January 30, 2014, 4:57 PM ET By EMILY CHASAN

　　Last week’s ruling against the Chinese units of the “Big Four” audit firms has already made its first appearance in initial public offering risk factors.

　　In its U.S. IPO filing on Thursday, Chinese e-commerce retailer JD.com Inc. went into detail about the ruling from Securities Exchange Commission administrative law judge Cameron Elliot, that could ban the “Big Four” accounting firms from auditing U.S. companies in China for six months. While the ruling is being contested, companies now have to disclose that they could end up losing their auditor and potentially violating U.S. listing standards.

　　At least eight companies have highlighted the administrative proceedings at the SEC in initial public offering documents since the SEC first brought the case in December 2012. Those firms, including Chinese online retailer Light In The Box Holding Co. and Chinese car-sales website owner Autohome Inc.ATHM +1.99% have often made reference to “adverse” effects from a potential ruling, but in light of the decision, JD.com has gotten much more specific.

　　Here’s the disclosure Light In The Box made about its auditor BDO China Dahua in its initial IPO filing with the SEC in April 2013:

　　Recently, the SEC commenced administrative proceedings under Rule 102(e) of its Rules of Practice and also under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 against the Chinese affiliates of the “big four” accounting firms, including our auditors, and also against BDO China Dahua. The Rule 102(e) proceedings initiated by the SEC relate to these firms’ failure to produce documents, including audit workpapers, to the request of the SEC pursuant to Section 106 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as the auditors located in the PRC are not in a position lawfully to produce documents directly to the SEC because of restrictions under PRC law and specific directives issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission. As the administrative proceedings are ongoing, it is impossible to determine their outcome or the consequences thereof to us. The issues raised by the proceedings are not specific to our auditors or to us, but affect equally all audit firms based in China and all China-based businesses with securities listed in the United States. However, if the administrative judge were to find in favor of the SEC under the proceeding and depending upon the remedies sought by the SEC, these audit firms could be barred from practicing before the SEC. As a result, 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 may result in their delisting. Moreover, any negative news about the proceedings against these audit firms may erode investor confidence in China-based, United States listed companies and the market price of the ADSs may be adversely affected.

　　And here’s the disclosure from JD.com’s IPO filing on Thursday about its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian LLP:

　　Proceedings instituted recently by the SEC against five PRC-based accounting firms, including our independent registered public accounting firm, could result in our financial statements being determined to not be in compliance with the requirements of the Exchange Act.

　　In December 2012, the SEC brought administrative proceedings against five accounting firms, including our independent registered public accounting firm, in China, alleging that they had refused to produce audit work papers and other documents related to certain other China-based companies under investigation by the SEC for potential accounting fraud. On January 22, 2014, an initial administrative law decision was issued, censuring these accounting firms and suspending four of the five firms from practicing before the SEC for a period of six months. The decision is neither final nor legally effective unless and until reviewed and approved by the SEC. The accounting firms have the ability to appeal and the four firms which are subject to the six month suspension from practicing before the SEC have indicated that they will appeal. The sanction will not become effective until after a full appeal process is concluded and a final decision is issued by the SEC. The accounting firms can also further appeal the final decision of the SEC through the federal appellate courts. We are not involved in the proceedings brought by the SEC against the accounting firms. However, our independent registered public accounting firm is one of the four accounting firms subject to the six month suspension from practicing before the SEC in the initial administrative law decision. We may therefore be adversely affected by the outcome of the proceedings, along with other U.S.-listed companies audited by these accounting firms.

　　On May 24, 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 which establishes a cooperative framework between the parties for the production and exchange of audit documents relevant to investigations in the United States and China. However, it is not clear how these recent developments could affect the SEC’s final decision in the case against the five accounting firms or any subsequent appeal to courts that the accounting firms may initiate. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the final outcome of the administrative proceedings and the potential consequences thereof.

　　If our independent registered public accounting firm were denied, 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 to not be in compliance with the requirements of the Exchange Act. Such a determination could ultimately lead to the delay or abandonment of this offering, delisting of our Class A ordinary shares from the [NYSE/NASDAQ Global Market] or deregistration from the SEC, or both, which would substantially reduce or effectively terminate the trading of our ADSs in the United States.

　　Telis Demos contributed to this post.