Company: MAGH
Filing Date: 2025-06-25
Form Type: F-1/A
Source: 0001641172-25-016431
Chunk: 149

Company: Magnitude International Ltd
Filing Date: 2025-06-25
Form: F-1/A
Chunk 149
---
 ● | the                                                                                                                                   
 arrangement is not one that would more properly be sanctioned under some other provision of the Companies Act.                        |

| 116 |

The Companies Act also contains a statutory power of compulsory acquisition which may facilitate the “squeeze out” of a dissentient minority shareholder 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 which 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, 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.

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 authorities, which would in all likelihood be of persuasive authority in the Cayman Islands, the Cayman Islands court can be expected to follow and apply the common law principles (namely the rule in Foss v. Harbottle and the exceptions thereto) so that a non-controlling shareholder may be permitted to commence a class action against or derivative actions in the name of the company to challenge actions where:

| ● | a                                                                                                                                  
 company acts or proposes to act illegally or ultra vires;                                                                          |
| ● | the                                                                                                                                
 act complained of, although not ultra vires, could only be effected duly if authorized by more than the number of votes which have 
 actually been obtained; and                                                                                                        |
| ● | those                                                                                                                              
 who control the company are perpetrating a “fraud on the minority.”                                                                |

Indemnification of Directors and Executive Officers and Limitation of Liability. Cayman Islands law does not limit the extent to which a company’s memorandum and articles of association may provide for indemnification of officers and directors, except to the extent any such provision