Company: JL
Filing Date: 2025-05-20
Form Type: 20-F/A
Source: 0001213900-25-045507
Chunk: 157

Company: J-Long Group Ltd
Filing Date: 2025-05-20
Form: 20-F/A
Chunk 157
---
 a dissenting shareholder has the right to express to the court the view that the transaction ought not to be approved, the court can be expected to approve the arrangement if it determines that:

| ● | the statutory provisions as to the required majority vote 
 have been met;                                            |

| ● | 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;                                                                                                                            |

| ● | 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 |

| ● | 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 dissentient minority shareholder upon a tender offer. When a tender offer is made and accepted by holders of ninety percent (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. An objection can be made to the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. If an 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. Shareholders’ Suits In principle, we will normally be the proper plaintiff 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 in the Cayman Islands, the Cayman Islands court 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 actions where:

| ● | a company acts or proposes to act illegally or ultra vires; |

| ● | the act complained of, although not ultra vires, could only                                        
 be effected duly if authorized by more than a simple majority vote that has not been obtained; and |

| ● | those who control the company are perpetrating a “fraud 
 on the