Company: FUFU
Filing Date: 2025-04-21
Form Type: F-3/A
Source: 0001213900-25-033745
Chunk: 24

Company: Bitfufu Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-04-21
Form: F-3/A
Chunk 24
---
 the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands but
this is unlikely to succeed in the case of an offer that has been so approved unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith or collusion.

<div align='center'>15</div>

If an arrangement and reconstruction
by way of scheme of arrangement is thus approved and sanctioned, or if a tender 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 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 (and is therefore incapable of ratification 
 by the shareholders);                                                                                  |

| ● | 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 minority.” |

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 of association may provide for indemnification of officers and directors, except to the extent any such provision
may be held by the Cayman Islands courts to be contrary to public policy, such as to provide indemnification against civil fraud or the
consequences of committing a crime. Our Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association provide that we shall indemnify our
officers and directors against all actions, proceedings, costs, charges, expenses, losses, damages or liabilities incurred or sustained
by such directors or officer, other than by reason of such person’s dishonesty, willful default or fraud,