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 to whom the offer relates within four months, the offeror may, within a two-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 unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith, collusion or inequitable treatment of the shareholders.
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, 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 effected if duly authorized by more than the number of votes which have actually been obtained; or |
| • | | those who control the company are perpetrating a “fraud on the minority.” |
A shareholder may have a direct right of action against us where the individual rights of that shareholder have been infringed or are about to be infringed.
Enforcement of Civil Liabilities. The Cayman Islands has a different body of securities laws as compared to the United States and provides less protection to investors. Additionally, Cayman Islands companies may not have standing to sue before the Federal courts of the United States.
We have been advised by Maples and Calder, our Cayman Islands legal counsel, that the courts of the Cayman Islands are unlikely (i) to recognize or enforce against us judgments of courts of the United States predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States or any state; and (ii) in original actions brought in the Cayman Islands, to impose liabilities against us predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States or any state, so far as the liabilities imposed by those provisions are penal in nature. In those circumstances, although there is no statutory enforcement in the Cayman Islands of judgments obtained in the United States, the courts of the Cayman Islands will recognize and enforce a foreign money judgment of a foreign court of competent jurisdiction without retrial on the merits based on the principle that a judgment of a competent foreign court
20