Cross-Border Legal Opinion for Chinese IPO Filing 關於中國首次公開發行申請的跨境法律意見

Director ： EVEN XIA NI 倪夏

Supervisor ： KEITH YUNXI ZHU 朱耘希

Co-Authors ： N/A 不可用

---

PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
文檔目的

This document is written for the "Cross-Border Legal Opinion for Chinese IPO Filing" project by THE KEITH & EVEN GROUP in Mar 2023. A China-based integrated-circuit design firm preparing a mainland IPO needed a formal legal opinion on its wholly‑owned U.S. subsidiary – a requirement stemming from China’s tightened oversight of overseas listings. Under the CSRC’s new trial regulations (effective March 2023), filing companies must disclose all major affiliates, and domestic counsel’s legal opinion must cover each subsidiary and control structure[1]. In practice, this means engaging U.S. counsel to certify that the U.S. sub is validly incorporated and in compliance with U.S. law[2]. Chinese issuers often struggle to assemble these opinions due to differences in corporate documents, employment agreements, and execution formats across jurisdictions. TKEG helped our client by coordinating U.S. and Chinese counsel, adapting foreign documents for PRC review, and using bilingual project managers to bridge legal and language gaps. This case study describes the regulatory context, common cross-border hurdles, and how TKEG’s cross-border project management led the client through the process.
本提案是由奕資諮詢於2023年3月為「關於中國首次公開發行申請的跨境法律意見」項目編寫的。一家總部位於中國的積體電路設計公司準備在中國大陸進行首次公開發行（IPO），需要就其全資擁有的美國子公司出具正​​式的法律意見書——這是由於中國加強了對海外上市的監管。根據中國證監會（CSRC）新的試行規定（2023年3月生效），申報公司必須揭露所有主要關聯公司，且國內律師出具的法律意見書必須涵蓋每家子公司及其控制結構[1]。實際上，這意味著需要聘請美國律師來證明該美國子公司合法註冊成立並符合美國法律[2]。由於不同司法管轄區在公司文件、僱傭協議和執行格式方面存在差異，中國發行人往往難以獲得此類法律意見書。 奕資透過協調中美雙方律師、調整外國文件以符合中國審查要求，並安排雙語專案經理彌合法律和語言障礙，幫助我們的客戶順利完成了這項工作。本案例研究描述了監管背景、常見的跨境障礙，以及奕資的跨境專案管理如何幫助客戶克服這些挑戰。

---

1

Regulatory Context: CSRC’s Overseas-Listing Rules
監管背景：中國證監會的海外上市規則

In late 2022 the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) finalized new Trial Measures for Overseas Securities Issuance and Listing by Domestic Companies, reflecting tighter scrutiny of any Chinese firm listing abroad. Significantly, these rules require a CSRC filing for all overseas IPOs by mainland firms, with detailed disclosure of corporate structure and compliance. Supporting guidelines explicitly state that the filing report and the domestic legal opinion “should include the issuer’s major subsidiaries, domestic operating entities and control relationships”[1]. In other words, if the PRC issuer has any significant foreign affiliate (such as a U.S. subsidiary), that affiliate must be fully described in the paperwork and covered by the Chinese counsel’s opinion.
2022年底，中國證監會最終確定了《國內企業境外證券發行上市試行辦法》，體現了對中國企業海外上市監管的日益嚴格。值得注意的是，這些規定要求所有中國大陸企業在海外進行IPO都必須向證監會備案，並詳細揭露公司架構和合規情況。相關指引明確指出，備案報告及國內法律意見書「應包含發行人的主要子公司、境內營運實體及控制關係」[1]。換言之，如果中國發行人擁有任何重要的境外關聯公司（例如美國子公司），則該關聯公司必須在備案文件中進行完整描述，並由中國律師出具法律意見書。

Why does this matter? Essentially, the CSRC needs assurance that every part of the corporate group is lawful and transparent. Industry experts note that for each foreign unit (e.g. a Singaporean or U.S. sub), a local legal opinion is typically obtained and submitted to the CSRC during a mainland IPO process[2]. One commentator observes: “From the [subsidiary] perspective, a legal opinion is the primary document required for submission to the CSRC for listing on the main board”[2]. Regulators may even request additional opinions on key affiliates if they play a pivotal role in the business.[2] In short, the U.S. subsidiary’s legal status and records become part of the PRC filing.
這為何重要？本質上，中國證監會需要確保集團公司的每個組成部分都合法透明。業內專家指出，對於每個海外子公司（例如新加坡或美國子公司），在內地IPO過程中，通常需要取得一份當地法律意見書並提交給中國證監會[2]。一位評論者指出：「從子公司的角度來看，法律意見書是向中國證監會提交主機板上市申請的主要文件」[2]。如果關鍵關聯公司在業務中扮演著舉足輕重的角色，監管機構甚至可能要求提供額外的法律意見書[2]。簡而言之，美國子公司的法律地位和記錄將成為中國備案文件的一部分。

In our client’s case, the firm’s core technology and IP were held in the U.S. sub, making it a “major subsidiary” under CSRC definitions. As a result, the IPO filing had to include a U.S. law firm’s opinion on that subsidiary. This was not an arbitrary request: it is precisely how Chinese regulators ensure the entire corporate group complies with relevant laws before approving a domestic IPO.
就我們客戶的案例而言，該公司的核心技術和智慧財產權都位於其美國子公司，根據中國證監會的定義，該子公司屬於「主要子公司」。因此，IPO申請文件中必須包含一家美國律師事務所對該子公司的法律意見。這並非隨意要求：這正是中國監管機構在批准國內IPO之前，確保整個集團公司遵守相關法律法規的慣例。

2

Common Challenges in Obtaining U.S. Subsidiary Opinions
取得美國子公司意見時面臨的常見挑戰

Preparing a U.S. subsidiary legal opinion for a Chinese IPO runs into numerous practical challenges. TKEG identified the following recurring obstacles faced by Chinese issuers in this situation:
為美國子公司在中國進行IPO準備法律意見書會遇到許多實際挑戰。 奕資總結了中國發行人在這種情況下面臨的以下幾個常見問題：

1. Document Localization: U.S. corporate records (e.g. Articles of Incorporation, stock ledgers, board resolutions) are organized differently than Chinese documents. Translating and formatting them for PRC review can be time-consuming. Official certificates from U.S. authorities often need notarization and certified Chinese translations, and many PRC forms expect a company “chop” or seal that U.S. companies do not use. Simply verifying a U.S. company’s legal identity is nontrivial. Chinese counsel typically require confirmation of the U.S. sub’s legal name, registration number and licenses – and insist the signatories have authority and an official “stamp”[3]. As Clark Hill PLC notes, a common step is: “Confirm the company’s full legal name, business registration number, and license. Ensure that the person signing has legal authority … and that the company’s official stamp (or “chop”) is affixed to the agreement.”[3] Since American firms rarely use seals, extra effort is needed (e.g. apostilles or company secretary certificates) to satisfy Chinese requirements.
   文件本地化：美國公司記錄（例如公司章程、股東名冊、董事會決議）的組織方式與中國文件不同。將其翻譯並格式化以供中國審核可能非常耗時。美國官方機構所核發的證明文件通常需要公證和經認證的中文翻譯件，而且許多中國表格要求加蓋公司印章，而美國公司並不使用這種印章。僅僅驗證一家美國公司的法律身分就並非易事。中國律師通常要求確認美國子公司的法定名稱、註冊號碼和許可證，並堅持要求簽字人擁有授權和官方印章[3]。正如 Clark Hill PLC 所指出的那樣，一個常見的步驟是：「確認公司的完整法定名稱、營業執照號碼和許可證。確保簽字人具有法律授權……並且協議上加蓋了公司的官方印章（或「戳記」）。」[3] 由於美國公司很少使用印章，因此需要額外努力（例如，海牙認證或公司秘書證明）來滿足中國的要求。

2. Disclosure Standards & Governance Differences: Chinese regulators mandate full disclosure of directors, officers and beneficial owners. In the U.S., shareholder registers or board consents may not be publicly filed, so Chinese underwriters often require copies of internal consents. In practice, every director or company secretary of the U.S. sub must have formally consented to act and that fact must be documented. (For example, the Clark Hill article notes that each director or secretary should have consented to their appointment and such consents should be maintained in the corporate records.) Ensuring these details match PRC expectations often requires gathering extra evidence.
   資訊揭露標準與公司治理差異：中國監管機構要求全面揭露董事、高階主管和實益所有人的資訊。在美國，股東名冊或董事會同意書可能不會公開備案，因此中國承銷商通常要求提供內部同意書副本。實際上，美國子公司的每位董事或公司秘書都必須正式同意其職務，並且這一事實必須有書面記錄。 （例如，克拉克·希爾的文章指出，每位董事或秘書都應同意其任命，並且此類同意書應保存在公司記錄中。）確保這些細節符合中國的要求通常需要收集額外的證據。

3. Labor/Employment Contract Mismatches: U.S. companies typically use their own NDAs, invention assignment and equity grant agreements. Chinese regulators (and securities law filings) scrutinize such documents for data compliance and potential hidden benefits. However, “U.S.-style NDAs typically won’t hold up under Chinese law,” because Chinese courts demand specific formats (e.g. agreements written in Chinese with proper governing law clauses)[4]. Likewise, U.S. patent-assignment or PIIA forms may not satisfy Chinese IP or labor law requirements. These mismatches mean legal counsel often has to revise or add supplemental agreements so that the subsidiary’s contracts are acceptable under both jurisdictions.
   勞動/僱傭合約不符：美國公司通常使用自己的保密協議、發明轉讓協議和股權授予協議。中國監管機構（以及證券法備案）會審查此類文件的資料合規性和潛在的隱性利益。然而，“美式保密協議通常不符合中國法律”，因為中國法院要求採用特定格式（例如，以中文撰寫並包含適當的適用法律條款）[4]。同樣，美國的專利轉讓協議或智慧財產權資訊揭露協議（PIIA）格式可能不符合中國的智慧財產權或勞動法要求。這些不匹配意味著法律顧問通常需要修改或添加補充協議，以確保子公司的合約在兩個司法管轄區均被接受。

4. Tax ID and Incorporation Evidence: Chinese filings may explicitly list the tax ID (e.g. EIN) and incorporation state of each U.S. sub. Gathering notarized certificates of good standing, IRS letters, and similar official proofs can be surprisingly difficult on short notice. In many cases, the U.S. law firm must conduct searches with Secretaries of State and tax agencies to produce up-to-date certificates. Any discrepancies or missing filings can delay the PRC filing.
   稅務識別號碼和公司註冊證明：中國申報文件中可能會明確列出每個美國子公司的稅務識別號碼（例如EIN）和註冊地點所在州。在短時間內收集經公證的良好信譽證明、美國國稅局信函以及類似的官方證明文件可能比想像中要困難得多。在許多情況下，美國律師事務所必須與州務卿和稅務機構聯繫，以獲取最新的證明文件。任何差異或缺失的文件都可能導致中國申報文件的延遲。

5. Original (Wet-Ink) Legal Opinions: Chinese regulators almost always require original signed opinions (complete with firm letterhead, attorneys’ signatures and firm stamps). It is not sufficient to provide a scanned PDF alone. In practice, clients often must courier one or more hard copies of the U.S. counsel’s opinion into China after signing. This physical-signature requirement can create timing headaches, especially with international shipping and differing time zones.
   原件（墨跡）法律意見書：中國監管機構幾乎總是要求提供原件簽署的法律意見書（需包含律所抬頭、律師簽名和律所印章）。僅提供掃描的PDF檔案是不夠的。實際上，客戶通常需要在簽署後將一份或多份美國律師的法律意見書紙本副本快遞到中國。這種紙質簽名要求可能會造成時間上的麻煩，尤其是在國際運輸和時區差異的情況下。

6. Cross-Border Coordination Gaps: U.S. and Chinese lawyers have different workflows, and communication must bridge time zones and languages. It is common to see delays or miscommunications without a dedicated coordinator. For example, a U.S. lawyer preparing an opinion may not know which specific PRC filing codes or risk disclosures are required, and a Chinese sponsor may not immediately understand the nuances of U.S. law. Aligning on scope of work (e.g. did we cover SEC compliance, or just state corporate law?) often requires careful bilingual back-and-forth.
   跨境協調障礙：美國和中國律師的工作流程不同，溝通必須跨越時區和語言障礙。如果沒有專門的協調員，經常會出現延誤或溝通不良的情況。例如，準備法律意見書的美國律師可能不了解需要哪些具體的中國備案代碼或風險披露信息，而中國保薦人可能也無法立即理解美國法律的細微差別。確定工作範圍（例如，我們是否涵蓋了美國證券交易委員會的合規要求，還是僅僅涵蓋了州公司法？）通常需要雙方用雙語進行細緻的溝通。

These challenges mean Chinese issuers often face a complex project just to get the U.S. sub’s documents in order. Delays in any of these areas can hold up the entire IPO timetable.
這些挑戰意味著，中國發行人往往需要花費大量精力才能準備好美國子公司的文件。任何一個環節的延誤都可能導致整個IPO進程延緩。

3

How TKEG Helped the Client
奕資如何協助客戶

TKEG tackled these hurdles by leveraging a structured, cross-border approach:
奕資透過採用結構化的跨境方式克服了這些障礙：

1. Bilingual Project Managers: TKEG assigned Chinese-English legal project managers to the case. These managers acted as the linchpin between the client, U.S. counsel and Chinese counsel. They translated key requests, clarified deadlines, and ensured nothing got lost in communication. For instance, when the U.S. law firm asked for corporate charters or stock ledgers, the PM explained exactly how Chinese regulators would review them and helped format extracts in Chinese if needed.
   雙語專案經理：奕資為此案件指派了中英文雙語法律專案經理。這些專案經理是客戶、美國律師和中國律師之間的關鍵紐帶。他們翻譯關鍵請求，明確截止日期，並確保溝通順暢無阻。例如，當美國律師事務所要求提供公司章程或股權登記冊時，專案經理會詳細解釋中國監管機構的審查流程，並在必要時協助將摘錄整理成中文格式。

2. Regulatory Expertise and Guidance: Because TKEG understood the CSRC filing requirements, we could anticipate what the regulators would want. We advised the client early that the U.S. subsidiary would need its own legal opinion, and we outlined the likely scope (corporate formation, ownership changes, board/ownership approvals, compliance, etc.). This meant U.S. counsel could prepare more efficiently. TKEG even provided Chinese counsel with a checklist of subsidiary-related points (in Chinese) to frame the foreign opinion. This coordination ensured that the domestic legal opinion (covering Chinese law) and the U.S. opinion (covering U.S. law) together addressed all CSRC “checklist” items[1][2].
   監理專業知識與指導：由於奕資了解中國證監會（CSRC）的備案要求，我們得以預判監理機關的需求。我們及早告知客戶，美國子公司需要一份獨立的法律意見書，並概述了可能的範圍（公司設立、所有權變更、董事會/所有權批准、合規等）。這意味著美國律師可以更有效率地進行準備。 奕資甚至向中國律師提供了一份子公司相關要點清單（中文版），以幫助他們撰寫外國法律意見書。這種協調確保了國內法律意見書（涵蓋中國法律）和美國法律意見書（涵蓋美國法律）共同涵蓋了中國證監會「清單」上的所有項目[1][2]。

3. Document Structuring: To streamline the review, TKEG consolidated the subsidiary’s information into intuitive formats. For example, we created a joint Chinese/English summary chart of the U.S. sub’s ownership history and key people (boarding listing directors, shareholders, registered agent, etc.). We also prepared a unified “corporate picture” graphic combining the China parent and U.S. sub, making it easy for regulators to see how control flows. Where foreign documents had too much extraneous text, we worked with counsel to highlight or extract the relevant clauses.
   文件結構：為了簡化審查流程，奕資將子公司的資訊整合為易於理解的格式。例如，我們製作了一份中英文雙語總表，概述了美國子公司的股權歷史和關鍵人物（上市董事、股東、註冊代理人等）。我們也製作了一份統一的「公司概況」圖表，將中國母公司和美國子公司整合在一起，方便監管機構了解控制權的流動情況。對於外文文件中冗餘內容過多的情況，我們與律師合作，突出顯示或提取相關條款。

4. Standardization and Localization: TKEG checked that the U.S. subsidiary’s fundamental documents met PRC expectations. For example, we ensured the board consent forms for issuing shares included shareholder approvals as per CSRC norms. We reviewed U.S. employment contracts to identify any provisions that might run afoul of Chinese labor law disclosure (such as unusual non-competes or stock incentives to the U.S. employees, which PRC listings typically detail). We also coordinated the translation of critical documents (like registration certificates and IRS letters) into legally sound Chinese versions.
   標準化和本地化：奕資核查了美國子公司的基本文件是否符合中國的要求。例如，我們確保發行股份的董事會同意書包含符合中國證監會規定的股東批准。我們審查了美國員工的僱傭合同，以識別任何可能違反中國勞動法披露規定的條款（例如，不尋常的競業禁止條款或向美國員工提供的股票激勵，這些條款通常會在中國上市時詳細說明）。我們也協調將關鍵文件（例如註冊證書和美國國稅局信函）翻譯成符合法律規定的中文版本。

5. Coordination of Signatures: Recognizing the need for wet-ink opinions, TKEG scheduled the document exchanges carefully. We prepared an itinerary so that once the U.S. counsel finished the opinion, the client could overnight it to China so that originals arrived well before the filing deadline. The project managers tracked each step, confirming reception of signed opinions and official seals on intermediate filings.
   簽名協調：考慮到法律意見書的正式簽署至關重要，奕資精心安排了文件交換事宜。我們制定了詳細的流程，確保美國律師完成法律意見書後，客戶能夠立即將其隔夜寄往中國，從而保證原件在提交截止日期前送達。專案經理全程追蹤每個步驟，確認已收到簽署的法律意見書和加蓋公章的中間文件。

Throughout the process, TKEG’s team monitored both U.S. and PRC timelines. We set up joint teleconferences between the U.S. law firm and the client’s IPO sponsors to walk through any questions. Our familiarity with the CSRC “filing” modality (备案) meant we could reassure the client that these requirements were customary under the new rules[1][2]. In the end, the client successfully compiled a full set of filings: the PRC legal opinion covered the U.S. sub as required, and the U.S. counsel’s opinion arrived with the subsidiary’s corporate history properly documented. The combined submission satisfied the regulator’s demands.
在整個過程中，奕資團隊密切關注中美兩國的審批時間表。我們安排美國律師事務所與客戶的IPO保薦人進行聯合電話會議，解答任何疑問。我們對證監會備案流程的熟悉，使我們能夠向客戶保證，這些要求在新規下是慣例[1][2]。最終，客戶成功完成了所有備案文件：中國法律意見書涵蓋了美國子公司的相關要求，而美國律師的意見書則完整地記錄了子公司的公司歷史。最終提交的文件滿足了監管機構的要求。

6

References
參考

1. csrc.gov.cn: http://www.csrc.gov.cn/csrc/c105948/c7124400/7124400/files/%E7%9B%91%E7%AE%A1%E8%A7%84%E5%88%99%E9%80%82%E7%94%A8%E6%8C%87%E5%BC%95%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E5%A2%83%E5%A4%96%E5%8F%91%E8%A1%8C%E4%B8%8A%E5%B8%82%E7%B1%BB%E7%AC%AC2%E5%8F%B7%EF%BC%9A%E5%A4%87%E6%A1%88%E6%9D%90%E6%96%99%E5%86%85%E5%AE%B9%E5%92%8C%E6%A0%BC%E5%BC%8F%E6%8C%87%E5%BC%95.pdf

2. Duane Morris LLP - Pitfalls to Avoid When Chinese Companies with Singapore Subsidiaries Seek an IPO: https://www.duanemorris.com/alerts/pitfalls_avoid_when_chinese_companies_singapore_subsidiaries_seek_ipo_0422.html

3. key steps before signing a manufacturing NDA in China | News & Events | Clark Hill PLC: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/3-key-steps-before-signing-a-manufacturing-nda-in-china/

---