Company: FVN
Filing Date: 2025-03-10
Form Type: DRS/A
Source: 0001829126-25-001610
Chunk: 356

Company: Future Vision II Acquisition Corp.
Filing Date: 2025-03-10
Form: DRS/A
Chunk 356
---
 itself that:

| ● | the statutory provisions as to majority vote have been complied with;                                                                                                                                         |
| ● | 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; |
| ● | the arrangement is such as a businessman would reasonably approve by an intelligent and honest 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.                                                                                            |

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 receive payment in cash for the judicially determined value of the shares), which would otherwise ordinarily be available to dissenting shareholders of United States corporations.

Squeeze-out Provisions. 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-month period commencing on the expiration of such four-month period, 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.

Shareholders’ Suits

In principle, New VIWO will normally be the proper plaintiff to sue for a wrong done to it as a company and as a general rule, a derivative action may not be brought by a minority shareholder. However, based on English law authorities, which would in all likelihood be of persuasive authority in the Cayman Islands, the Cayman Islands courts 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:

| ● | 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 wrong