Company: TACOW
Filing Date: 2025-03-21
Form Type: S-1
Source: 0001829126-25-001978
Chunk: 257

Company: Berto Acquisition Corp.
Filing Date: 2025-03-21
Form: S-1
Chunk 257
---
 be expected to approve the arrangement if it satisfies itself that:

| ● | we are not proposing to act illegally or beyond the scope                                            
 of our corporate authority and the statutory provisions as to majority vote have been complied with; |

| ● | the shareholders have been fairly represented at the general 
 meeting in question;                                         |

| ● | the arrangement is such as a businessman would reasonably 
 approve; and                                              |

| ● | the arrangement is not one that would more properly be sanctioned                                  
 under some other provision of the Companies Act or that would amount to a “fraud on the minority.” |

<div align='center'>167</div>

If a scheme of arrangement or
takeover offer (as described below) is approved, any dissenting shareholder would have no rights comparable to dissenters’ rights
or appraisal rights (providing rights to receive payment in cash for the judicially determined value of the shares), which would otherwise
ordinarily be available to dissenting shareholders of United States corporations.

Squeeze-out Provisions.
When a takeover offer is made and accepted by holders of 90% in value of the shares to whom the offer relates within four months, the
offeror may, within a two-month period after the expiration of the initial four-month period, require the holders of the remaining shares
to transfer such shares 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 unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith, collusion or inequitable treatment of the shareholders.

Further, transactions similar
to a merger, reconstruction and/or an amalgamation may in some circumstances be achieved through means other than these statutory provisions,
such as a share capital exchange, asset acquisition or control, or through contractual arrangements, of an operating business.

Shareholders’ Suits.
Ogier (Cayman) LLP, our Cayman Islands legal counsel, is not aware of any reported class action having been brought in a Cayman Islands
court. Derivative actions have been brought in the Cayman Islands courts, and the Cayman Islands courts have confirmed the availability
for such actions. In most cases, we will be the proper plaintiff in any claim based on a breach of duty owed to us, and a claim against
(for example) our officers or directors usually may not be brought by a shareholder. However, based both on Cayman Islands authorities
and on English authorities, which would in all likelihood be of persuasive authority and be applied by a court