There is only one kind of due diligence in the IPO process, that is, the due diligence of intermediaries such as brokers on companies to be listed.

In the process of M&A (A-share enterprise), there should be two kinds of adjustments in theory, one is the adjustment of the buyer to the seller, and the other is the adjustment of the intermediary as an independent party to both parties.

Of course, the first adjustment of A-share M&A is not required by law, so whether and to what extent it is implemented is entirely up to the buyers and sellers. If the buyers and sellers are companies in the same industry, it is common that they are almost out of step. Everyone is familiar with it anyway.

The second kind of exhaustion is inevitable, with a standardized operation process, which is similar to the exhaustion of IPO.

The second difference is the different requirements.

The purpose of IPO is to meet the requirements of IPO-related laws and regulations, and so is the independent adjustment of mergers and acquisitions. However, IPO audit is strict, meticulous and even harsh, while M&A audit has become more and more relaxed in recent years.

Therefore, on some difficult issues, IPO must be done thoroughly. It's probably good that M&A is done, and the details don't need to be investigated so deeply.

For example, the company transferred its equity ten years ago, and some documents may not be clearly signed. If the IPO is fully adjusted, everyone in 7788 will be found out, and the ends of the earth will fly over to ask clearly, and the notes will be signed and recorded. M&A is in full swing, so let lawyers see if this kind of document has any substantial impact. If there is nothing serious, just explain the situation. This is probably the difference.

As for the scope of adjustment, I don't think there is any substantive difference. We all find legal business finance according to the regulations.