Company: ZDAN
Filing Date: 2025-07-28
Form Type: F-1/A
Source: 0001683168-25-005450
Chunk: 234

Company: Zerolimit Technology Holding Co. Ltd.
Filing Date: 2025-07-28
Form: F-1/A
Chunk 234
---
 receive
payment in cash for the judicially determined value of the shares.

Squeeze-out Provisions

When a take-over offer is
made and accepted by holders of not less than 90% of the shares affected within four months, the offer 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 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 the arrangement and reconstruction
is thus approved, the 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.

| 145 |

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 and be applied by a court 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 a non-controlling shareholder may be permitted to commence a class action against or derivative actions in the name
of the company to challenge:

| · | an act which is illegal or ultra vires with respect to the company and is therefore incapable of    
 ratification by the shareholders;                                                                   |
| · | an act which, although not ultra vires, requires authorization by a qualified (or special) majority 
 (that is, more than a simple majority) which has not been obtained; and                             |
| · | an act which constitutes a “fraud on the minority” where the wrongdoers are themselves              
 in control of the company.                                                                          |

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 may provide for indemnification of officers and directors, except
to the extent any such indemnification may be held by the Cayman Islands courts to be contrary to public policy