Item 1A. Risk Factors
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Except as described below, there have been no material changes to the risk factors previously disclosed in Part I, Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the SEC on March 31, 2025. The following additional risk factor should be considered in conjunction with the risk factors disclosed in the Form 10-K.
Risks Related to our Business and Industry
We, our founder and Global Co-Chief Executive Officer, and our Global President, have each received a Wells Notice from the SEC contemplating a civil enforcement action, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, prospects, reputation, and/or our stock price.
On June 26, 2025, the Company received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the SEC stating that the SEC staff made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Company alleging violations of various anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC staff informed the Company that the alleged violations of anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws pertain to purported false or misleading statements in connection with the Company’s 2021 PIPE and SPAC listing, relating to (i) related party transactions, and (ii) Mr. Jia’s role in the Company. An enforcement action may seek an injunction or cease-and-desist order against future violations of provisions of the federal securities laws, the imposition of civil monetary penalties, disgorgement or other equitable relief within the SEC’s authority, or any combination of the foregoing.
120
Table of Contents
On June 27, 2025, Jiawei (Jerry) Wang, the Global President of the Company, received a Wells Notice from the SEC, and on June 30, 2025, YT Jia, Global Co-Chief Executive Officer, received a Wells Notice from the SEC. Each of these notices also states that the SEC staff made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against them alleging similar violations in their individual capacities of various anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws detailed above. An enforcement action may seek any of the above-referenced remedies, as well as a bar from serving as an officer or director of a public company. Two other former Company employees also received Wells Notices.
A Wells Notice is neither a formal charge of wrongdoing nor a final determination that the recipient has violated any law but is a preliminary determination by the Staff to recommend to the SEC Commissioners that a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding be brought against the recipients. The Company and, Messrs. Jia and Wang plan to engage with the SEC Staff about why an enforcement action is not warranted. If the SEC determines to seek an enforcement action against the Company, Mr. Jia, and/or Mr. Wang, the SEC would need to proceed through a formal process, including formal court process for the director and officer bar, during which the Company, Mr. Jia and/or Mr. Wang, as applicable, could defend themselves.
We cannot predict the results of the investigation and the Wells Notice process and any corresponding enforcement action against us and/or any of the identified individuals, and the costs, timing and other potential consequences of responding and complying therewith with any certainty. If the final determination is detrimental to the Company, we may lose business cooperation with our actual and/or potential customers and vendors, and it may be more difficult for the Company to obtain additional financing on favorable terms, if at all. Further, it may become more difficult to attract and retain key members of management, our board of directors and other key employees. The investigation, including any potential SEC enforcement action, continues to be expensive and disruptive, and we are obligated to indemnify each of the individuals for their costs associated with the investigation, the Wells Notices, and any resulting litigation with the SEC or related litigation brought by other parties, which may cause financial distress to the Company. Our insurance, to the extent maintained, may not cover all claims that may be asserted against us or the specified individuals, and we are unable to predict how long the investigation and any potential SEC enforcement action will continue. In addition, because the Company depends on Messrs. Jia and Wang, the loss of their services may adversely impact the achievement of the Company’s objectives. An unfavorable outcome may have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, prospects, reputation and/or our stock price. In addition, Nasdaq has broad discretion and may determine to delist our securities from the Nasdaq Capital Market or other applicable trading market within the U.S. Any proceeding could also negatively impact our reputation among our stakeholders.
Risks Related to Investing in Cryptocurrency
The launch of central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”) may adversely impact our business.
The introduction of a government-issued digital currency could eliminate or reduce the need or demand for private-sector issued crypto currencies, or significantly limit their utility. National governments around the world could introduce CBDCs, which could in turn limit the size of the market opportunity for cryptocurrencies.
If we were deemed to be an investment company under the Investment Company Act, applicable restrictions likely would make it impractical for us to continue segments of our business as currently contemplated.
Under Sections 3(a)(1)(A) and (C) of the Investment Company Act, a company generally will be deemed to be an “investment company” if (i) it is, or holds itself out as being, engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities or (ii) it engages, or proposes to engage, in the business of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities and it owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of its total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act, and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Rule 3a-1 under the Investment Company Act generally provides that notwithstanding the Section 3(a)(1)(C) test described in clause (ii) above, an entity will not be deemed to be an “investment company” for purposes of the Investment Company Act if no more than 45% of the value of its assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act, and cash items) consists of, and no more than 45% of its net income after taxes (for the past four fiscal quarters combined) is derived from, securities other than U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act, securities issued by employees’ securities companies, securities issued by qualifying majority owned subsidiaries of such entity, and securities issued by qualifying companies that are controlled primarily by such entity. We do not believe that we are an “investment company” as such term is defined in either Section 3(a)(1)(A) or Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Investment Company Act.
Recently, we have begun focusing on pursuing opportunities to expand our portfolio into digital assets. Since we believe cryptocurrency is not an investment security, we do not hold ourselves out as being engaged primarily, or propose to engage primarily, in the business of investing, reinvesting, or trading in securities within the meaning of Section 3(a)(1)(A) of the Investment Company Act.
121
Table of Contents
With respect to Section 3(a)(1)(C), we believe we satisfy the elements of Rule 3a-1 and therefore are deemed not to be an investment company under, and we intend to conduct our operations such that we will not be deemed an investment company under, Section 3(a)(1)(C). We believe that we are not an investment company pursuant to Rule 3a-1 under the Investment Company Act because, on a consolidated basis with respect to wholly-owned subsidiaries but otherwise on an unconsolidated basis, no more than 45% of the value of the Company’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act, and cash items) consists of, and no more than 45% of the Company’s net income after taxes (for the last four fiscal quarters combined) is derived from, securities other than U.S. government securities, shares of registered money market funds under Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act, securities issued by employees’ securities companies, securities issued by qualifying majority owned subsidiaries of the Company, and securities issued by qualifying companies that are controlled primarily by the Company.
Cryptocurrency, as well as new business models and transactions enabled by blockchain technologies, present novel interpretive questions under the Investment Company Act. There is a risk that assets or arrangements that we are to invest which are not securities could be deemed to be securities by the SEC or another authority for purposes of the Investment Company Act, which would increase the percentage of securities held by us for Investment Company Act purposes. The SEC has requested information from a number of participants in the digital assets’ ecosystem, regarding the potential application of the Investment Company Act to their businesses. For example, in an action unrelated to the Company, in February 2022, the SEC issued a cease-and-desist order under the Investment Company Act to BlockFi Lending LLC, in which the SEC alleged that BlockFi was operating as an unregistered investment company because it issued securities and also held more than 40% of its total assets, excluding cash, in investment securities, including the loans of digital assets made by BlockFi to institutional borrowers.
If we were deemed to be an investment company, Rule 3a-2 under the Investment Company Act is a safe harbor that provides a one-year grace period for transient investment companies that have a bona fide intent to be engaged primarily, as soon as is reasonably possible (in any event by the termination of such one-year period), in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in securities, with such intent evidenced by the company’s business activities and an appropriate resolution of its board of directors. The grace period is available not more than once every three years and runs from the earlier of (i) the date on which the issuer owns securities and/or cash having a value exceeding 50% of the issuer’s total assets on either a consolidated or unconsolidated basis or (ii) the date on which the issuer owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of such issuer’s total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Accordingly, the grace period may not be available at the time that we seek to rely on Rule 3a-2; however, Rule 3a-2 is a safe harbor and we may rely on any exemption or exclusion from investment company status available to us under the Investment Company Act at any given time. Furthermore, reliance on Rule 3a-2, Section 3(a)(1)(C), or Rule 3a-1 could require us to take actions to dispose of securities, limit our ability to make certain investments or enter into joint ventures, or otherwise limit or change our service offerings and operations. If we were to be deemed an investment company in the future, restrictions imposed by the Investment Company Act — including limitations on our ability to issue different classes of stock and equity compensation to directors, officers, and employees and restrictions on management, operations, and transactions with affiliated persons — likely would make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects.
The cryptocurrency we hold is not insured and not subject to FDIC or SIPC protections.
Currently, the Company does not plan to insure the cryptocurrencies the Company will purchase in the future. Therefore, any loss that we may suffer with respect to our cryptocurrencies will not be covered by insurance and no person may be liable in damages for such loss, which could adversely affect our operations. The Company does not plan to hold the cryptocurrencies with a banking institution or a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) or the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and, therefore, our cryptocurrency is not subject to the protections enjoyed by depositors with FDIC or SIPC member institutions.
Impact of Rising International Political Tensions and Disruptions in Financial Markets on Our Business.
Rising international political tensions and disruptions in the financial markets and global economic conditions may adversely affect our business, operating results, and the value of our securities. Political tensions between the United States and China have escalated in recent years due to, among other factors, the trade war between the two countries that began in 2018, the imposition of U.S. sanctions on certain Chinese officials from China’s central government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the inclusion of Chinese entities and individuals on sanctions and other restrictive lists, the recently announced investment restrictions by the U.S. government, and the imposition of sanctions, export, and import restrictions by the Chinese government on certain U.S. persons.
122
Table of Contents
The U.S. government has made statements and taken actions that may lead to potential changes to U.S. and international trade policies towards China. Unfavorable government policies on international trade, such as capital controls or tariffs, could affect the demand for our products and services, impact the competitive position of our products, or prevent us from selling products in certain countries. Furthermore, the application of tariffs or other trade barriers may significantly impact our ability to conduct business internationally, particularly with regard to the sale of electric vehicles (EVs), including battery electric vehicles (“BEVs”), in regions such as the U.S., where incentives and tax credits for BEVs may also be impacted by trade policy changes. On May 14, 2024, the U.S. government announced higher tariffs on steel and aluminum, semiconductors, electric vehicles, batteries, critical minerals, solar cells, ship-to-shore cranes and medical products. These higher tariffs were based on claims that China has engaged in unfair trade practices. The highest of these tariffs are applicable to electric vehicles, which will be subject to a tariff rate of 100% from August 1, 2024, an increase from the earlier rate of 25%. Recently, the Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff globally on all the automobiles and parts imported to the U.S., effective on April 4, 2025. On February 1, 2025, a 10% tariff was added on products imported from China. On March 4, 2025, tariff applicable to products made in China was increased to 20%. On April 2, 2025, an additional 34% tariff was imposed universally to Chinese-made products, which increased the applicable overall tariff to 54%. On April 9, 2025, in response to the retaliation tariff announced by China, the Trump administration further raised the additional tariff to 84%, and on the same day, a reciprocal duty of 125% was charged to products imported from China, and the final applicable tariff rate reaches 145%. On May 12, 2025, Chinese and the U.S. government came to an agreement to temporarily reduce reciprocal tariffs by 115% starting May 14, 2025. The effective tariff rate on products imported from China was reduced to 30%, while the Chinese tariff rate on American goods was reduced to 10%. On October 9, 2025, China added five rare-earth elements to its exportation control list, which requires an export license that foreign producers will have to apply for if they plan to export products that use even slight amounts of Chinese-origin rare-earth minerals. In response, on October 11, 2025, the Trump administration declared that a 100% tariff will be imposed on all importations from China, along with export controls on “any and all critical software from the U.S.” Recently, after a meeting between U.S. and Chinese governments, the restriction mentioned above was lifted and the Trump administration will halt plans for such 100% additional tariffs for one year. How the tariff war between the U.S. and China will develop is highly uncertain, and it is difficult for the Company to predict.
Additionally, on January 16, 2025, the Bureau of Industry and Security issued a final rule entitled “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain: Connected Vehicles” (the “Final Rule”), prohibiting certain transactions involving the sale or import of connected vehicles integrating specific hardware and software, or those components sold separately, with a sufficient nexus to China or Russia. The implementation details of the Final Rule remain under evaluation, the Final Rule may have a material adverse impact on our financial performance or business operations. Any new tariffs, import, export, or investment restrictions, or changes in existing trade agreements, particularly if the U.S. government escalates trade tensions or takes retaliatory measures, could negatively affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Recent policy change on the tax benefit of purchasing an electric vehicle may negatively affect the Company’s operations.
On July 4, 2025, H.R. 1, commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the "OBBBA"), was signed into law. The bill provides consumers with a tax deduction for the interest on loans for certain U.S.-assembled vehicles and eliminates federal Electric Vehicle ("EV") tax credits for vehicles purchased or leased after September 30, 2025. The termination of the EV tax credit, could have a material adverse effect on our business. Currently, the EV tax credit plays a significant role in encouraging consumer adoption of electric vehicles, which in turn drives demand for our products. The termination of the EV tax credit could reduce consumer purchasing power and slow the adoption of electric vehicles. A decline in demand could negatively impact our sales, revenue growth, and profitability. Additionally, such change to the EV tax credit could lead to increased competition or market uncertainty, as competitors may adjust their pricing and product offerings faster than us.
Jerry Wang, the President of FF, and Koti Meka, the Chief Financial Officer of FF, serve as the Co-Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of AIXC, respectively. Such appointment may cause them to devote less time to the Company.
On October 2, 2025, Jerry Wang, the President of FF and Koti Meka, the Chief Financial Officer of FF were appointed by AIXC to be the Co-Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of AIXC, respectively. As senior officers of both FF and AIXC, they may face challenges in fully dedicating their time, focus, and resources to our Company. This divided attention could lead to delays in decision-making, diminished strategic oversight, and a reduced ability to effectively address operational issues, thereby negatively impacting our business performance. Additionally, the potential for conflicts of interest may arise if the interests of the companies they manage are not fully aligned. These circumstances could result in compromised decision-making or actions that prioritize the interests of other companies over ours. Furthermore, the concentration of leadership responsibilities in a small group of individuals managing multiple companies may raise concerns about governance and succession planning, as it could limit the diversity of leadership perspectives and create risks in developing suitable successors. As a result, the ability of these officers to execute on our strategic objectives could be impaired, which may harm our financial performance, shareholder value, and long-term business stability.
123
Table of Contents
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.