Company: COOT
Filing Date: 2025-12-04
Form Type: F-1
Source: 0001493152-25-026209
Chunk: 23

Company: Australian Oilseeds Holdings Ltd
Filing Date: 2025-12-04
Form: F-1
Chunk 23
---
 could materially harm our business or financial condition.

From time to time, we may be engaged in litigation and incur significant costs relating to these matters. There are inherent uncertainties of any future litigation, and the ultimate cost and outcome of future litigation cannot be predicted. We currently carry director and officer liability insurance and other insurance policies that provide protection against various liabilities relating to claims against us and our executive officers and directors. Any expenses and liabilities relating to future lawsuits will materially harm our financial condition. In addition, we might not be able to obtain the sufficient insurance coverage due to cost or other reasons. It could make it more difficult for us to retain and attract officers and directors and could expose us to potentially self-funding certain future liabilities ordinarily mitigated by director and officer liability insurance.

In addition, a substantial number of lawsuits have been filed by former special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) shareholders seeking to contest the terms of, or disclosures surrounding, de-SPAC merger transactions. While shareholders and plaintiffs’ firms have long contested public company M&A transactions and are bringing similar challenges to de-SPAC merger transactions, certain structural features of SPACs have led shareholders to make new twists on those arguments. For example, shareholders in a SPAC sued in Delaware state court to enjoin a de-SPAC transaction arguing that the SPAC directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by rushing to sign a deal just before the time limit to return capital to investors expired that was not in the best interests of SPAC shareholders. The plaintiffs also alleged that several of the SPAC’s managers lacked independence because they were promised board membership in the post-transaction company. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed after the SPAC issued additional disclosures.

| 13 |

Shareholders have also filed dozens of nuisance claims alleging misleading disclosures in proxy statements soliciting shareholder approval of de-SPAC merger transactions. These kinds of proxy statement challenges, which are common in the public M&A setting, are frequently brought under Section 14 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9. In these actions, plaintiffs’ lawyers threaten to enjoin a shareholder vote until the issuer releases supplemental information. These actions frequently settle or are voluntarily dismissed when the company issues additional disclosures, and plaintiffs’ lawyers then seek a “mootness fee” usually after the closing of the business combination. Commentators and courts have criticized this minuet on the ground that the supplemental disclosures confer no real benefits on shareholders. We can expect plaintiffs’ securities law firms to continue to file these claims in connection with many de