Company: SOS
Filing Date: 2025-03-14
Form Type: F-3
Source: 0001213900-25-024134
Chunk: 70

Company: SOS Ltd
Filing Date: 2025-03-14
Form: F-3
Chunk 70
---
 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 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.

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.” |

<div align='center'>38</div>

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 memorandum and articles of association provide that we shall indemnify
our directors and officers against all actions, proceedings, costs, charges, expenses, losses, damages or liabilities incurred or sustained