Company: SMNR
Filing Date: 2025-07-02
Form Type: S-4/A
Source: 0001193125-25-154936
Chunk: 661

Company: Semnur Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-07-02
Form: S-4/A
Chunk 661
---
 |     | the arrangement is not one that would more properly be sanctioned under some other provision of the Companies Act or that would amount to a “fraud on the minority.” |

402

If a scheme of arrangement or takeover offer (as described below) is approved, any dissenting shareholder would have no rights comparable to appraisal rights (providing rights to the fair value of the shares judicially determined and to consequent payment), which would otherwise ordinarily be available to dissenting shareholders of mergers of United States corporations. Squeeze-outprovisions.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 takeover offer is made and accepted by holders of 90% of the shares to whom the offer relates within four months, the offeror may, within a two-monthperiod, 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 which has been so approved unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith, collusion or inequitable treatment of the shareholders or a breach of the relevant statutory provisions. Further, transactions similar to a merger, reconstruction and/or an amalgamation may in some circumstances be achieved through means other than these statutory provisions, such as a share capital exchange, asset acquisition or control, or through contractual arrangements of an operating business. Shareholders’ suits.Maples and Calder (Hong Kong) LLP, our Cayman Islands legal counsel, is not aware of any reported class action having been brought in a Cayman Islands court. Derivative actions have been brought in the Cayman Islands courts, and the Cayman Islands courts have confirmed the availability for such actions. In most cases, we will be the proper plaintiff in any claim based on a breach of duty owed to us, and a claim against (for example) our officers or directors usually may not be brought by a shareholder. However, based both on Cayman Islands authorities and on English authorities, which would in all likelihood be of persuasive authority and be applied by a court in the Cayman Islands, exceptions to the foregoing principle apply in circumstances in which:

| • |     | a company is acting, or proposing to act, illegally or beyond the scope of its authority; |

| • |     | the act complained of, although not beyond the scope of the authority, could be only effected if