Company: DKI
Filing Date: 2025-07-29
Form Type: F-1/A
Source: 0001641172-25-021310
Chunk: 177

Company: DarkIris Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-07-29
Form: F-1/A
Chunk 177
---
 so approved unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith or collusion.

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, 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 second amended and restated memorandum and articles of association provide thatto
the extent permitted by law, we shall indemnify each existing or former director (including alternate director), secretary and other
officer of us (including an investment adviser or an administrator or liquidator) and their personal representatives against:

| (a) | all                                                                                               
 actions, proceedings, costs, charges, expenses, losses, damages or liabilities incurred or        
 sustained by the existing or former director (including alternate director), secretary or         
 officer in or about the conduct of our business or affairs or in the