Company: ZCARW
Filing Date: 2025-03-04
Form Type: S-1
Source: 0001213900-25-020176
Chunk: 242

Company: Zoomcar Holdings, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-03-04
Form: S-1
Chunk 242
---
 to obtain control of Zoomcar by means of a proxy contest, tender offer, merger or otherwise. Choice of Forum.The Charter provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware shall be the sole and exclusive forum for the following claims or causes of action brought under Delaware state law: (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of Zoomcar (other than derivative actions brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Exchange Act), (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of, or based on, a fiduciary duty owed by any current or former director, officer or other employee of Zoomcar to Zoomcar or Zoomcar’s stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim against Zoomcar or any current or former director, officer, or other employee or stockholder of the Company arising pursuant to any provision of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware or the Charter or the Bylaws, or (iv) any action asserting a claim against the Company governed by the internal affairs doctrine. The aforementioned provision will not apply to claims or causes of action brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Act, the Exchange Act or any ancillary claims related thereto which are subject to the ancillary jurisdiction of the federal courts, as the United States District Court for the District of Delaware shall be the sole and exclusive forum for resolving any complaint with a cause of action under such laws. However, as Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act, and an investor cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder, there is uncertainty as to whether a court would enforce such a provision. 154 While the Delaware courts have determined that such choice of forum provisions are facially valid, a stockholder may nevertheless seek to bring a claim in a venue other than those designated in the exclusive forum provisions. In such instance, Zoomcar would expect to vigorously assert the validity and enforceability of the exclusive forum provisions of the Charter. This may require significant additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions and there can be no assurance that the provisions will be enforced by a court in those other jurisdictions. These exclusive forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with Zoomcar or its directors, officers, or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against Zoomcar or its directors, officers and other employees. If a