suited for complex mergers or other transactions involving widely held companies, commonly referred to in the Cayman Islands as a “scheme of arrangement” which may be tantamount to a merger. In the event that a merger was sought pursuant to a scheme of arrangement (the procedures of which are more rigorous and take longer to complete than the procedures typically required to consummate a merger in the United States), the arrangement in question must be approved by a majority in number of each class of shareholders and creditors with whom the arrangement is to be made and who must in addition represent three-fourths in value of each such class of shareholders or creditors, as the case may be, that are present and voting either in person or by proxy at a meeting summoned for that purpose. The convening of the meetings and subsequently the terms of the arrangement must be sanctioned by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. While a dissenting shareholder would have the right to express to the court the view that the transaction should not be approved, the court can be expected to approve the arrangement if it is satisfied that:
· we are not proposing to act illegally or beyond the scope of our corporate authority and we have complied with the statutory provisions as to majority vote;
· the shareholders have been fairly represented at the meeting in question;
· the arrangement is such as a business-person would reasonably approve; and
· 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.”
If a scheme of arrangement or takeover offer (as described below) is approved, any dissenting shareholder would have no rights comparable to appraisal rights, which would otherwise ordinarily be available to dissenting shareholders of U.S. corporations, providing rights to receive payment in cash for the judicially determined value of the shares.
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 other means to these statutory provisions, such as a share capital exchange, asset acquisition or control, through contractual arrangements, of an operating business.
Shareholders’ Suits. Appleby, 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 of 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 directors or officers 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 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 that 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.