Company: GSRF
Filing Date: 2025-07-29
Form Type: S-1
Source: 0001213900-25-068819
Chunk: 239

Company: GSR IV Acquisition Corp.
Filing Date: 2025-07-29
Form: S-1
Chunk 239
---
: •we are not proposing to act illegally or beyond the scope of our corporate authority and we have complied with the statutory provisions as to majority vote; •the shareholders have been fairly represented at the meeting in question; •the arrangement is such as a business -personwould 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.” If a scheme of arrangement or takeover offer (as described below) is approved, any dissenting shareholder would have no rights comparable to appraisal rights, which would otherwise ordinarily be available to dissenting shareholders of U.S. corporations, providing rights to receive payment in cash for the judicially determined value of the shares. Squeeze -out Provisions.When a takeover offer is made and accepted by holders of 90% of the shares to whom the offer relates within four months, the offeror may, within a two -monthperiod, 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 other means to these statutory provisions, such as a share capital exchange, asset acquisition or control, through contractual arrangements, of an operating business. Shareholders’ Suits.Appleby (Cayman) Ltd., 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 of 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 directors or officers 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 applied by a court in the Cayman Islands, exceptions to the foregoing principle apply in circumstances in which: •a company is acting, or proposing to act, illegally or beyond the scope of its authority; •the act complained of, although not beyond the scope of the authority, could be effected if duly authorized by more than the number of votes that have actually