J.Jill, Inc.

On December 19, 2024, the Paul Berger Revocable Trust, a purported stockholder of J.Jill, (“Plaintiff”) filed a putative class action and derivative complaint (“Complaint”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Court”), captioned The Paul Berger Revocable Trust v. Rahamim, et al., C.A. No. 2024-1318-JTL (Del. Ch.). The Complaint alleged that certain members of the Company’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with approving a stock repurchase program in December 2024 that authorized the use of up to $25 million to repurchase J.Jill stock. The Complaint also asserted a claim against TowerBrook Capital Partners L.P. (“TowerBrook”) for aiding and abetting the individual defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleged that the repurchase program could have transferred majority voting control of J.Jill to TowerBrook.

The individual defendants and TowerBrook believe that the allegations of the Complaint were meritless, denied and continue to deny those allegations, and deny that any violation of applicable law has occurred. However, solely to minimize expenses and distraction and to avoid the uncertainty of any litigation, on February 24, 2025, the Company’s board of directors adopted certain resolutions that amended certain terms of the repurchase program and provided, among other things, that the repurchase program must be executed in such a way that J.Jill’s repurchases pursuant thereto do not directly cause TowerBrook and any investment fund or investment vehicle managed or controlled, directly or indirectly, by TowerBrook, including, without limitation, TI IV JJill Holdings, LP (together with TowerBrook, the “TowerBrook Funds”) to directly or indirectly beneficially own more than 49.9% of the issued and outstanding voting stock of the company; and provided further that J.Jill must take appropriate measures to ensure that repurchases pursuant to the repurchase program do not directly cause the TowerBrook Funds’ ownership of the Company’s outstanding voting stock to exceed 49.9% (the “Board Resolutions”).

On March 7, 2025, the parties entered into a proposed Stipulation and Order Dismissing the Action as Moot and Retaining Jurisdiction to Determine Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Application for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the “Stipulation and Proposed Order”), pursuant to which the Court would retain jurisdiction regarding any application Plaintiff may make for an award of attorneys’ fees. The Court entered the Stipulation and Proposed Order the same day, and retained jurisdiction to approve a form of notice concerning attorneys’ fees payable to Plaintiff in connection with the Board Resolutions. The Company subsequently agreed to pay $450,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses in full satisfaction of any and all claims by Plaintiff and all of its counsel for fees and expenses in the action.

On March 21, 2025, the Court entered an order closing the action, subject to the Company filing an affidavit with the Court confirming that this notice has been issued.