Company: FUFU
Filing Date: 2025-07-08
Form Type: F-3
Source: 0001213900-25-061902
Chunk: 24

Company: Bitfufu Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-07-08
Form: F-3
Chunk 24
---
 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 that may facilitate the “squeeze out” of dissentient minority shareholders upon
a tender offer. When a tender offer is made and accepted by holders of 90.0% 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 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'>12</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