TELEFLEX INC

Rule 10b5-1 Trading Plans

During the quarter ended December 31, 2023, none of our directors or executive officers entered into, modified orterminated, contracts, instructions or written plans for the sale or purchase of our securities that were intended to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1.

Legal Settlement

As previously disclosed, on June 26, 2023, a putative class action complaint captioned Ayers v. Kelly, C.A. No. 2023-0655-SG (Del. Ch.) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”) against our Board and the Company (the “Action”). The plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the fixing of the record date more than 60 days before the Company’s annual meeting held on May 5, 2023 (the “Annual Meeting”) violated Section 213(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) and breached the directors’ fiduciary duties. According to the complaint, because the record date allegedly violated Section 213(a) of the DGCL, the actions taken at the Annual Meeting were invalid. On July 14, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation dismissing the directors as defendants in the Action.

On August 10, 2023, the Company filed a petition in the Court (the “Section 205 Petition”) seeking judicial validation pursuant to Section 205 of the DGCL of two actions approved by stockholders at the Annual Meeting, an amendment to the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation to eliminate supermajority voting provisions (the “Charter Amendment”) and the adoption of a stock incentive plan (the “2023 Plan”).

On September 18, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the Section 205 Petition. Following oral argument, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment declaring valid and effective the Charter Amendment and 2023 Plan as of the date of the Annual Meeting pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 205 (the “Final Order”).

After the Court entered the Final Order on the Section 205 Petition, on October 4, 2023 the Court entered an Order dismissing the Action. The Action was related to, but independent of, the Section 205 Petition and was dismissed as moot upon validation of the Section 205 Petition. The Action was dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff named in the Action and was deemed resolved by the Company, other than resolving an anticipated application for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses from the Action by plaintiff’s attorneys (a “Mootness Fee”). Without admitting any fault or wrongdoing, the Company agreed to pay $300,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses to the plaintiff’s counsel in the Action as the Mootness Fee to resolve this matter.

On February 20, 2024, the Court entered an order closing the case (the “February Order”), subject to the Company filing an affidavit with the Court confirming compliance with the Court’s February Order. In entering the February Order, the Court did not review, and did not pass judgment on, the payment of these attorneys’ fees and expenses.