Company: ABLV
Filing Date: 2025-02-14
Form Type: F-3
Source: 0001213900-25-014400
Chunk: 34

Company: Able View Global Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-02-14
Form: F-3
Chunk 34
---
 be
the fair value. Any dissenting shareholder whose name appears on the list filed by the company may participate fully in all proceedings
until the determination of fair value is reached. These rights of a dissenting shareholder are not available in certain circumstances,
for example, to dissenters holding shares of any class in respect of which an open market exists on a recognized stock exchange or recognized
interdealer quotation system at the relevant date and where the consideration for such shares are shares of any company listed on a national
securities exchange or shares of the surviving or consolidated company.

Moreover, Cayman Islands law has separate statutory
provisions that facilitate the reconstruction or amalgamation of companies in certain circumstances, by way of schemes of arrangement,
which will generally be more suited for complex mergers or other transactions involving widely held companies, commonly referred to in
the Cayman Islands as a “scheme of arrangement” which may be tantamount to a merger. In the event that a merger was sought
pursuant to a scheme of arrangement (the procedures for which are more rigorous and take longer to complete than the procedures typically
required to consummate a merger in the United States), the arrangement in question must be approved by (a) 75% in value of the shareholders
or class of shareholders, as the case may be, or (b) a majority in number representing 75% in value of the creditors or each class of
creditors, as the case may be, with whom the arrangement is to be made, that are, in each case, present and voting either in person or
by proxy at a meeting, or meetings, convened for that purpose. The convening of the meetings and subsequently the terms of the arrangement
must be sanctioned by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. While a dissenting shareholder would have the right to express to the court
the view that the transaction should not be approved, the court can 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 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.”                                                                                                                     |