Company: BGHL
Filing Date: 2025-09-25
Form Type: F-1/A
Source: 0001213900-25-091359
Chunk: 144

Company: BILLION GROUP HOLDINGS Ltd
Filing Date: 2025-09-25
Form: F-1/A
Chunk 144
---
 statutory provisions as to the required majority vote have been met; (b)the shareholders have been fairly represented at the meeting in question and the statutory majority are acting bona fide without coercion of the minority to promote interests adverse to those of the class; (c)the arrangement is such that may be reasonably approved by an intelligent and honest man of that class acting in respect of his interest; and (d)the arrangement is not one that would more properly be sanctioned under some other provision of the Cayman Companies Act. When a takeover offer is made and accepted by holders of 90% of the shares affected within four months the offeror may, within a two -monthperiod commencing on the expiration of such four -monthperiod, require the holders of the remaining shares to transfer such shares 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 or collusion. If an arrangement and reconstruction is thus approved, or if a takeover 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 apply and follow the common law principles (namely the rule in Foss v. Harbottle and the exceptions thereto) which permit a non -controllingshareholder to commence a class action against, or derivative actions in the name of, a company to challenge the following: •an act which is illegal or ultra vires with respect to the company and is therefore incapable of ratification by the shareholders; •an act which, although not ultra vires, requires authorization by a qualified (or special) majority (that is, more than a simple majority) which has not been obtained; and •an act which constitutes a “fraud on the minority” where the wrongdoers are themselves in control of the company. In the case of a company (not being a bank) having its share capital divided