Taken from the briefing U.S.-Listed Chinese Companies: Enforcement and Accounting Issues recorded August, 2012.
Until recently, the many Chinese companies seeking to “go public” in the United States did so through reverse mergers. Compared to the traditional IPO process, reverse mergers offered significant cost and speed advantages for Chinese companies hoping to list on U.S. exchanges and access the U.S. capital markets. Closer scrutiny of some of these companies, however, revealed fraud, accounting irregularities, and misstatements in SEC filings, and spurred securities class actions as well as SEC enforcement cases. In November 2011, the SEC approved new rules to toughen the listing standards for reverse merger companies. Regulators in the U.S. and in China have been working towards resolving accounting and transparency issues that have developed as Chinese companies continue to try to retain and attract U.S. investors.
Listen to Barry R. Goldsmith and Lee G. Dunst of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and Howard A. Scheck, Chief Accountant of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, for a discussion of accounting and enforcement issues that affect U.S.-listed Chinese companies and their investors.
Lecture Topics [Total Time: 01:07:57]
- The rise and fall of reverse mergers and the future of U.S.-listed Chinese companies
- Recent U.S. enforcement initiatives involving U.S.-listed Chinese companies and what to expect in the future
- Coordination between the PCAOB and Chinese auditors - obstacles and opportunities
- Litigating securities cases involving U.S.-listed Chinese companies and their gatekeepers - how best to address the challenges
- Recent Chinese securities regulations and how they affect the legal landscape
- U.S.-Listed Chinese Companies: Enforcement and Accounting Issues
Lee G. Dunst, Barry R. Goldsmith
PLI makes every effort to accredit its On-Demand Web Programs and Segments. Please check the CLE Calculator above for CLE information specific to your state.
On-Demand Web Programs and Segments are approved in:
Alabama1, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho*, Illinois , Iowa2*, Kansas, Kentucky*, Louisiana, Maine*, Mississippi, Missouri3, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire4, New Jersey, New Mexico5, New York6, North Carolina8, North Dakota, Ohio8, Oklahoma9, Oregon*, Pennsylvania10, Rhode Island11, South Carolina, Tennessee12, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia13, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin14 and Wyoming*.
Iowa, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin DO NOT approve Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs.
Minnesota approves live webcasts ONLY
The State Bar of Arizona does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement.
*PLI will apply for credit upon request. Louisiana and New Hampshire: PLI will apply for credit upon request for audio-only on-demand web programs.
1Alabama: Approval of all web based programs is limited to a maximum of 6.0 credits.
2Iowa: The approval is for one year from recorded date. Does not approve of Audio-only On-Demand Webcasts.
3Missouri: On-demand web programs are restricted to six hours of self-study credit per year. Self-study may not be used to satisfy the ethics requirements. Self-study can not be used for carryover credit.
4New Hamphsire: The approval is for three years from recorded date.
5New Mexico: On-Demand web programs are restricted to 4.0 self-study credits per year.
6New York: Newly admitted attorneys may not take non-traditional course formats such as on-demand Web Programs or live Webcasts for CLE credit. Newly admitted attorneys not practicing law in the United States, however, may earn 12 transitional credits in non-traditional formats.
7North Carolina: A maximum of 4 credits per reporting period may be earned by participating in on-demand web programs.
8Ohio: To confirm that the web program has been approved, please refer to the list of Ohio’s Approved Self Study Activities at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us. Online programs are considered self-study. Ohio attorneys have a 6 credit self-study limit per compliance period. The Ohio CLE Board states that attorneys must have a 100% success rate in clicking on timestamps to receive ANY CLE credit for an online program.
9Oklahoma: Up to 6 credits may be earned each year through computer-based or technology-based legal education programs.
10Pennsylvania: PA attorneys may only receive a maximum of four (4) hours of distance learning credit per compliance period. All distance learning programs must be a minimum of 1 full hour.
11Rhode Island: Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs are not approved for credit. On-Demand Web Programs must have an audio and video component.
12Tennessee: The approval is for the calendar year in which the live program was presented.
13Virginia: All distance learning courses are to be done in an educational setting, free from distractions.
14Wisconsin: Ethics credit is not allowed. The ethics portion of the program will be approved for general credit. There is a 10 credit limit for on-demand web programs during every 2-year reporting period. Does not approve of Audio-only On-Demand Webcasts.
Running time and CLE credit hours are not necessarily the same. Please be aware that many states do not permit credit for luncheon and keynote speakers.
If you have already received credit for attending some or the entire program, please be aware that state administrators do not permit you to accrue additional credit for repeat viewing even if an additional credit certificate is subsequently issued.
Note that some states limit the number of credit hours attorneys may claim for online CLE activities, and state rules vary with regard to whether online CLE activities qualify for participatory or self-study credits. For more information, call Customer Service (800) 260-4PLI (4754) or e-mail email@example.com.