, Acorn Trade (Shanghai) or any of our affiliated entities are found to be in violation of any existing or future PRC laws or regulations or fail to obtain or maintain any of the required licenses, permits or approvals, the relevant PRC regulatory authorities would have broad discretion in dealing with these violations, including, among others:

Our ability to conduct our business may be negatively affected if the PRC government were to carry out any of the aforementioned actions.

The contractual arrangements with our affiliated Chinese entities and their shareholders relate to critical aspects of our operations, but may not be as effective in providing operational control as direct ownership and may be difficult and costly to enforce under PRC law.

We rely on contractual arrangements with our variable interest entities and their shareholders to operate our business in China. For a description of these contractual arrangements, see Item 4.C, “Information on the Company—Organizational Structure”. These contractual arrangements may not be as effective as direct ownership in providing us control over our consolidated affiliated entities. Direct ownership would allow us, for example, to directly exercise our rights as a shareholder to effect changes in the board of each affiliated entity, which, in turn, could effect changes, subject to any applicable fiduciary obligations, at the management level. If our variable interest entities or their shareholders fail to perform their respective obligations under these contractual arrangements, our recourse to the assets held by our consolidated affiliated entities is indirect and we may have to incur substantial costs and expend significant resources to enforce such arrangements in reliance on legal remedies under PRC law. These remedies may not always be effective, particularly in light of uncertainties in the PRC legal system.

In addition, all of these contractual arrangements are governed by PRC laws and provide for the resolution of disputes through arbitration in the PRC. Accordingly, these contracts would be interpreted in accordance with PRC laws and any disputes would be resolved in accordance with PRC legal procedures. The legal environment in the PRC is not as developed as in 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. Moreover, there have been certain instances where similar contractual arrangements with variable interest entities such as ours have been found unenforceable in PRC arbitration, and we cannot assure that will not happen to us. In the event that we are unable to enforce these contractual arrangements, or if we suffer significant time delays or other obstacles in the process of enforcing these contractual arrangements, it would be very difficult to exert effective control over our variable interest entities, and our ability to conduct our business and our financial conditions and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected. See “—Risks Related to Doing Business in China—The PRC legal system embodies uncertainties which could limit the available legal protections.”

The shareholders of our variable interest entities may have potential conflicts of interest with us, which may materially and adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Shanghai Network, Beijing Acorn, and Beijing HJX are our variable interest entities. Mr. Kuan Song and Ms. Pan Zong collectively hold 100% of the equity interest in Shanghai Network, Beijing Acorn and Beijing HJX Technology.

The interests of Mr. Kuan Song and Ms. Pan Zong as the shareholders of our variable interest entities may differ from the interests of our Company as a whole, as what is in the best interests of our variable interest entities may not be in the best interests of our Company. We cannot assure you that if conflicts of interest arise, any or all of these individuals will act in the best interests of our Company or that conflicts of interest will be resolved in our favor. In addition, these individuals may breach or cause our variable interest entities and their subsidiaries to breach or refuse to renew the existing contractual arrangements with us.

Currently, we do not have arrangements to address potential conflicts of interest that the shareholders of our variable interest entities may encounter; provided that we could, at all times, exercise our option under the optional share purchase agreement to cause them to transfer all of their equity ownership in our variable interest entities to a PRC entity or individual designated by us as permitted by the then applicable PRC laws. In addition, if such conflicts of interest arise, we could also, in the capacity of attorney-in-fact of the then existing shareholders of our variable interest entities as provided under the power of attorney, directly appoint new directors of our variable interest entities. We rely on the shareholders of our variable interest entities to comply with the laws of China, which protect contractual rights. The laws also require them to avoid conflicts of interest and not to take advantage of their positions for personal gains. The laws of the Cayman Islands provide that directors owe a duty of care and a duty of loyalty to act honestly in good faith with a view to the company’s best interests. However, the legal frameworks of China and Cayman Islands do not provide guidance on how to resolve conflicts in the event of a conflict with another corporate governance regime.

If we cannot resolve any conflicts of interest or disputes between us and the shareholders of our variable interest entities, 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. Under the current contractual arrangements, as a legal matter, if any consolidated affiliated entity or Mr. Kuan Song or Ms. Pan Zong fails to perform its or their respective obligations under these contractual arrangements, we may have to incur substantial costs and expend significant resources to enforce those arrangements, and rely on legal remedies under PRC law. These remedies may include seeking specific performance or injunctive relief, and claiming damages, any of which may not be effective. For example, if either Mr. Kuan Song or Ms. Pan Zong refuses to transfer his or her equity interest in any affiliated entity to us or our designee when we exercise the purchase option pursuant to these contractual arrangements, or if either Mr.  Kuan Song or Ms. Pan Zong otherwise acts in bad faith toward us, we may have to take legal action to compel him or her to fulfill his or her contractual obligations. In addition, as each of our affiliated entity is jointly owned and effectively managed by Mr.  Kuan Song or Ms. Pan Zong, it may be difficult for us to change our corporate structure or to bring claims against any affiliated entity or Mr.  Kuan Song or Ms. Pan Zong if any of them fails to perform its or his or her obligations under the related contracts or does not cooperate with any such actions by us.

We may lose the ability to use and enjoy assets held by our PRC consolidated affiliated entities that are important to the operation of our business if such entities go bankrupt or become subject to a dissolution or liquidation proceeding.

As part of our contractual arrangements with our variable interest entities, such entities hold certain assets, such as patents for the proprietary technology that are essential to the operations of our platform and important to the operation of our business. If any of our variable interest entities goes bankrupt and all or part of its assets become subject to liens or rights of third party creditors, we may be unable to continue some or all of our business activities, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. If any of our variable interest entities undergoes a voluntary or involuntary liquidation proceeding, the unrelated third party creditors may claim rights to some or all of these assets, thereby hindering our ability to operate our business, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to enforce the equity pledge agreements between us and PRC variable interest entities’ shareholder may be subject to limitations based on PRC laws and regulations.

Pursuant to the equity interest pledge agreements between our wholly owned subsidiaries in China and the shareholders of our variable interest entities, each shareholder of each variable interest entities agrees to pledge its equity interests in the variable interest entity to one of our subsidiaries to secure performance by the relevant variable interest entity, as well as by the shareholders of such variable interest entity, of its, his or her obligations under the relevant contractual arrangements. The equity interest pledges of shareholders of variable interest entities under these equity pledge agreements have been registered with the relevant local branch of the SAIC. We may change our variable interest entities structure in the future. In addition, in the registration forms of the local branch of SAIC for the pledges over the equity interests under the equity interest pledge agreements, the aggregate amount of registered equity interests pledged to our wholly owned subsidiaries in China represents 100% of the registered capital of our variable interest entities. The equity interest pledge agreements with each of the variable interest entities’ shareholders provide that the pledged equity interest shall constitute continuing security for any and all of the indebtedness, obligations and liabilities under all of the principal service agreements and the scope of pledge shall not be limited by the amount of the registered capital of that variable interest entity. However, it is possible that a PRC court may take the position that the amount listed on the equity pledge registration forms represents the full amount of the collateral that has been registered and perfected. If this is the case, the obligations that are supposed to be secured in the equity interest pledge agreements in excess of the amount listed on the equity pledge registration forms could be determined by the PRC court as unsecured debt, which takes last priority among creditors.

Our corporate structure may limit our ability to receive dividends from, and transfer funds to, our PRC subsidiaries, which could restrict our ability to act in response to changing market conditions and reallocate funds from one affiliated PRC entity to another in a timely manner.

We are a Cayman Islands holding company and substantially all of our operations are conducted through our 12 PRC subsidiaries and three variable interest entities. We may rely on dividends and other distributions from our PRC subsidiaries to provide us with our cash flow and allow us to pay dividends on the shares underlying our ADSs and meet our other obligations. Current regulations in China permit our PRC subsidiaries to pay dividends to us only out of their accumulated distributable profits, if any, determined in accordance with their articles of association and PRC accounting standards and regulations. The ability of these subsidiaries to make dividends and other payments to us may be restricted by factors that include changes in applicable foreign exchange and other laws and regulations. In particular, under PRC law, these operating subsidiaries may only pay dividends after 10% of their net profit has been set aside as reserve funds, unless such reserves have reached at least 50% of their respective registered capital. Such reserve may not be distributed as cash dividends. In addition, if any of our 12 PRC operating subsidiaries incurs debt on its own behalf in the future, the instruments governing the debt may restrict its ability to pay dividends or make other payments to us. Moreover, the retained earnings available for distribution from our Chinese operating subsidiaries are determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in China, and may differ from the retained earnings determined in accordance with U.S. GAAP. As a result, we may not have sufficient distributions from our PRC subsidiaries to enable necessary profit distributions to us or any distributions to our shareholders in the future, which calculation would be based upon our financial statements prepared under U.S. GAAP. Furthermore, distributions by our PRC subsidiaries to us other than as dividends may be subject to governmental approval and taxation.

In addition, any transfer of funds from our offshore company to our PRC subsidiaries, either as a shareholder loan or as an increase in registered capital, is subject to registration or approval of Chinese governmental authorities, including the relevant administration of foreign exchange and/or the relevant examining and approval authority. Therefore, it is difficult to change our capital expenditure plans once the relevant funds have been remitted from our offshore company to our PRC subsidiaries. These limitations on the free flow of funds between us and our PRC subsidiaries could restrict our ability to act in response to changing market conditions and reallocate funds from one Chinese subsidiary to another in a timely manner.

The contractual arrangements entered into among our consolidated affiliated entities and their shareholders and those arrangements entered into between us or one of our Chinese subsidiaries and our consolidated affiliated entities may be subject to audit or challenge by the Chinese tax authorities. A finding that we, Acorn Information, Acorn Trade (Shanghai), our consolidated affiliated entities or any of our Chinese subsidiaries owe additional taxes could substantially reduce our net earnings and the value of your investment.

Under PRC laws and regulations, arrangements and transactions among related parties may be subject to audit or challenge by the PRC tax authorities. As a result of our corporate structure and the contractual arrangements among our PRC subsidiaries, our PRC consolidated affiliated entities and their shareholders, we are effectively subject to 6% PRC value added tax and related surcharges on revenues generated by our subsidiaries from our contractual arrangements with our PRC consolidated affiliated entities. The current EIT Law, which became effective on January 1, 2008 and was amended on February 24, 2017, provides authority for the PRC tax authority to make special adjustments to taxable income as well as additional reporting requirements. In particular, an enterprise must submit its annual tax return together with information on related party transactions to the tax authorities. The tax authorities may impose reasonable adjustments on taxation if they have identified any related party transactions that are inconsistent with arm’s-length principles. In addition, the PRC tax authorities issued Announcement of the State Administration of Taxation on Matters Relating to the Improvement of Affiliated Declaration and Contemporaneous Document Management on June 29, 2016 which set forth tax-filing disclosure and contemporaneous documentation requirements, clarify the definition of “affiliated relationship,” guide the selection and application of transfer pricing methods, and outline the due process procedures for transfer pricing investigation and assessment. These transactions may be subject to audit or challenge by the PRC tax authorities within ten years after the taxable year during which the transactions are conducted. We may be subject to adverse tax consequences if the PRC tax authorities were to determine that the contracts between us and our PRC consolidated affiliated entities were not on an arm’s length basis and therefore constitute a favorable transfer pricing arrangements. If this occurs, the PRC tax authorities could request that either of our PRC consolidated affiliated entities adjust its taxable income upward for PRC tax purposes. A transfer pricing adjustment could, among other things, result in a reduction of expense deductions for PRC tax purposes recorded by us, our consolidated affiliated entities, or our PRC subsidiaries or an increase in taxable income, all of which could increase our tax liabilities. In addition, the PRC tax authorities may impose late payment fees and other penalties on us, our consolidated affiliated entities or our PRC subsidiaries for under-paid taxes.

The draft PRC Foreign Investment Law, if enacted as proposed, may materially impact the viability of our current corporate structure, corporate governance, business operations and financial results.

The MOFCOM published a discussion draft of the proposed Foreign Investment Law in January 2015 aiming to, upon its enactment, replace the trio of existing laws regulating foreign investment in China, namely, the Sino-foreign Equity Joint Venture Enterprise Law, the Sino-foreign Cooperative Joint Venture Enterprise Law and the Wholly Foreign-invested Enterprise Law, together with their implementation rules and ancillary regulations. As of the date of the report, the draft Foreign Investment Law has not been enacted yet. The draft Foreign Investment Law embodies an expected PRC regulatory trend to rationalize its foreign investment regulatory regime in line with prevailing international practice and the legislative efforts to unify the corporate legal requirements for both foreign and domestic investments. While the MOFCOM solicited public comments on this draft in January and February, 2015, substantial uncertainties exist with respect to its enactment timetable, interpretation and implementation, if any. The draft Foreign Investment Law, if enacted as proposed, may materially impact the entire legal framework regulating the foreign investments in China and may materially impact the viability of our current corporate structure, corporate governance, business operations and financial results.

Among other things, the draft Foreign Investment Law expands the definition of foreign investment and introduces the principle of ‘‘actual control’’ in determining whether a company is considered a foreign invested enterprise, or an FIE. The draft Foreign Investment Law specifically provides that entities established in China but ‘‘controlled’’ by foreign investors will be treated as FIEs, whereas an entity set up in a foreign jurisdiction would nonetheless be, upon market entry clearance by the MOFCOM or its local branches, treated as a PRC domestic investor provided that the entity is ‘‘controlled’’ by PRC entities and/or citizens. In this connection, ‘‘control’’ is broadly defined in the draft law to cover, among others, having the power to exert decisive influence, via contractual or trust arrangements, over the subject entity’s operations, financial matters or other key aspects of business operations. Once an entity is determined to be an FIE and its investment amount exceeds certain thresholds or its business operation falls within a ‘‘negative list’’, to be separately issued by the State Council in the future, market entry clearance by the MOFCOM or its local branches would be required. Otherwise, all foreign investors may make investments on the same terms as Chinese investors without being subject to additional approval from the government authorities as mandated by the existing foreign investment legal regime.

The ‘‘variable interest entity’’ structure, or VIE structure, has been adopted by many PRC-headquartered offshore companies, to obtain necessary licenses and permits in the industries that are currently subject to foreign investment restrictions in China. We also set up the VIE structure to do our business in China. Under the draft Foreign Investment Law, variable interest entities that are controlled via contractual arrangement would also be deemed as FIEs, if they are ultimately ‘‘controlled’’ by foreign investors. Therefore, for any companies with a VIE structure in an industry category that is on the ‘‘negative list,’’ the VIE structure may be deemed legitimate only if the ultimate controlling person(s) is/ are of PRC nationality (either PRC individual, or PRC government and its branches or agencies).Conversely, if the actual controlling person(s) is/are of foreign nationalities, then the variable interest entities will be treated as FIEs and any operation in the industry category on the ‘‘negative list’’ without market entry clearance may be considered as illegal.

However, the draft Foreign Investment Law has not taken a position on what actions shall be taken with respect to the existing companies with a VIE structure, although a few possible options were proffered. Under these options, a company with VIE structures and in the business on the ‘‘negative list’’ at the time of enactment of the new Foreign Investment Law has either the option or obligation to disclose its corporate structure to the authorities, while the authorities, after reviewing the ultimate control structure of the company, may either permit the company to continue its business by maintaining the VIE structure (when the company is deemed ultimately controlled by PRC citizens), or require the company to dispose of its businesses and/or VIE structure based on circumstantial considerations. Moreover, it is uncertain whether the business that our VIEs are operating will be subject to the foreign investment restrictions or prohibitions set forth in the ‘‘negative list’’ to be issued. If the enacted version of the Foreign Investment Law and the final ‘‘negative list’’ mandate further actions, such as MOFCOM market entry clearance, to be completed by companies with existing VIE structure like us, we face uncertainties as to whether such clearance can be timely obtained, or at all.

The draft Foreign Investment Law, if enacted as proposed, may also materially impact our corporate governance practice and increase our compliance costs. For instance, the draft Foreign Investment Law imposes stringent ad hoc and periodic information reporting requirements on foreign investors and the applicable FIEs. Aside from the investment implementation report and investment amendment report that are required at each investment and alteration of investment specifics, an annual report is mandatory, and large foreign investors meeting certain criteria are required to report on a quarterly basis. Any company found to be non-compliant with these information reporting obligations may potentially be subject to fines and/or administrative or criminal liabilities, and the persons directly responsible may be subject to criminal liabilities.

Risks Relating to Doing Business in China

Our operations may be adversely affected by changes in China’s economic, political and social conditions.

All of our business operations are conducted in China and all of our revenues are derived from our marketing and sales of consumer products in China. Accordingly, our results of operations, financial condition, and future prospects are subject to a significant degree to economic, political and social conditions in China. The Chinese economy differs from the economies of most developed countries in many respects, including the amount of government involvement, level of development, growth rate, control of foreign exchange and allocation of resources. While the Chinese economy has experienced significant growth in the past three decades, growth has been uneven, both geographically and among various sectors of the economy. The PRC government has implemented various measures to encourage foreign investment and sustainable economic growth and to guide the allocation of financial and other resources, which have for the most part had a positive effect on our business and growth. However, we cannot assure you that the PRC government will not repeal or alter these measures or introduce new measures that will not have a negative effect on us. For example, our financial condition and results of operation may be adversely affected by changes in tax regulations applicable to us.

Although the Chinese economy has been transitioning from a planned economy to a more market-oriented economy since the late 1970s, the Chinese government continues to play a significant role in regulating industry development by imposing industrial policies. The Chinese government also exercises significant control over China’s economic growth through the allocation of resources, controlling the incurrence and payment of foreign currency-denominated obligations, setting monetary policy and providing preferential treatment to particular industries or companies. Changes in any of these policies, laws and regulations could adversely affect the overall economy in China, which could harm our business.

In particular, our business is primarily dependent upon the economy and the business environment in China. Our growth strategy is based upon the assumption that demand in China for our products will continue to grow with the growth of Chinese economy. However, the growth of the Chinese economy has been uneven across geographic regions and economic sectors, and experienced an economic slowdown in 2009 as a result of the global economic crisis. In addition, while the PRC economy has experienced significant growth in the past three decades, that growth may not continue, at least at the same rate, as evidenced by the slowing of the growth of the Chinese economy since 2012. Any adverse changes in economic conditions in China, in the policies of the Chinese government or in the laws and regulations in China could have a material adverse effect on the overall economic growth of China. Such changes in China’s political or social conditions may also adversely affect our operations and financial results and may lead to reduction in demand for our services. In recent years, to encourage economic development, the PRC government has implemented various measures, many of which benefit the overall PRC economy, but may also have a negative effect on us. For example, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected by government control over capital investments or changes in tax regulations that are applicable to us. In addition, future measures to control the pace of economic growth may also cause a decrease in the level of economic activity in China, which in turn could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The discontinuation of any of the preferential tax treatments and government subsidies available to us in China could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Under PRC laws and regulations effective until December 31, 2007, our operating subsidiaries, Acorn International Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai HJX Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Zhuhai Acorn Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing Acorn Youngleda Technology Co., Ltd., or Beijing Youngleda and Yiyang Yukang Communication Equipment Co., Ltd. (“Yiyang Yukang”), enjoyed preferential tax benefits afforded to foreign-invested manufacturing enterprises and had been granted a two-year exemption from enterprise income tax beginning from their first profitable year and a 50% reduction of enterprise income tax rate for three years thereafter. The definition of a manufacturing enterprise under PRC law was vague and was subject to discretionary interpretation by the PRC authorities. Therefore there is no assurance that the aforesaid operating subsidiaries’ qualification as “manufacturing enterprises” would not be revoked. If it is determined that any of the operating subsidiaries should have been qualified as “manufacturing enterprises” and thus should not receive the aforesaid preferential tax treatments, or if the tax preferential treatments enjoyed by us in accordance with local government rules or policies were deemed in violation of national laws and regulations, we would be subject to the standard statutory tax rate, which is 25% for calendar years starting on or after January 1, 2008, and we could be required to repay the income tax for the previous three years at the applicable non-preferential tax rate.

In addition, the new Enterprise Income Tax Law, or the New EIT Law and its implementing rules, which became effective on January 1, 2008 as amended on February 24, 2017, significantly curtails tax incentives granted to foreign-invested enterprises under the previous tax law. The New EIT Law (i) reduces the statutory rate of enterprise income tax from 33% to 25%, (ii) permits companies to continue to enjoy their existing tax incentives, subject to certain transitional phase-out rules, and (iii) introduces new tax incentives, subject to various qualification criteria. Under the phase- out rules, enterprises established before the promulgation date of the New EIT Law and which were granted preferential EIT treatment under the then effective tax laws or regulations may continue to enjoy their preferential tax treatments until their expiration. Additionally, our subsidiaries also received tax holidays and subsidies for certain taxes paid by us, as well as subsidies which formed part of the incentives provided by local government for our investment in local district. These incentives were granted by local government agencies and may be deemed inappropriate by the central government. Preferential tax treatments and incentives granted to us by PRC governmental authorities are subject to review and may be adjusted or revoked at any time in the future. The discontinuation or revocation of any preferential tax treatments and incentive currently available to us will cause our effective tax rate to increase, which will decrease our net income and materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. See Item 5.A, “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Operating Results—Taxation”.

Under China’s New EIT Law, we may be classified as a “resident enterprise” of China and such classification could result in unfavorable tax consequences to us and our non-PRC shareholders.

The New EIT Law provides that enterprises established outside China whose “de facto management bodies” are located in China are considered “resident enterprises” and are generally subject to the uniform 25% enterprise income tax rate as to their global income. Under the implementation rules, “de facto management” is defined as substantial and overall management and control over such aspects as the production and business, personnel, accounts and properties of an enterprise. In addition, two tax circulars issued by the State Administration of Taxation, or SAT, on April 22, 2009 and amended on December 29, 2017, and July 27, 2011 and amended on April 17, 2015 and June 28, 2016, respectively, regarding the standards used to classify certain Chinese-controlled enterprises established outside of China as “resident enterprises” clarified that dividends and other income paid by such “resident enterprises” will be considered to be PRC source income, subject to PRC withholding tax, currently at a rate of 10%, when recognized by non-PRC enterprise shareholders. These two circulars also subject such “resident enterprises” to various reporting requirements with the PRC tax authorities. Under the implementation rules to the New EIT Law, a “de facto management body” is defined as a body that has material and overall management and control over the manufacturing and business operations, personnel and human resources, finances and other assets of an enterprise. In addition, the tax circulars mentioned above detail that certain Chinese-controlled enterprises will be classified as “resident enterprises” if the following are located or resident in China: senior management personnel and departments that are responsible for daily production, operation and management; financial and personnel decision making bodies; key properties, accounting books, company seal, and minutes of board meetings and shareholders’ meetings; and half or more of the senior management or directors having voting rights.

Currently, there are no detailed rules or precedents governing the procedures and specific criteria for determining “de facto management bodies” which are applicable to our Company or our overseas subsidiary. The above two circulars only apply to offshore enterprises controlled by PRC enterprises or PRC enterprise groups, not those controlled by PRC individuals or foreign corporations like us. In the absence of detailed implementing regulations or other guidance determining that offshore companies controlled by PRC individuals or foreign corporations like us are PRC resident enterprises, we do not currently consider our Company or any of our overseas subsidiaries to be a PRC resident enterprise.

However, if the PRC tax authorities determine that our Cayman Islands holding company is a “resident enterprise” for PRC enterprise income tax purposes, a number of unfavorable PRC tax consequences could follow. First, we may be subject to enterprise income tax at a rate of 25% on our worldwide taxable income as well as PRC enterprise income tax reporting obligations. In our case, this would mean that income such as interest on offering proceeds and other non-China source income would be subject to PRC enterprise income tax at a rate of 25%, in comparison to no taxation in the Cayman Islands. Second, although under the New EIT Law and its implementation rules dividends paid to us from our PRC subsidiaries would qualify as “tax-exempt income,” we cannot guarantee that such dividends will not be subject to a 10% withholding tax, as the PRC foreign exchange control authorities, which enforce the withholding tax, have not yet issued guidance with respect to the processing of outbound remittances to entities that are treated as resident enterprises for PRC enterprise income tax purposes but not controlled by PRC enterprise or enterprise group like us. Finally, if our Cayman Islands holding company is deemed to be a PRC tax resident enterprise, a 10% withholding tax shall be imposed on dividends we pay to our non-PRC shareholders and with respect to gains derived from our non-PRC shareholders transferring our shares or ADSs. Similar results would follow if our BVI holding company is considered a PRC “resident enterprise”.

The PRC legal system embodies uncertainties which could limit the available legal protections.

The PRC legal system is a civil law system based on written statutes. Unlike common law systems, it is a system in which decided legal cases have little precedential value. In 1979, the PRC government began to promulgate a comprehensive system of laws and regulations governing economic matters in general. The overall effect of legislation over the past three decades has significantly enhanced the protections afforded to various forms of foreign investment in China. 9 of our 12 PRC operating subsidiaries are foreign invested enterprises incorporated in China. They are subject to laws and regulations applicable to foreign investment in China in general and laws and regulations applicable to foreign-invested enterprises in particular. However, these laws, regulations and legal requirements change frequently, and their interpretation and enforcement involve uncertainties. For example, we may have to resort to administrative and court proceedings to enforce the legal protection that we enjoy either by law or contract. However, since PRC administrative and court authorities have significant discretion in interpreting and implementing statutory and contractual terms, it may be more difficult to evaluate the outcome of administrative and court proceedings and the level of legal protection we enjoy than in more developed legal systems. In addition, such uncertainties, including the inability to enforce our contracts, could materially and adversely affect our business and operations. Furthermore, the PRC legal system is based in part on government policies and internal rules (some of which are not published on a timely basis or at all) that may have a retroactive effect. As a result, we may not be aware of our violation of these policies and rules until sometime after the violation. In addition, any litigation in China may be protracted and result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management attention. Furthermore, intellectual property rights and confidentiality protections in China may not be as effective as in the United States or other countries. Accordingly, we cannot predict the effect of future developments in the PRC legal system, particularly with regard to the media, ecommerce, education, advertising and retail industries, including the promulgation of new laws, changes to existing laws or the interpretation or enforcement thereof, or the preemption of local regulations by national laws. These uncertainties could limit the legal protections available to us, and our foreign investors, including you.

Governmental control of currency conversion may limit our ability to utilize our revenues effectively and affect the value of your investment.

The PRC government imposes controls on the convertibility of the Renminbi into foreign currencies and, in certain cases, the remittance of currency out of China. We receive substantially all of our revenues in Renminbi . Under existing PRC foreign exchange regulations, payments of current account items, including profit distributions, interest payments and trade and service-related foreign exchange transactions, can be made in foreign currencies without prior SAFE approval by complying with certain procedural requirements. Therefore, after complying with certain procedural requirements, our PRC subsidiaries are able to pay dividends in foreign currencies to us without prior approval from SAFE. However, approval from or registration with appropriate government authorities is required where Renminbi is to be converted into foreign currency and remitted out of China to pay capital expenses such as the repayment of loans denominated in foreign currencies. The PRC government may also at its discretion restrict access to foreign currencies for current account transactions in the future. If the foreign exchange control system prevents us from obtaining sufficient foreign currencies to satisfy our foreign currency demands, we may not be able to pay dividends in foreign currencies to our shareholders, including holders of our ADSs.

Because our revenues are generated in Renminbi and our results are reported in U.S. dollars, ongoing devaluation of the Renminbi could negatively impact our results of operations.

The value of the Renminbi against the U.S. dollar and other currencies is affected by, among other things, changes in China’s political and economic conditions and China’s foreign exchange policies. The conversion of Renminbi into foreign currencies, including U.S. dollars, is based on rates set by the People’s Bank of China. The PRC government allowed the Renminbi to appreciate more than 20% against the U.S. dollar between July 2005 and July 2008. Between July 2008 and June 2010, this appreciation halted and the exchange rate between the Renminbi and the U.S. dollar remained within a narrow band. From June 2010 through January 2014, the PRC government allowed the Renminbi to appreciate slowly against the U.S. dollar again, though there were periods during that time when the U.S. dollar appreciated against the Renminbi as well. In April 2012, the PRC government announced that it would allow more Renminbi exchange rate fluctuation. However, it remains unclear how this announcement might be implemented. There remains significant international pressure on the PRC government to adopt a more flexible currency policy, which could result in greater fluctuation of the Renminbi against the U.S. dollar. From June 2010 to January 2014, the Renminbi has appreciated against the U.S. dollar from approximately RMB6.82 per U.S. dollar to RMB6.05 per U.S. dollar, reaching a new historical height. Subsequently, the Renminbi depreciated against the U.S. dollar to RMB6.48 per U.S. dollar on December 31, 2015, and further depreciated to RMB6.94 per U.S. dollar by December 31, 2016. The Renminbi appreciated against the U.S. dollar to approximately RMB6.53 per U.S. dollar on December 31, 2017. It is difficult to predict how market forces or PRC or U.S. government policy may impact the exchange rate between the Renminbi and the U.S. dollar in the future.

There also remains significant international pressure on the Chinese government to adopt a flexible currency policy to allow the Renminbi to appreciate against the U.S. dollar, which could result in greater fluctuation of the Renminbi against the U.S. dollar. Significant revaluation of the Renminbi may have a material adverse effect on your investment. Substantially all of our revenues and costs are denominated in Renminbi. Any significant devaluation of Renminbi may materially and adversely affect our revenues, earnings and financial position, and the value of, and any dividends payable on, our ADSs in U.S. dollars. To the extent that we need to convert U.S. dollars into Renminbi for capital expenditures and working capital and other business purposes, appreciation of the Renminbi against the U.S. dollar would have an adverse effect on the Renminbi amount we would receive from the conversion. Conversely, a significant depreciation of the Renminbi against the U.S. dollar may significantly reduce the U.S. dollar equivalent of our earnings, which in turn could adversely affect the price of our ADSs, and if we decide to convert Renminbi into U.S. dollars for the purpose of making payments for dividends on our common shares or ADSs, strategic acquisitions or investments or other business purposes, appreciation of the U.S. dollar against the Renminbi would have a negative effect on the U.S. dollar amount available to us.

Very limited hedging options are available in China to reduce our exposure to exchange rate fluctuations. To date, we have not entered into any hedging transactions in an effort to reduce our exposure to foreign currency exchange risk. While we may decide to enter into hedging transactions in the future, the availability and effectiveness of these hedges may be limited and we may not be able to adequately hedge our exposure or at all. In addition, our currency exchange losses may be magnified by PRC exchange control regulations that restrict our ability to convert Renminbi into foreign currency. As a result, fluctuations in exchange rates may have a material adverse effect on your investment.

You may experience difficulties in effecting service of legal process, enforcing foreign judgments or bringing original actions in China based on United States or other foreign laws against us, our management or the experts named in the annual report.

We conduct all of our operations in China and substantially all of our assets are located in China. In addition, almost all of our directors and executive officers reside within China. As a result, it may not be possible to effect service of process within the United States or elsewhere outside China upon some of our directors and senior executive officers, including with respect to matters arising under U.S. federal securities laws or applicable state securities laws. Moreover, we understand that the PRC currently does not have treaties with the United States or many other countries providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgment of courts.

Regulations relating to offshore investment activities by PRC residents may increase the administrative burden we face and create regulatory uncertainties that could restrict our overseas and cross-border investment activity, and a failure by our shareholders who are PRC residents to make any required applications and filings pursuant to such regulations may prevent us from being able to distribute profits and could expose our PRC resident shareholders to liability under PRC law.

On July 4, 2014, the Circular on Relevant Issues Concerning Foreign Exchange Control on Domestic Residents’ Offshore Investment and Financing and Roundtrip Investment through Special Purpose Vehicles, or SAFE Circular 37, was promulgated by SAFE, which replaced the former circular commonly known as “Notice 75” promulgated by SAFE on October 21, 2005 and requires PRC residents to register with local branches of SAFE in connection with their direct establishment or indirect control of an offshore entity, for the purpose of overseas investment and financing, with such PRC residents’ legally owned assets or equity interests in domestic enterprises or offshore assets or interests, referred to in SAFE Circular 37 as a ‘‘special purpose vehicle.’’ SAFE Circular 37 further requires amendment to the registration in the event of any significant changes with respect to the special purpose vehicle, such as increase or decrease of capital contributed by PRC individuals, share transfer or exchange, merger, division or other material event. In the event that a PRC shareholder holding interests in a special purpose vehicle fails to fulfill the required SAFE registration, the PRC subsidiary of that special purpose vehicle may be prohibited from making profit distributions to the offshore parent and from carrying out subsequent cross-border foreign exchange activities, and the special purpose vehicle may be restricted in its ability to contribute additional capital into its PRC subsidiary. Furthermore, failure to comply with the various SAFE registration requirements described above could result in liability under PRC law for evasion of foreign exchange controls. Pursuant to the Circular on Further Simplifying and Improving the Direct Investment-related Foreign Exchange Administration Policies, or SAFE Circular 13, promulgated by SAFE on and effective from February 13, 2015, banks shall directly examine and handle foreign exchange registration under domestic direct investment and foreign exchange registration under overseas direct investment. The SAFE and its branches (hereinafter referred to as the "Foreign Exchange Bureau") shall conduct indirect regulation of Foreign Exchange Registration of Direct Investment via banks.

We have already notified our shareholders and the shareholders of the offshore entities in our corporate group, who are PRC residents known by us to urge them to make the necessary applications and filings, as required under SAFE Circular 37. We understand that the relevant shareholders have registered their offshore investments in us with Shanghai SAFE, where most of our PRC subsidiaries are located. We are committed to complying, and to ensuring that our shareholders who are subject to the regulation comply, with the relevant rules. However, we cannot assure you that all of our shareholders who are PRC residents will comply with our request to make or obtain any applicable registrations or approvals required by SAFE Circular 37 and SAFE Circular 13. In addition, SAFE Circular 37 and SAFE Circular 13 were recently promulgated, and it is unclear how these regulations and relevant rules will be interpreted, amended and implemented by the relevant PRC government authorities. The failure or inability of our PRC resident shareholders to receive any required approvals or make any required registrations may limit our PRC subsidiaries’ ability to make distributions or pay dividends or affect our ownership structure, as a result of which our acquisition strategy and business operations and our ability to distribute profits to you could be materially and adversely affected.

Upon the completion of our acquisition of Yiyang Yukang in December 2008, shareholders of Yiyang Yukang became our shareholders. To our knowledge, some of the prior shareholders of Yiyang Yukang did not file applications for SAFE registration, which may adversely affect our ability to distribute dividends to our shareholders as stated above. To our knowledge, a separate registration in respect of Notice 75 which was effective at the moment of the above acquisition is not applicable to our acquisition of Yiyang Yukang.

A failure, by us or PRC individuals who hold shares or share options granted by us pursuant to an employee share option or share incentive plan, to comply with relevant PRC laws and regulations related to share option could expose us or our PRC individual option holders to liability under PRC law.

On March 28, 2007, SAFE issued the Operating Rules for Administration of Foreign Exchange for Domestic Individuals’ Participation in Employee Stock Ownership Plans and Stock Option Plans of Overseas Listed Companies, or Circular 78. On February 15, 2012, SAFE promulgated the Circular on Relevant Issues Concerning Foreign Exchange Administration for Domestic Individuals Participating in Stock Incentive Plan of Overseas Listed Companies, or Circular 7, in replacement of Circular 78. According to Circular 7, individuals in the PRC (including PRC citizens and foreign individuals who have lived in China over one year) who intend to participate in the stock incentive plan of an overseas listed company shall jointly appoint a qualified PRC domestic agent or a PRC subsidiary of such overseas listed company (“a PRC Agency”) to conduct foreign exchange registration with SAFE, open bank accounts and transfer and exchange funds. In addition, an overseas entity shall be appointed to conduct the exercise of options, buying and selling of relevant stocks or equities and transfer of relevant funds. After such individuals’ foreign exchange income from participation in the stock incentive plan is remitted to the PRC, relevant banks shall distribute the above funds from the account opened and managed by the PRC Agency to such individuals’ foreign exchange accounts. We and our employees within PRC who have been granted share options, or PRC option holders, are subject to Circular 7 upon the listing of our ADSs on NYSE. If we or our PRC option holders fail to comply with these regulations, we or our PRC option/stock appreciation right holders may be subject to fines and other legal or administrative sanctions. Furthermore, pursuant to the Notice on Relevant Issues Concerning Collection of Individual Income Tax Related to Income from Share Option issued by the Ministry of Finance and the SAT on March 28, 2005 and the Notice on Issues of Individual Income Tax Concerning Share Incentive Plan issued by the SAT on August 24, 2009 (as amended by Announcement of the State Administration of Taxation on Certain Issues Relating to Individual Income Tax which is effective from May 1, 2011), as to an overseas listed company’s share option plan, the difference obtained by a PRC individual who has been granted share options between the exercise price below the fair market price of such share on the day when such individual excises his option shall be imposed individual income tax which shall be withheld by domestic entities of such overseas listed company. If we or our PRC employees fail to comply with the above regulations, we or our PRC option holders may be subject to failure of share option plan or/and a fine, and, in the serious case, may constitute a crime.

The enforcement of the PRC Labor Contract Law and other labor-related regulations in the PRC may adversely affect our business and our results of operations.

The PRC Labor Contract Law, which became effective on January 1, 2008, and its implementing rules impose requirements concerning contracts entered into between a PRC employer and its employees and establish time limits for probationary periods. Because the Labor Contract Law and its implementing rules lack clarity with respect to their implementation and potential penalties and fines, there may be a risk that certain of our employment policies and practices could be determined by relevant PRC authorities as being in violation of the Labor Contract Law or its implementing rules, which could result in penalties, fines or other sanctions. If we are subject to large penalties or fees related to the Labor Contract Law or its implementing rules, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected. In addition, according to the Labor Contract Law and its implementing rules, under certain cases an employee who is terminated by us is entitled to receive a severance payment equal to his or her average monthly salary during the 12-month period immediately preceding to the termination for each year of service up to the date of termination. If we terminate a labor contract in any circumstance other than those specified under the PRC Labor Contract Law and its implementing rules, including termination without cause, we must either reinstate and continue to perform the employee’s employment contract or pay the employee damages calculated at twice the rate for calculating the severance payment, subject to the employee’s own request. Due to our cost controls and internal business restructuring, we are in the process of termination of our employees’ labor contracts on a large scale and we have to pay to terminated employees a large amount of severance payment or damages. As such, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected. Furthermore, the PRC Labor Contract Law and subsequently passed rules and regulations have tended to provide greater rights to employees and impose more onerous requirements on employers in China. As a result of regulations designed to enhance labor protection, our labor costs in China may increase in the future.

On December 28, 2012, the Labor Contract Law was amended to impose more stringent requirements on labor dispatch which became effective on July 1, 2013. For example, an employer shall strictly control the number of dispatched employees not to exceed certain percentage of its total number of employees. Moreover, the Interim Provisions on Labor Dispatch, or the Dispatch Rule, effective on March 1, 2014, provides that dispatched employees are only allowed to work in temporary, ancillary and replaceable positions. The number of dispatched employees hired by an employer may not exceed 10% of its total labor force and the employer has a two-year transition period to comply with such requirement. Pursuant to the current Labor Contract Law, a labor-dispatching enterprise or an employer using dispatched workers who violates requirements of labor dispatching under the Labor Contract Law may be subject to fine by competent labor administrative authority and, if losses are caused to any dispatched employee, such labor- dispatching enterprise and employer shall assume liabilities jointly and severally. Currently, a majority of our call center employees are recruited as dispatched employees and such employees are not working in said temporary, ancillary and replaceable positions. Besides, the number of dispatched workers in certain of our PRC subsidiaries has exceeded 10% of their respective total number of employees as required by the Dispatch Rule. Therefore, we have to reduce the number of our dispatched workers to comply with the percentage limitation as required, which may result in an increase in our labor costs. If we fail to decrease the number of our dispatched workers, we may be subject to penalties by competent labor administrative authority. In addition, if our dispatched employees suffer losses arising from relevant labor-dispatching agency’s violation of the Labor Contract Law, we, as the enterprise engaging such employees, may be required by such dispatched employees to assume liabilities. We cannot assure you that, after assumption of such liability, we will successfully obtain reimbursement from relevant labor-dispatching agency.

If the custodians or authorized users of controlling non-tangible assets of our Company, including our corporate chops and seals, fail to fulfill their responsibilities, or misappropriate or misuse these assets, our business and operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Under PRC law, legal documents for corporate transactions are executed using the chops or seals of the signing entity or with the signature of a legal representative whose designation is registered and filed with the relevant branch of the Administration of Industry and Commerce.

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

Our auditor, like other independent registered public accounting firms operating in China, is not permitted to be subject to inspection by Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”), and as such, investors may be deprived of the benefits of such inspection.

Our independent registered public accounting firm that issues the audit reports included in our annual reports filed with the SEC, as auditors of companies that are traded publicly in the United States and a firm registered with the PCAOB, is required by the laws of the United States to undergo regular inspections by the PCAOB to assess its compliance with the laws of the United States and professional standards. Because our auditors are located in China, a jurisdiction where the PCAOB is currently unable to conduct inspections without the approval of the Chinese authorities, our auditors are not currently inspected by the PCAOB. In May 2013, the 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 Ministry of Finance of the PRC, which establishes a cooperative framework between the parties for the production and exchange of audit documents relevant to investigations, but not inspections, undertaken by the PCAOB, the CSRC, or the Ministry of Finance in the United States and China, respectively. The PCAOB continues to be in discussions with the CSRC and the Ministry of Finance to permit joint inspections in China of audit firms that are registered with the PCAOB and audit Chinese companies that trade on U.S. stock exchanges.

Inspections of other firms that the PCAOB has conducted outside 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 inability of the PCAOB to conduct inspections of auditors in China makes it more difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of our auditor’s audit procedures or quality control procedures as compared to auditors outside of China that are subject to PCAOB inspections, and to the extent that such inspections might have facilitated improvements in our auditor’s audit procedures and quality control procedures, investors may be deprived of such benefits. In addition, investors may lose confidence in our reported financial information and procedures and the quality of our financial statements, which may have a material adverse effect on our ADS price. 

If administrative proceedings are brought by the SEC alleging our independent registered public accounting firm’s failure to meet specific criteria set by the SEC, with respect to requests for the production of documents, we could be unable to timely file future financial statements in compliance with the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

Starting in 2011 the Chinese affiliates of five of the largest global public accounting firms were affected by a conflict between US and PRC law. Specifically, for certain US listed companies operating and audited in China, the SEC and the PCAOB sought to obtain from the Chinese 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 US 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 Chinese accounting firms. 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 accepts that future requests by the SEC for the production of documents will normally be made to the CSRC. The firms would 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 fail to meet specified criteria, the SEC retains authority to impose a variety of additional remedial measures on the firms depending on the nature of the failure. Remedies for any future noncompliance could include, as appropriate, an automatic six-month bar on a single firm’s performance of certain audit work, commencement of a new proceeding against a firm, or in extreme cases the resumption of the current proceeding against all four firms.

In the event that the SEC restarts the administrative proceedings, 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 the PRC, 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 PRC-based, United States-listed companies and the market price of our ADSs may be adversely affected.

Our prior auditor was one of the five global accounting firms involved in the matter described above. Our current auditor, whose appointment was announced on October 21, 2016, was not involved in the matter described above. If our independent registered public accounting firm were 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 of 1934, as amended. Such a determination could ultimately lead to the delisting of our ADSs from the NYSE or deregistration from the SEC, or both, which would substantially reduce or effectively terminate the trading of our ADSs in the United States.

We face risks related to natural disasters, health epidemics and other outbreaks, which could significantly disrupt our operations.

On May 12, 2008 and April 14, 2010, severe earthquakes hit part of Sichuan province in southwestern China and part of Qinghai province in western China, respectively, resulting in significant casualties and property damage. While we did not suffer any loss or experience any significant increase in cost resulting from these earthquakes, if a similar disaster was to occur in the future that affected Shanghai or another city where we have major operations, our operations could be materially and adversely affected due to loss of personnel and damages to property. In addition, a similar disaster affecting a larger, more developed area could also cause an increase in our costs resulting from the efforts to resurvey the affected area. Even if we are not directly affected, such a disaster could affect the operations or financial condition of our customers and suppliers, which could harm our results of operations.

In addition, our business could be materially and adversely affected by natural disasters or public health emergencies, such as the outbreak of avian influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, Ebola virus, Zika, or another epidemic. In April 2009, a new strain of influenza A virus subtype H1N1, commonly referred to as “swine flu,” was first discovered in North America and quickly spread to other parts of the world, including China. In early June 2009, the World Health Organization, or the WHO, declared the outbreak to be a pandemic, while noting that most of the illnesses were of moderate severity. The PRC Ministry of Health has reported several hundred deaths caused by influenza A (H1N1). In March 2013, a new virus subtype H7N9, commonly known as “bird flu” or “avian flu,” was discovered in eastern China. In April 2013, the WHO has identified H7N9 as “an unusually dangerous virus for humans” but the number of cases detected after April 2013 fell abruptly. Any outbreak of avian flu, SARS, influenza A (H1N1), or their variations, or other adverse public health epidemic in China may have a material and adverse effect on our business operations. These occurrences could require the temporary closure of our offices or prevent our staff from traveling to our customers’ offices to provide on-site services. Such closures could severely disrupt our business operations and adversely affect our results of operations. 

Risks Relating to Our ADSs.

Our ADSs may be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange which would adversely impact our public float and the trading price of our ADSs.

We must comply with various listing standards to maintain our continued NYSE listing. For example, the average closing price for our ADSs is not permitted to fall below $1.00 over a 30 trading-day period. On two recent occasions we were notified by the NYSE that we were in violation of this listing standard.

On March 19, 2015, the NYSE notified us that the closing price of our ADSs for the consecutive 30 trading-day period ended on March 13, 2015 was $0.99 and therefore below the NYSE’s continued listing standard relating to minimum average closing share price. Subsequent increases in the closing prices of our ADSs allowed us to regain compliance with the minimum share price rule by April 2015 but on September 15, 2015, the NYSE again notified us that we were below the NYSE’s continued listing criteria because the average per share closing price of our ADS for the consecutive 30 trading-day period ended on September 11, 2015 had fallen below $1.00. We regained compliance with the NYSE continued listing criteria after we changed the ratio of ordinary shares per one ADS from 1 ADS representing three ordinary shares to one ADS representing twenty ordinary shares (equivalent to a three-for-twenty reverse ADS split).

Our efforts to maintain our ADS average closing price at or above $1.00 to satisfy the relevant continued listing requirements may not succeed. For example, we will be considered to be below compliance of the NYSE continued listing criteria if our average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $50 million and, at the same time stockholders' equity is less than $50 million. As of December 31, 2017, our stockholder’s equity was $87.1 million.

We may be classified as a passive foreign investment company or “PFIC” for U.S. federal income tax purposes for a given taxable year pursuant to an annual factual determination made after the close of that year, and pursuant to a determination made in 2018 we believe we were classified as a PFIC for the 2017 taxable year.  

Depending upon the value of our ADSs or ordinary shares and the nature of our assets and income over time, we could be classified as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We will be classified as a PFIC in any taxable year if either: (a) the average quarterly value of our gross assets that produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income is at least 50% of the average quarterly value of our total gross assets, or (b) 75% or more of our gross income for the taxable year is passive income. According to these technical rules, we would likely become a PFIC for a given taxable year if our market capitalization were to decrease significantly while we hold substantial cash and cash equivalents in that year. Based on a determination made in 2018 with respect to the 2017 taxable year, we believe we were classified as a PFIC for the 2017 taxable year. 

If we are classified as a PFIC in any taxable year in which you hold our ADSs or ordinary shares and you are a U.S. investor, subject to certain exceptions described in Item 10.E, “Additional Information—Taxation—U.S. Federal Income Taxation—Passive Foreign Investment Company,” you would generally be taxed at higher ordinary income rates, rather than lower capital gain rates, if you dispose of ADSs or ordinary shares for a gain in a later year, even if we are no longer a PFIC in that year. In addition, a portion of the tax imposed on your gain would be increased by an interest charge. Moreover, if we were classified as a PFIC in any taxable year, you would not be able to benefit from any preferential tax rate with respect to any dividend distribution that you may receive from us in that year or in the following year. Finally, you would also be subject to special U.S. tax reporting requirements.

We will not able to determine our PFIC status for the 2018 taxable year until after the close of the taxable year ending December 31, 2018. Because we currently hold, and expect to continue to hold, a substantial amount of cash and other passive assets and, because the value of our assets is likely to be determined in large part by reference to the market prices of our ADSs or ordinary shares, which are likely to fluctuate, there can be no assurance that we will not be classified as a PFIC in 2018 and any future taxable year. U.S. investors are urged to consult their independent tax advisors about the application of the PFIC rules and certain elections that may help them relieve any adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences for their particular circumstances for the 2017 taxable year. For more information regarding such elections, please consult Item 10.E, “Additional Information— Taxation—U.S. Federal Income Taxation—Passive Foreign Investment Company” and your independent tax advisor.

The sale, deposit, cancellation and transfer of the ADSs issued after an exercise of rights may be restricted under applicable U.S. securities laws.

If we offer holders of our ordinary shares any rights to subscribe for additional shares or any other rights, the depositary may make these rights available to holders of our ADSs if it is lawful and reasonably practicable to do so. However, the depositary may allow rights that are not distributed or sold to lapse. In that case, holders of our ADSs will receive no value for them. In addition, U.S. securities laws may restrict the sale, deposit, cancellation and transfer of the ADSs issued after exercise of rights. Under the deposit agreement, the depositary will not distribute rights to holders of ADSs unless the distribution and sale of rights and the securities to which these rights relate are either exempt from registration under the Securities Act with respect to holders of ADSs, or are registered under the provisions of the Securities Act. We can give no assurance that we can establish an exemption from registration under the Securities Act, and we are under no obligation to file a registration statement with respect to these rights or underlying securities or to endeavor to have a registration statement declared effective. Accordingly, holders of our ADSs may be unable to participate in our rights offerings and may experience dilution of their holdings as a result.

The trading prices of our ADSs may be volatile, which could result in substantial losses to investors.

The daily closing trading prices of our ADSs ranged from US$2.4695 to $19.2000 in 2015 (adjusted to reflect the November 2015 increase in our ordinary shares to 1 ADS ratio to 20:1), and from $4.0100 to $12.3500 in 2016 and from $7.5300 to $19.5100 in 2017. The trading price 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 similarly situated companies in China that have listed their securities in the United States in recent years. 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 these Chinese companies’ securities after their offerings may affect the attitudes of investors towards Chinese 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 or other practices at other Chinese companies may also negatively affect the attitudes of investors towards Chinese companies in general, including us, regardless of whether we have engaged in such practices. Furthermore, securities markets may from time to time experience significant price and volume fluctuations that are not related to our operating performance, which may have a material adverse effect on the market price of our ADSs.

In addition to market and industry factors, the price and trading volume for our ADSs may be highly volatile due to specific factors, including the following:

Any of these factors may result in large and sudden changes in the volume and price at which our ADSs will trade.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, or if they adversely change their recommendations regarding our ADSs, the market price for our ADSs and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our ADSs will be influenced by research or reports that industry or securities analysts publish about our business. If one or more analysts who cover us downgrade our ADSs, the market price for our ADSs would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease to cover us or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which, in turn, could cause the market price or trading volume for our ADSs to decline.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents may discourage a third party from acquiring us, which could limit our shareholders’ opportunities to sell their shares at a premium.

Our amended and restated memorandum and articles of association include provisions that could limit the ability of others to acquire control of us, modify our structure 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 us in a tender offer or similar transaction.

For example, 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 the powers and rights of these shares, 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 ordinary shares. Preferred shares could thus be issued quickly with terms calculated to delay or prevent a change in control or make removal of management more difficult. In addition, if our board of directors issues preferred shares, the market price of our ordinary shares may fall and the voting and other rights of the holders of our ordinary shares may be adversely affected.

We are a Cayman Islands company and, because judicial precedent regarding the rights of shareholders is more limited under Cayman Islands law than under U.S. law, our shareholders may have less protection of their shareholder rights than they would under U.S. law.

Our corporate affairs are governed by our amended and restated memorandum and articles of association, the Cayman Islands Companies Law and the common law of the Cayman Islands. The rights of shareholders to take action against the directors, actions by minority shareholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors to us under Cayman Islands law are to a large extent governed by the common law of the Cayman Islands. The common law of the Cayman Islands is derived in part from 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. The rights of our shareholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors under Cayman Islands law are not as clearly established as they would be under statutes or judicial precedent in some jurisdictions in the United States. In particular, the Cayman Islands has a less developed body of securities laws than the United States. In addition, some states, such as Delaware, have more fully developed and judicially interpreted bodies of corporate law than the Cayman Islands.

Unlike many jurisdictions in the United States, Cayman Islands law does not generally provide for shareholder appraisal rights on an approved arrangement and reconstruction of a company. This may make it more difficult for you to assess the value of any consideration you may receive in a merger or consolidation or to require that the offer or give you additional consideration if you believe the consideration offered is insufficient. Moreover, holders of our ADSs are not entitled to appraisal rights under Cayman Islands law. ADS holders that wish to exercise their appraisal or dissenter’s rights must convert their ADSs into ordinary shares by surrendering their ADSs to the depositary and paying the ADS depositary fee.

 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 existing 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, 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.

Judgments obtained against us by our shareholders may not be enforceable in our home jurisdiction.

We are incorporated in the Cayman Islands, and conduct substantially all of our operations in China through our subsidiaries established in China. Most of our directors and officers reside outside the United States and substantially all of the assets of those persons are located outside the United States. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for our shareholders to bring an action against us or against these individuals in the Cayman Islands or in China in the event that our shareholders believe that their rights have been infringed under the applicable securities laws or otherwise. Even if our shareholders are successful in bringing an action of this kind, the laws of the Cayman Islands and of China may render them unable to enforce a judgment against our assets or the assets of our directors and officers.

There are uncertainties as to whether Cayman Islands or China courts would recognize or enforce judgments of U.S. courts obtained against us or our directors or officers predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States or any state in the United States, or entertain original actions brought against us or our directors or officers predicated upon the securities laws of the United States or any state in the United States.

There is no statutory recognition in the Cayman Islands or China of judgments obtained in the United States. The Cayman Islands will generally recognize as a valid judgment, a final and conclusive judgment in personam obtained in the federal or state courts in the United States under which a sum of money is payable (other than a sum of money payable in respect of multiple damages, taxes or other charges of a like nature or in respect of a fine or other penalty) and would give a judgment based thereon, provided that (i) such courts had proper jurisdiction over the parties subject to such judgment, (ii) such courts did not contravene the rules of natural justice of the Cayman Islands, (iii) such judgment was not obtained by fraud, (iv) the enforcement of the judgment would not be contrary to the public policy of the Cayman Islands, (v) no new admissible evidence relevant to the action is submitted prior to the rendering of the judgment by the courts of the Cayman Islands, and (vi) there is due compliance with the correct procedures under the laws of the Cayman Islands.

The ability for shareholders to protect their rights as shareholders through the U.S. federal courts may be limited because we are incorporated under Cayman Islands law.

Cayman Islands companies may not have standing to initiate a derivative action in a federal court of the United States. As a result, our shareholders’ ability to protect their interests if they are harmed in a manner that would otherwise enable them to sue in a U.S. federal court may be limited.

The voting rights of holders of ADSs are limited in several significant ways by the terms of the deposit agreement.

Holders of our ADSs may only exercise their voting rights with respect to the underlying ordinary shares in accordance with the provisions of the deposit agreement. Under the deposit agreement, you must vote by giving voting instructions to the depositary. Upon receipt of voting instructions from a holder of ADSs in the manner set forth in the deposit agreement, the depositary will endeavor to vote the underlying ordinary shares in accordance with these instructions.

You will not be able to directly exercise your right to vote with respect to the underlying ordinary shares unless you withdraw the ordinary shares by surrendering your ADSs to the depositary and paying the ADS depositary fee. Under our amended and restated memorandum and articles of association and Cayman Islands law, the minimum notice period required for convening a general meeting of shareholders is ten days. When a general meeting is convened, holders of our ADSs may not receive sufficient notice of the meeting to permit the holders to withdraw their ordinary shares to allow them to cast their vote with respect to any specific matter at the meeting. In addition, the depositary and its agents may not be able to send voting instructions to holders of our ADSs or carry out the holders’ voting instructions in a timely manner. We make all reasonable efforts to cause the depositary to extend voting rights to holders of our ADSs in a timely manner, but we cannot assure holders of our ADSs that they will receive the voting materials in time to ensure that they can instruct the depositary to vote their shares. Furthermore, 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 our ADSs may not be able to exercise their right to vote and may lack recourse if their ordinary shares are not voted as requested.

The depositary of our ADSs, except in limited circumstances, grants to us a discretionary proxy to vote the ordinary shares underlying the ADSs if holders of our ADSs do not vote at shareholders’ meetings, which could adversely affect the interests and the ability of our shareholders as a group to influence the management of our Company.

Under the deposit agreement for the ADSs, the depositary gives us a discretionary proxy to vote our ordinary shares underlying the ADSs at shareholders’ meetings if holders of our ADSs do not vote, unless:

The effect of this discretionary proxy is that holders of our ADSs cannot prevent our ordinary shares underlying ADSs from being voted, absent the situations described above, and it may make it more difficult for shareholders to influence the management of our Company. Holders of our ordinary shares are not subject to this discretionary proxy.

Holders of ADSs may not receive distributions on our ordinary shares or any value for them if it is illegal or impractical for us to make them available.

The depositary of our ADSs pays holders of our ADSs the cash dividends or other distributions it or the custodian for our ADSs receives on our ordinary shares or other deposited securities after deducting its fees and expenses. Holders of our ADSs receive these distributions in proportion to the number of our ordinary shares their ADSs represent. However, the depositary is not responsible if it is unlawful or impractical to make a distribution available to any holders of ADSs. For example, it would be unlawful to make a distribution to a holder of ADSs if it consists of securities that require registration under the Securities Act but that 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 holders of ADSs 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, ordinary shares, rights or anything else to holders of our ADSs. This means that holders of our ADSs may not receive the distributions we make on our ordinary shares or any value for them if it is illegal or impractical for us to make them available. These restrictions may have a material and adverse effect on the value of the holders’ ADSs.

Holders of our ADSs may be subject to limitations on transfer of their ADSs.

ADSs, represented by American depositary receipts, are transferable on the books of the depositary. However, the depositary may close its books at any time or from time to time when it deems expedient in connection with the performance of its duties. The depositary may close its books 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. The depositary may refuse to deliver, transfer or register transfers of our ADSs generally when our books or the books of the depositary are closed, or at any time if we or the depositary thinks it is necessary or advisable to do so in connection with the performance of its duty under the deposit agreement, including due to any requirement of law or any government or governmental body, or under any provision of the deposit agreement. As a result, you may be unable to transfer your ADSs when you wish to do so.