Company: NTCL
Filing Date: 2025-12-29
Form Type: F-3
Source: 0001104659-25-124826
Chunk: 70

Company: NetClass Technology Inc
Filing Date: 2025-12-29
Form: F-3
Chunk 70
---
.
While a dissenting shareholder has the right to express to the court the view that the transaction ought not to be approved, the court
can be expected to approve the arrangement if it determines that:

| (a) | the statutory provisions as to the required majority vote have been met; |

| (b) | the shareholders have been fairly represented at the meeting in question and the statutory majority are 
 acting bona fide without coercion of the minority to promote interests adverse to those of the class;   |

| (c) | the arrangement is such that may be reasonably approved by an intelligent and honest man of that class 
 acting in respect of his interest; and                                                                 |

| (d) | the arrangement is not one that would more properly be sanctioned under some other provision of the Cayman 
 Islands Companies Act.                                                                                     |

The Cayman Islands Companies Act also contains
a statutory power of compulsory acquisition which may facilitate the “squeeze out” of dissentient minority shareholders upon
a tender offer. When a tender offer is made and accepted by holders of not less than 90% in value of the shares affected within four-months
the offeror may, within a two-month period commencing on the expiration of such four-month period, require the holders of the remaining
shares to transfer such shares to the offeror on the terms of the offer. An objection can be made to the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands
but this is unlikely to succeed in the case of an offer that has been so approved unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith or collusion.

If an arrangement and reconstruction by way of
scheme of arrangement is thus approved and sanctioned, or if a tender offer is made and accepted in accordance with the foregoing statutory
procedures, a dissenting shareholder would have no rights comparable to appraisal rights, which would otherwise ordinarily be available
to dissenting shareholders of Delaware corporations, providing rights to receive payment in cash for the judicially determined value of
the shares.

| 33 |

Shareholders’ Suits

In principle, we will normally be the proper plaintiff
to sue for a wrong done to us as a company and as a general rule, a derivative action may not be brought by a minority shareholder. However,
based on English law authorities, which would in all likelihood be of persuasive authority in the Cayman Islands, the Cayman Islands courts
can be expected to follow and apply the common law principles (namely the rule in Foss v. Harbottle and the exceptions thereto)
so that