Opinions about ALB Scheme of Arrangement, page-244

Here is an example from a report where the mass of tiny shareholders was able to ‘sink’ a SOA deal.It happened under Csyman Island law, which author says is identical to English law, and our Aust law regarding the voting in SOA appears to be essentially same as English law.
In this case a large number of shares 99.84% were in favour, but a large number of shareholders who together controlled 0.037% were able to block the scheme proceeding.

The parallel ....In LTR we have over 10k shareholders who together control under 4% of company.

The report does raise one question.... I have no idea how it translates to the Australian situation.
When a fund manager holds shares on behalf of multiple clients, are they all held under one HIN or is it under multiple HIN. Relevant in this context as 1 shareholder HIN) = 1 vote and that vote cannot be apportioned between Yes/No/Abstain as can the shares ( 1 share = 1 bote) that are voted.

Quoting from report.
“Here, it was shareholders with a 0.037% stake that were able to block the proposed privatisation as a majority in number of shareholders voting on the scheme.
Shareholders voted overwhelmingly in favour of the scheme in terms of the value (number) of their shares (99.84%).

However, independent shareholders constituting a majority in number (65.95%) voted against the scheme. Under Cayman law, as in the UK, a dual voting structure must be satisfied to approve a scheme of arrangement by both a majority in number and 75% in value of shares voted. As a result of the majority in number requirement, often referred to as the headcount requirement, this scheme lapsed.”

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ee53fac9-bf98-4864-9b8d-a50ff914d8ad