Company: BTBT
Filing Date: 2025-10-01
Form Type: 424B5
Source: 0001213900-25-094778
Chunk: 163

Company: Bit Digital, Inc
Filing Date: 2025-10-01
Form: 424B5
Chunk 163
---
 that:

| (a) | the statutory provisions                        
 as to the required majority vote have been met; |

| (b) | the shareholders have been                                                                                                        
 fairly represented at the meeting in question and the statutory majority are acting bona fide without coercion of the minority to 
 promote interests adverse to those of the class;                                                                                  |

| (c) | the arrangement is such                                                                                               
 that may be reasonably approved by an intelligent and honest man of that class acting in respect of his interest; and |

| (d) | the arrangement is not                                                                      
 one that would more properly be sanctioned under some other provision of the Companies Act. |

The Companies Act also
contains a statutory power of compulsory acquisition which may facilitate the “squeeze out” of minority shareholders. When
an offer is made and accepted by holders of 90% of the shares affected within four months, the offeror 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 to the offeror
on the terms of the offer. A dissenting shareholder may object by making an application to the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands within
one month from the date of notice being given that their shares are being compulsorily acquired. If an arrangement and reconstruction
is thus approved, or if an offer is made and accepted, in accordance with the foregoing statutory procedures, a 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.

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 law authorities, which would in all likelihood be of persuasive authority 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, which limits the circumstances in which a shareholder may bring a derivative action on behalf of the company
or a personal action to claim loss which is reflective of loss suffered by the company) 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:

|