Company: FWDI
Filing Date: 2025-06-20
Form Type: DEF 14A
Source: 0001683168-25-004653
Chunk: 46

Company: Forward Industries, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-06-20
Form: DEF 14A
Chunk 46
---
 the NRS, could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing an attempted takeover or change of control of the Company,
or making such an attempt more difficult. Additionally, in most jurisdictions it remains unclear how a court would interpret and whether
it would enforce some of these provisions, resulting in added uncertainty. Section 22 of the Securities Act creates concurrent jurisdiction
for federal and state courts over all suits brought to enforce any duty or liability created by the Securities Act or the rules and regulations
thereunder. Investors cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder, and that
there is uncertainty as to whether a state or federal court would enforce these charter provisions.

We believe that unsolicited takeover
attempts may be unfair or disadvantageous to us and our shareholders because, among other reasons:

| · | an uninvited acquirer may time its takeover bid to take advantage of temporarily depressed stock prices;                                                                                                                  |
| · | an uninvited acquirer may design its bid to preclude or minimize the possibility of more favorable competing bids or alternative transactions;                                                                            |
| · | an uninvited acquirer may acquire only a controlling interest in the corporation’s stock, without affording all shareholders the opportunity to receive the same economic benefits; and                                   |
| · | a non-negotiated acquisition of a controlling interest may put us in default under certain contractual arrangements that prohibit a “change of control” without the prior written consent of the other contracting party. |

Defensive measures encourage
a potential bidder to negotiate with the Board. Despite our belief in its benefits to shareholders, the Nevada Reincorporation may be
disadvantageous to our existing shareholders. For example, we might not approve of a takeover attempt that a majority of shareholders
may deem to be in their best interests or in which shareholders may receive a substantial premium over the then current market value for
their shares. The Nevada Reincorporation could discourage such an offer. As a result, an existing shareholder might wish to participate
in an unsolicited tender offer but not have an opportunity to do so. In addition, to the extent that provisions of Nevada law enable us
to resist a takeover or a change in control, certain features of the Nevada Reincorporation will make it more difficult for shareholders
to change the existing Board and management.

| 31 |

Certain Significant Differences and Similarities between the Corporation Laws of New York and Nevada

Shareholder Derivative Suits

A derivative suit is a legal
action