And in accordance with the terms of the shareholders` agreement, the share seizure agreement was signed by Patrick Yu, Raymond Yu, Catherine Yu, Bong Yu and May Yu, i.e. the holders of at least 51% of the total outstanding shares, in their individual capacity as shareholders. To the extent that Party B has any remaining rights with respect to equity interests that are subject to this Agreement, or under Party B`s Equity Pledge Agreement or in accordance with the mandate given in favour of Party A, Party B may grant such rights only in accordance with Party A`s written instructions. and unlike the share deposit agreement, no single shareholder, with the exception of Patrick, expressly approved in writing the terms of the amendment to 4 The respondents rightly point out that there is still a dispute over a lawyer`s fees allegedly lower than the original note. Therefore, the restrictions imposed by the pledge agreement are directly contrary to public policy and the Court of Justice should do so as such. The share seizure agreement may have stated that the petitioner “did not have the right to exercise voting rights and/or rights and powers by mutual agreement,” but it did not remove the voting rights of the shares themselves. Since it is indisputable that the petitioner remains the holder of at least 20% of Moklam`s voting shares, the conditions of BCL § 1104-a are met. . . .