PURECYCLE ANNOUNCES PRELIMINARY COURT APPROVAL OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT

Orlando, Fla. – February 28, 2024 – PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: PCT), a U.S.-based company revolutionizing plastic recycling, today, announced that on February 18, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued an order granting preliminary approval of a settlement to resolve shareholder derivative lawsuits and certain shareholder demand letters. In accordance with the Court’s order preliminarily approving the settlement, PureCycle is making disclosure of the settlement to its shareholders in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Derivative Matters, Hearing Thereon, and Right to Appear (Notice) attached hereto. The Notice, along with a copy of the full Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, can also be found on the investor relations section of PureCycle’s website at the following web addresses: PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (PCT)

###

PureCycle Contact

Christian Bruey

cbruey@purecycle.com

Investor Relations Contact

Eric DeNatale

edanatale@purecycle.com

About PureCycle Technologies

PureCycle Technologies LLC., a subsidiary of PureCycle Technologies, Inc., holds a global license for the only patented dissolution recycling technology, developed by The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), that is designed to transform polypropylene plastic waste (designated as #5 plastic) into a continuously renewable resource. The unique purification process removes color, odor, and other impurities from #5 plastic waste resulting in our PureFive™ resin that can be recycled and reused multiple times, changing our relationship with plastic.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT

www.purecycle.com This Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) dated July 17, 2024 is entered into by and among the following Settling Parties (defined herein) through their respective counsel: (i) stockholder Patrick Ayers, plaintiff in the derivative action on behalf of PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (“PureCycle” or the “Company”) styled In re PureCycle Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:21-cv-01569-RGA (D. Del.) (the “Federal Action”), as consolidated; (ii) stockholder John Brunson, plaintiff in the derivative action on behalf of PureCycle styled Brunson v. Otworth, et al., No. 2024-0326-NAC (Del. Ch.) (the “Delaware Chancery Action”), who also served a litigation demand on the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) and a demand on the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220; (iii) stockholder Tyler Begley, who served a litigation demand on the Board and a demand on the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220; (iv) stockholder Thomas Workman (with Tyler Begley, the “Demanding Stockholders”), who served a demand on the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 (the Federal Action, Delaware Chancery Action, and the Demanding Stockholders’ demands are collectively referred to as the “Derivative Matters,” and the plaintiffs in the Federal Action and Delaware Chancery Action and the Demanding Stockholders are collectively referred to as the “Settling Stockholders”); (v) Michael Otworth, Richard Brenner, Tanya Burnell, Jeffrey Fieler, Tim Glockner, Fernando Musa, John Scott, David Brenner, Michael E.

Dee, James Donnally, Andy Glockner, Byron Roth and Tasmin Ettefagh (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”); and (vi) PureCycle (together with the Individual Defendants, the “Settling Defendants”) (Settling Stockholders and Settling Defendants are collectively referred to as the “Settling Parties”). This Stipulation is intended by the Settling Parties to fully, finally and forever resolve, discharge and settle the Released Claims1, subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”).

On November 3, 2021, the action Han v. Otworth et al, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-01569-RGA (D. Del.) (the “Han Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Federal Court”), on behalf of the nominal defendant Company, against defendants Michael Otworth, David Brenner, Michael Dee, Tasmin Ettefagh, and Byron Roth, and nominal defendant PureCycle, alleging claims for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. Byron Roth was dismissed from the Han Action on December 15, 2021. On January 18, 2022, the Federal Court granted the parties’ stipulation providing for a stay of the Han Action pending resolution of a motion to dismiss in the related securities class action styled Theodore v. PureCycle Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-809-PGB-RMN (M.D. Fla.) (the “Securities Action”).

On January 27, 2022, a related derivative action was filed in the Federal Court, captioned Ayers v. Otworth et al., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00110-RGA (D. Del.) (the “Ayers Action”). The Ayers Action brought suit against the Individual Defendants and alleged substantially similar

claims to those alleged in the Han Action, including violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting. The complaint in the Ayers Action also alleged claims for indemnification and contribution. On March 17, 2022, the Federal Court granted the parties’ stipulation providing for a stay of the Ayers Action pending resolution of a motion to dismiss in the Securities Action.

On June 15, 2023, the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action was granted in part and denied in part. Thereafter, the remaining defendants in the Securities Action filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order.

On July 27, 2023, the Federal Court entered an order consolidating the Han Action and the Ayers Action, under the caption In re PureCycle Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:21-cv-01569-RGA (D. Del.), and appointing Weiss Law as lead counsel in the Federal Action.

On August 11, 2023, the Federal Action was further stayed pending resolution of defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the denial, in part, of the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in the Securities Action.

On February 23, 2024, a Consolidated Verified Amended Complaint was filed in the Federal Action against the Individual Defendants and alleging claims for violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, aiding and abetting, gross mismanagement, and indemnification and contribution. As set forth below, the plaintiff in the Federal Action agrees to be bound by the terms of this Stipulation.

On February 3, 2023, plaintiff Brunson sent PureCycle a letter seeking production of books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. Following negotiations and the execution of a confidentiality agreement, the Company produced certain non-public books and records to Brunson on a rolling basis from October 2023 through February 2024 pertaining to the wrongdoing alleged in the Securities Action.

Following receipt and review of those books and records, on February 23, 2024, plaintiff Brunson sent a letter to the Board demanding, among other things, that it undertake an independent investigation into the Individual Defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting of such breaches of fiduciary duty within thirty (30) days and that the Company enter into appropriate tolling agreements with the Individual Defendants to protect its derivative claims during the pendency of the Board’s investigation.

On March 23, 2024, upon expiration of the deadline requested in plaintiff Brunson’s litigation demand letter for the Board to begin an independent investigation and obtain tolling agreements, plaintiff Brunson filed the Delaware Chancery Action captioned Brunson v. Otworth, et al., No. 2024-0326-NAC (Del. Ch.). The Delaware Chancery Action asserted claims for wrongful demand refusal, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to obtain tolling agreements, and other related claims under Delaware law against certain Individual Defendants, and all such claims are included as part of this Settlement. As set forth below, plaintiff Brunson agrees to be bound by the terms of this Stipulation, and further agrees to voluntarily dismiss the Delaware Chancery Action with prejudice within ten (10) days after the Final Judgment in the Court in the Federal Action approving the Settlement becomes final and non-appealable.

On October 6, 2023, stockholder Workman sent PureCycle a letter demanding production of books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. On October 27, 2023, stockholder Begley sent PureCycle a letter also demanding the right to inspect books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220.

Thereafter, the Company produced certain non-public books and records to the Demanding Stockholders.

On February 5, 2024, stockholder Begley sent a letter to the Board demanding that the Company initiate legal action against its officers, directors, or members of senior management for their alleged breach of fiduciary duties and take remedial measures for damages from alleged unjust enrichment and corporate waste.

As set forth below, the Demanding Stockholders agree to be bound by the terms of this Stipulation.

The Settling Parties, by and through their undersigned attorneys, have engaged in good faith, arm’s-length discussions with regard to the possible settlement of the Derivative Matters. To that end, the Settling Parties agreed to participate in mediation before Jed D. Melnick, Esq. (the “Mediator”) of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”), a nationally recognized mediator with extensive experience mediating complex shareholder disputes similar to the Derivative Matters who was also serving as mediator in the Securities Action. Mediation began at the end of February 2024 with the Settling Parties participating in a full day mediation session on March 5, 2024. The Parties did not reach an agreement resolving the derivative litigation during the March 5, 2024 mediation session, but agreed to continue their settlement discussions under the aegis of the Mediator.

Counsel for the Settling Parties participated in another, half-day mediation session before the Mediator on March 13, 2024, where they made significant progress. The negotiations continued for several weeks thereafter, including during an additional full-day mediation before the Mediator on April 2, 2024, in which the Settling Parties reached an agreement in principle on the terms of the corporate governance reforms detailed herein.

At the mediation sessions, the Settling Parties engaged in frank discussions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses at issue, both indirectly through the Mediator and directly in joint sessions attended by counsel for the Settling Parties, a representative of PureCycle, and the relevant insurers. During the joint sessions, and subject to the Confidential Mediation Agreement and all applicable mediation privileges, the Company provided information regarding the technical and practical considerations that drove its decision-making with respect to PureCycle’s patented technology, its progress commercializing this technology, relevant disclosures and other related issues. The Settling Parties debated their competing views of the essential facts, legal claims and defenses, and the broad range of possible litigation outcomes. The Settling Parties also discussed a range of remedial options and were able to agree on a set of principles and target areas for corporate governance enhancements to be fleshed out through further negotiations, and sharpened the focus on monetary compensation for PureCycle as the driving factor in any potential settlement of the Derivative Matters.

After reaching agreement on the principal terms of the Settlement, the Settling Parties commenced negotiations facilitated by the Mediator regarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses to be paid to Settling Stockholders’ Counsel, subject to Court approval, in consideration for the substantial benefits conferred upon PureCycle and its shareholders by the Settlement.

On May 2, 2024, the Settling Parties reached an agreement in principle on the remaining material terms for the Settlement, including the monetary component, and negotiated the terms of a written memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) outlining the essential terms and conditions for the release of all claims asserted in the Derivative Matters in consideration for the Company’s agreement to cause their insurers to pay $3 million to PureCycle as the monetary component of this Settlement (“Monetary Component”), and to adopt, implement, and/or maintain in accordance with the corporate governance practices, policies and procedures, internal controls and board composition reforms as set forth below (the “Reforms”).

On May 7, 2024, the Settling Parties signed the MOU outlining the material terms and conditions of the Settlement. The Settling Parties believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of PureCycle and Current PureCycle Stockholders (as defined in ¶ 1.2 herein).

The Settling Stockholders asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and related stockholder causes of action against the Individual Defendants in connection with the Individual Defendants’ alleged: (i) material misstatements and omissions about PureCycle’s allegedly cost-effective and environmentally-friendly recycling process and the alleged interchangeability of its ultra-pure recycled resin (“UPRP”) with virgin polypropylene (“PP”); (ii) material misstatements and omissions regarding PureCycle’s possession of an allegedly “patented” PP recycling process and its ability to source post-consumer PP feedstock to produce UPRP at commercial volumes; (iii) material misstatements and omissions regarding the commercial viability of PureCycle’s expected pricing for UPRP; (iv) material misstatements regarding and concealment of materially adverse information regarding PureCycle’s internal control environment and the experience of PureCycle’s management; (v) material misstatements and omissions concerning various power outages, production issues, availability of feedstock, and ability to meet certain production milestones; (vi) failure to provide adequate oversight of the Company to prevent any of the above; and (vii) failure to investigate claims in response to various investigation demands, wrongful refusal of investigation demands and/or failure to obtain tolling agreements from current and former officers and directors.

The Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel brought the claims in good faith and continue to believe that the claims asserted in the Derivative Matters have merit. However, the Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel recognize and acknowledge the expense, time, and uncertainty inherent in the continued prosecution of their claims in the Derivative Matters through trial and any subsequent appeal(s). The Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel also have taken into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation, especially in complex actions such as the Derivative Matters, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation. The Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel also are mindful of the inherent problems of proof of, and possible defenses to, the claims asserted in the Derivative Matters. Based on their investigation and evaluation set forth in more detail infra, the Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel have determined that the Settlement set forth in this Stipulation is in the best interests of PureCycle and its stockholders.

Settling Stockholders’ Counsel have conducted an extensive investigation, including, inter alia: (i) reviewing PureCycle’s press releases, public statements, SEC filings, and securities analysts’ reports and advisories about the Company; (ii) reviewing media reports about the Company and its technologies; (iii) researching the applicable law with respect to the claims alleged in the Derivative Matters and the potential defenses thereto; (iv) preparing and filing derivative complaints in the Derivative Matters and sending the demands detailed herein; (v) reviewing and analyzing relevant pleadings in the Securities Action, and evaluating the merits of, and Defendants’ liability in connection with, the Securities Action and the Derivative Matters; (vi)

preparing and filing an amended derivative complaint in the Federal Action; (vii) reviewing the Company’s existing corporate governance policies and preparing an extensive settlement demand detailing proposed corporate governance reforms to strengthen the Company’s governance; (viii) separately reviewing and evaluating nearly 2,000 pages of non-public documents produced by the Company in response to the demands made pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220; (ix) participating in extensive settlement discussions with Settling Defendants’ Counsel, including three separate mediation sessions; and (x) negotiating the MOU and this Stipulation.

Based on Settling Stockholders’ Counsel’s thorough review and analysis of the relevant facts, allegations, defenses, and controlling legal principles, the Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel submit that the Settlement set forth in this Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of PureCycle and its stockholders. Each of the Settling Parties recognizes and acknowledges that the Derivative Matters have been initiated, filed, and prosecuted by Settling Stockholders in good faith and defended by Settling Defendants in good faith, that the Derivative Matters are being voluntarily settled with the advice of counsel, and that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Settling Defendants and Released Persons have denied and continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage to the Settling Stockholders, to the Company, or to the Company’s current and former stockholders, including without limitations, deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing or violation of the law; deny that they breached any fiduciary duty, including the duty of care or duty of loyalty; deny that they wasted corporate assets, were unjustly enriched, engaged in gross mismanagement, or aided and abetted any breaches of fiduciary duty; deny that the Company’s disclosures were deficient in any way; deny that any demand to investigate, bring suit or obtain tolling agreements was wrongfully refused; deny that they violated any securities laws; and deny that they acted in bad faith or improperly in any way.

The Settling Defendants believe that they and all Released Persons have acted properly at all times, believe that the complaints in the Federal Action and the Delaware Chancery Action and the Demanding Stockholders’ demands have no merit, and believe that the Settling Stockholders have failed to and/or cannot meet their burden of pleading with particularity that any demand that the Company initiate legal action was excused and/or wrongfully rejected.

Nonetheless, taking into account the uncertainty and risks inherent in any litigation, especially in complex cases such as this one, the Settling Defendants have concluded that further litigation of the Derivative Matters would be protracted, burdensome, and expensive, and that it is desirable and beneficial that the claims asserted in or that could be asserted in the Derivative Matters be fully and finally settled and terminated in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Stipulation.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the Settling Stockholders (on behalf of themselves, and derivatively on behalf of PureCycle), Current PureCycle Stockholders (as defined in ¶ 1.2), and the Settling Defendants, by and through their respective undersigned counsel or attorneys of record that, subject to approval of the Court, in consideration of the benefits flowing to the Settling Parties from the Settlement set forth herein, the Derivative Matters and the Released Claims shall be finally and fully compromised, settled and released, and the Derivative Matters shall be dismissed with prejudice, as to all Settling Parties, upon and subject to the terms and conditions of this Stipulation.

As used in this Stipulation the following terms have the meanings specified below:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Settling Parties have caused this Stipulation to be executed, by their duly authorized attorneys, dated July 17, 2024.

Exhibit A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff in the above-captioned Federal Action made an application, pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order: (i) preliminarily approving the Settlement, in accordance with the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) dated July 17, 2024, which, together with the exhibits annexed thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of the Derivative Matters (the “Settlement”) and for dismissal of the Federal Action with prejudice, and (ii) approving the form and content of the Notice to be published via GlobeNewswire, filed by PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (“PureCycle”) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and posted, along with the Stipulation, on PureCycle’s and Settling Stockholders’ Counsels’ websites. The Court having read and considered the Stipulation and exhibits annexed thereto; and all parties to the Settlement having agreed to the entry of this Order, and all capitalized terms herein having the same meaning as set forth in the Stipulation;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

David C. Katz
Joshua M. Rubin
Weiss Law
4 Brighton Rd., Suite 204
Clifton, NJ 07012

The written objection(s) must contain the following information: (i) notice of such Person’s intent to appear at the Settlement Hearing; (ii) such Person’s name, legal address, and telephone number; (iii) state that such Person is a Current PureCycle Stockholder as of July 17, 2024 and represent that the Person will continue to own PureCycle common stock as of the date of the Settlement Hearing; (iv) provide the date(s) such Person acquired his, her, or its PureCycle shares and the number of PureCycle shares held; (v) contain a detailed statement of such Person’s specific position with respect to the matters to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, including a statement of each objection being made; and (vi) state the grounds for each objection or the reasons for such Person’s desire to appear and be heard.

SO ORDERED in the District of Delaware on , 2024.

THE HON. RICHARD G. ANDREWS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Exhibit B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE MATTERS, HEARING THEREON, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO: ALL CURRENT RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF COMMON STOCK OF PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (“PURECYCLE” OR “THE COMPANY”) AS OF JULY 17, 2024 (THE “RECORD DATE”).

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF LITIGATION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE SETTLED CLAIMS.

IF YOU HOLD PURECYCLE COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER.

THE COURT HAS MADE NO FINDINGS OR DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE MERITS OF THE DERIVATIVE MATTERS. THE RECITATION OF THE BACKGROUND AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SETTLEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

THE DERIVATIVE MATTERS ARE NOT A “CLASS ACTION.” THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT. THERE IS NO PROOF OF CLAIM FORM FOR STOCKHOLDERS TO SUBMIT IN CONNECTION

WITH THIS SETTLEMENT, AND STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE.

Notice is hereby provided to you of the proposed Settlement1 of the above-captioned derivative lawsuit and certain other Derivative Matters. This Notice is provided by order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”). It is not an expression of any opinion by the Court. It is to notify current stockholders of the terms of the proposed Settlement of the Derivative Matters.

This Notice is intended to notify all PureCycle stockholders affected by the settlement of a consolidated stockholder derivative action styled In re PureCycle Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:21-cv-01569-RGA (D. Del.) (the “Federal Action”) and all related Derivative Matters (as defined below) of the Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Derivative Matters, Hearing Thereon, and Right to Appear (the “Notice”). The following Settling Parties (defined herein) through their respective counsel have agreed upon terms to settle the Derivative Matters and have signed a written Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) setting forth the terms of the Settlement: (i) stockholder Patrick Ayers, plaintiff in the derivative action on behalf of PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (“PureCycle” or the “Company”) styled In re PureCycle Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:21-cv-01569-RGA (D. Del.) (the “Federal Action”), as consolidated; (ii) stockholder John Brunson, plaintiff in the derivative action on behalf of PureCycle styled Brunson v. Otworth, et al., No. 2024-0326-NAC (Del. Ch.) (the “Delaware Chancery Action”), who also served a litigation demand on the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) and a demand on the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220; (iii)

stockholder Tyler Begley, who served a litigation demand on the Board and a demand on the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220; (iv) stockholder Thomas Workman (with Tyler Begley, the “Demanding Stockholders”), who served a demand on the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 (the Federal Action, Delaware Chancery Action, and the Demanding Stockholders’ demands are collectively referred to as the “Derivative Matters,” and the plaintiffs in the Federal Action and Delaware Chancery Action and the Demanding Stockholders are collectively referred to as the “Settling Stockholders”); (v) Michael Otworth, Richard Brenner, Tanya Burnell, Jeffrey Fieler, Tim Glockner, Fernando Musa, John Scott, David Brenner, Michael E. Dee, James Donnally, Andy Glockner, Byron Roth and Tasmin Ettefagh (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”); and (vi) PureCycle (together with the Individual Defendants, the “Settling Defendants”) (Settling Stockholders and Settling Defendants are collectively referred to as the “Settling Parties”).

On ______ 2024, at ___, the Court will hold a hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”). The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to determine: (i) whether the Settlement of the Derivative Matters on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to PureCycle and Current PureCycle Stockholders, and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) whether a Judgment as provided in, and attached as Exhibit C to the Stipulation should be entered; (iii) whether to approve the payment of the Fee and Expense Amount in the amount negotiated by the Settling Parties and Service Awards for the Settling Stockholders to be drawn therefrom; and (iv) such other matters as may be necessary or proper in the circumstances.

On November 3, 2021, the action Han v. Otworth et al, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-01569-RGA (D. Del.) (the “Han Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Federal Court”), on behalf of the nominal defendant Company, against defendants

Michael Otworth, David Brenner, Michael Dee, Tasmin Ettefagh, and Byron Roth, and nominal defendant PureCycle, alleging claims for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. Byron Roth was dismissed from the Han Action on December 15, 2021. On January 18, 2022, the Federal Court granted the parties’ stipulation providing for a stay of the Han Action pending resolution of a motion to dismiss in the related securities class action styled Theodore v. PureCycle Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-809-PGB-RMN (M.D. Fla.) (the “Securities Action”).

On January 27, 2022, a related derivative action was filed in the Federal Court, captioned Ayers v. Otworth et al., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00110-RGA (D. Del.) (the “Ayers Action”). The Ayers Action brought suit against the Individual Defendants and alleged substantially similar claims to those alleged in the Han Action, including violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting. The complaint in the Ayers Action also alleged claims for indemnification and contribution. On March 17, 2022, the Federal Court granted the parties’ stipulation providing for a stay of the Ayers Action pending resolution of a motion to dismiss in the Securities Action.

On June 15, 2023, the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action was granted in part and denied in part. Thereafter, the remaining defendants in the Securities Action filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order.

On July 27, 2023, the Federal Court entered an order consolidating the Han Action and the Ayers Action, under the caption In re PureCycle Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:21-cv-01569-RGA (D. Del.), and appointing Weiss Law as lead counsel in the Federal Action.

On August 11, 2023, the Federal Action was further stayed pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed in the Securities Action.

On February 23, 2024, a Consolidated Verified Amended Complaint was filed in the Federal Action against the Individual Defendants and alleging claims for violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, aiding and abetting, gross mismanagement, and indemnification and contribution. As set forth below, the plaintiff in the Federal Action agrees to be bound by the terms of the Stipulation.

On February 3, 2023, plaintiff Brunson sent PureCycle a letter seeking production of books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. Following negotiations and the execution of a confidentiality agreement, the Company produced certain non-public books and records to plaintiff Brunson on a rolling basis from October 2023 through February 2024 pertaining to the wrongdoing alleged in the Securities Action.

Following receipt and review of those books and records, on February 23, 2024, plaintiff Brunson sent a letter to the Board demanding, among other things, that it undertake an independent investigation into the Individual Defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting of such breaches of fiduciary duty within thirty (30) days and that the Company enter into appropriate tolling agreements with the Individual Defendants to protect its derivative claims during the pendency of the Board’s investigation.

On March 23, 2024, upon expiration of the deadline requested in plaintiff Brunson’s litigation demand letter for the Board to begin an independent investigation and obtain tolling agreements, plaintiff Brunson filed the Delaware Chancery Action captioned Brunson v. Otworth,

et al., No. 2024-0326-NAC (Del. Ch.). The Delaware Chancery Action asserted claims for wrongful demand refusal, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to obtain tolling agreements, and other related claims under Delaware law against certain Individual Defendants, and all such claims are included as part of this Settlement. As set forth below, plaintiff Brunson agrees to be bound by the terms of the Stipulation, and further agrees to voluntarily dismiss the Delaware Chancery Action with prejudice within ten (10) days after the Final Judgment in the Court in the Federal Action approving the Settlement becomes final and non-appealable.

On October 6, 2023, stockholder Workman sent PureCycle a letter demanding production of books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. On October 27, 2023, stockholder Begley sent PureCycle a letter also demanding the right to inspect books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. Thereafter, the Company produced certain non-public books and records to the Demanding Stockholders.

On February 5, 2024, stockholder Begley sent a letter to the Board demanding that the Company initiate legal action against its officers, directors, or members of senior management for their alleged breach of fiduciary duties and take remedial measures for damages from alleged unjust enrichment and corporate waste.

As set forth below, the Demanding Stockholders agree to be bound by the terms of the Stipulation.

The Settling Parties, by and through their undersigned attorneys, have engaged in good faith, arm’s-length discussions with regard to the possible settlement of the Derivative Matters. To that end, the Settling Parties agreed to participate in mediation before Jed D. Melnick, Esq. (the

“Mediator”) of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”), a nationally recognized mediator with extensive experience mediating complex shareholder disputes similar to the Derivative Matters. Mediation began at the end of February 2024 with the Settling Parties participating in a full day mediation session on March 5, 2024. The Settling Parties did not reach an agreement resolving the derivative litigation during the March 5, 2024 mediation session, but agreed to continue their settlement discussions under the aegis of the Mediator. Counsel for the Settling Parties participated in another, half-day mediation session before the Mediator on March 13, 2024, where they made significant progress. The negotiations continued for several weeks thereafter, including during an additional full-day mediation before the Mediator on April 2, 2024, in which the Settling Parties reached an agreement in principle on the terms of the corporate governance reforms detailed herein.

At the mediation sessions, the Settling Parties engaged in discussions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses at issue, both indirectly through the Mediator and directly in joint sessions attended by counsel for the Settling Parties and the relevant insurers. During the joint sessions, and subject to the Confidential Mediation Agreement and all applicable mediation privileges, the Company provided information regarding the technical and practical considerations that drove its decision-making with respect to PureCycle’s patented technology, its progress commercializing this technology, relevant disclosures and other related issues. The Settling Parties debated their competing views of the essential facts, legal claims and defenses, and the broad range of possible litigation outcomes. The Settling Parties also discussed a range of remedial options and were able to agree on a set of principles and target areas for corporate governance enhancements to be fleshed out through further negotiations, and sharpened the focus on monetary compensation for PureCycle as the driving factor in any potential settlement of the

Derivative Matters. The Settling Parties further exchanged written proposals with the assistance and guidance of the Mediator.

After reaching agreement on the principal terms of the Settlement, the Settling Parties commenced negotiations facilitated by the Mediator regarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses to be paid to Settling Stockholders Counsel, subject to Court approval, in consideration for the substantial benefits conferred upon PureCycle and its shareholders by the Settlement.

On May 2, 2024, the Settling Parties reached an agreement in principle on the remaining material terms for the Settlement, including the monetary component, and thereafter negotiated the terms of a written memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) outlining the essential terms and conditions for the release of all claims asserted in the Derivative Matters in consideration for the Company’s agreement to cause their insurers to pay $3 million to PureCycle as the monetary component of this Settlement (“Monetary Component”), and to adopt, implement, and/or maintain in accordance with the corporate governance practices, policies and procedures, internal controls and board composition reforms as set forth below (the “Reforms”). On May 7, 2024, the Settling Parties signed the MOU outlining the material terms and conditions of the Settlement. The Settling Parties believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of PureCycle and Current PureCycle Stockholders.

The principal terms, conditions and other matters that are part of the Settlement, which is subject to approval by the Court, are summarized below. This summary should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirely by reference to, the text of the Stipulation, which has been filed with the Court and is also available for viewing on the website of PureCycle at https://www.purecycle.com/ and the website of Lead Counsel at https://www.weisslaw.co.

The Settling Parties acknowledge and agree that the filing, pendency, and prosecution of the Derivative Matters were the sole cause of the Monetary Component to be made as part of the Settlement and the primary cause of the Board’s agreement to adopt or to agree to adopt certain changes to its corporate governance practices, policies and procedures, internal controls and Board composition, as set forth below. The Settling Parties further acknowledge and agree that these changes confer substantial benefits on the Company and its stockholders and that the settlement of the Derivative Matters on the terms set forth herein is in the best interests of the Company and Current PureCycle Stockholders. As a result of the Settlement, PureCycle has made, or agreed to make, the following changes to its corporate governance practices, policies and procedures and, subject to the terms set forth in the Stipulation, has agreed to maintain them for no less than five (5) years from the Effective Date:

The Stipulation also provides for the entry of judgment dismissing the Federal Action and the Delaware Chancery Action against PureCycle and the Individual Defendants with prejudice and, as explained in more detail in the Stipulation, barring and releasing certain known or unknown claims that have been or could have been brought in any court by Settling Stockholders in the Derivative Matters or by PureCycle, or any of its stockholders, against PureCycle and the Individual Defendants relating to any of the claims or matters that were or could have been alleged or asserted in any of the Derivative Matters. The Stipulation further provides that the entry of judgment will bar and release any known or unknown claims that have been or could have been brought in any court by Settling Defendants against Settling Stockholders or Settling Stockholders’ Counsel related to any of the claims or matters that were or could have been alleged or asserted in any of the Derivative Matters or based upon or arising out of the institution, prosecution, assertion, settlement, or resolution of the Derivative Matters.

Prior to discussing and agreeing upon the Fee and Expense Amount, the Settling Parties negotiated and agreed upon the Reforms to be adopted as part of the Settlement and negotiated the Monetary Component. The Settling Parties agree that the Settlement confers substantial benefits upon PureCycle and its stockholders, and that Settling Stockholders’ Counsel are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in an amount of $2,000,000.00, subject to the approval of the Court. In connection with seeking final approval of the proposed Settlement, Plaintiff’s lead counsel, on behalf of Settling Stockholders’ Counsel, intends to request approval of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $1,750,000.00 (the “Fee and Expense Amount”). The Fee and Expense Amount includes fees and expenses incurred by Settling Stockholders’ Counsel in connection with the prosecution and settlement of the Derivative Matters. To date, Settling Stockholders’ Counsel have not received any payments for their efforts on behalf of PureCycle stockholders nor have Settling Stockholders’ Counsel been reimbursed for their out-of-pocket litigation expenses. The Fee and Expense Amount will compensate Settling Stockholders’ Counsel for the substantial benefits achieved in the Derivative Matters, and the risks of undertaking the prosecution of the Derivative Matters on a contingent basis.

Settling Defendants agree not to oppose reasonable service awards in the amount of $2,000.00 to each Settling Stockholder to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Amount in recognition of Stockholders’ efforts to achieve the Settlement’s benefits to the Company, subject to Court approval (the “Service Award”).

Counsel for the Settling Parties believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of PureCycle, and its public stockholders.

The Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel brought the claims in good faith and continue to believe that the claims asserted in the Derivative Matters have merit. However, the Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel recognize and acknowledge the expense, time, and uncertainty inherent in the continued prosecution of their claims in the Derivative Matters through trial and any subsequent appeal(s). The Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel also have taken into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation, especially in complex actions such as the Derivative Matters, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation. The Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel also are mindful of the inherent problems of proof of, and possible defenses to, the claims asserted in the Derivative Matters.

Based upon their investigation, Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel have concluded that the terms and conditions of the Stipulation are fair, reasonable and adequate to Settling Stockholders, Current PureCycle Stockholders, and PureCycle, and in their best interests, and have agreed to settle the claims raised in the Derivative Matters pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Stipulation after considering, among other things: (a) the substantial benefits that Current PureCycle Stockholders and PureCycle have received or will receive from the Settlement, (b) the attendant risks of continued litigation, (c) actions taken by the Company and its Board of Directors in response to the alleged material misstatements and omissions; and (d) the desirability of permitting the Settlement to be consummated.

In particular, Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel considered the significant litigation risk inherent in shareholder derivative litigation. The law imposes significant burdens on plaintiffs for pleading and proving a shareholder derivative claim. While Settling

Stockholders believe their claims are meritorious, Settling Stockholders acknowledge that there is a substantial risk that the Derivative Matters may not succeed in producing a recovery in light of the applicable legal standards and possible defenses. Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel believe that, under the circumstances, they have obtained the best possible relief for PureCycle and Current PureCycle Stockholders.

Settling Defendants have strenuously denied, and continue strenuously to deny, each and every allegation of liability or wrongdoing made against them in the Derivative Matters, and assert that they have meritorious defenses to those claims and that judgment should be entered dismissing all claims against them with prejudice. Settling Defendants have thus entered into this Stipulation solely to avoid the continuing additional expense, inconvenience, and distraction of litigating the Derivative Matters and/or any related litigation and to avoid the risks inherent in any lawsuit, and without admitting any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever.

On , 2024, at __.m., the Court will hold the Settlement Hearing either in person at the United States District Courthouse for the District of Delaware, 844 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801, or by telephone or videoconference (at the discretion of the Court). At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and thus should be finally approved and whether the Federal Action should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation. The Court also will rule upon the Fee and Expense Amount to Settling Stockholders’ Counsel and Settling Stockholders’ Service Award.

Any Current PureCycle Stockholder may, but is not required to, appear in person at the Settlement Hearing. If you want to be heard at the Settlement Hearing in opposition to the

Settlement, the Fee and Expense Amount or the Service Award, then you must first comply with the procedures for objecting, which are set forth below. The Court has the right to change the hearing dates or times without further notice. Thus, if you are planning to attend the Settlement Hearing, you should confirm the date and time before going to the Court. CURRENT PURECYCLE STOCKHOLDERS WHO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION.

You have the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement. You must object in writing, and you may request to be heard at the Settlement Hearing. If you choose to object, then you must follow these procedures.

Any objections must be presented in writing and must contain the following information:

The Court will not consider any objection that does not substantially comply with these requirements.

YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT BY HAND OR BY FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PRE-PAID TO SETTLING STOCKHOLDERS’ COUNSEL. THE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN ______, 2024, WHICH IS FOURTEEN (14) CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE SETTLEMENT HEARING to the following address:

David C. Katz
Joshua M. Rubin
Weiss Law
4 Brighton Rd., Suite 204
Clifton, NJ 07012
Lead Counsel

The Court will not consider any objection that is not timely filed with the Court and delivered to Settling Stockholders’ Counsel.

Any person or entity who fails to object or otherwise requests to be heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have waived the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement or otherwise request to be heard (including the right to appeal) and will be forever barred from raising such objection or request to be heard in this or any other action or proceeding, but shall otherwise be bound by the Judgment to be entered and the releases to be given.

This Notice summarizes the Settling Parties’ Stipulation. It is not a complete statement of the events of the Derivative Matters or the Stipulation. Although the Settling Parties believe that the descriptions about the Settlement that are contained in this Notice are accurate in all material

respects, in the event of any inconsistencies between the descriptions in this Notice and the Stipulation, the Stipulation will control.

You may inspect the Stipulation and other papers at https://www.purecycle.com/ and https://www.weisslaw.co.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO EITHER THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE. Any questions you have about matters in this Notice should be directed by telephone or in writing to Settling Stockholders’ Counsel, David C. Katz or Joshua M. Rubin, at the address set forth above.

Brokerage firms, banks and/or other persons or entities who held shares of PureCycle common stock for the benefit of others are requested to immediately send this Notice to all of their respective beneficial owners. If Current PureCycle Stockholders have questions or comments about the Settlement, they should follow the procedures listed in Section IX.

Dated _________ BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Exhibit C

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSALWITH PREJUDICE

WHEREAS:

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

SO ORDERED in the District of Delaware on , 2024.

THE HON. RICHARD G. ANDREWS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE MATTERS, HEARING THEREON, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO: ALL CURRENT RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF COMMON STOCK OF PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (“PURECYCLE” OR “THE COMPANY”) AS OF JULY 17, 2024 (THE “RECORD DATE”).

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF LITIGATION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE SETTLED CLAIMS.

IF YOU HOLD PURECYCLE COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER.

THE COURT HAS MADE NO FINDINGS OR DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE MERITS OF THE DERIVATIVE MATTERS. THE RECITATION OF THE BACKGROUND AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SETTLEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

THE DERIVATIVE MATTERS ARE NOT A “CLASS ACTION.” THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT. THERE IS NO PROOF OF CLAIM FORM FOR STOCKHOLDERS TO SUBMIT IN CONNECTION

WITH THIS SETTLEMENT, AND STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE.

Notice is hereby provided to you of the proposed Settlement1 of the above-captioned derivative lawsuit and certain other Derivative Matters. This Notice is provided by order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”). It is not an expression of any opinion by the Court. It is to notify current stockholders of the terms of the proposed Settlement of the Derivative Matters.

This Notice is intended to notify all PureCycle stockholders affected by the settlement of a consolidated stockholder derivative action styled In re PureCycle Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:21-cv-01569-RGA (D. Del.) (the “Federal Action”) and all related Derivative Matters (as defined below) of the Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Derivative Matters, Hearing Thereon, and Right to Appear (the “Notice”). The following Settling Parties (defined herein) through their respective counsel have agreed upon terms to settle the Derivative Matters and have signed a written Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) setting forth the terms of the Settlement: (i) stockholder Patrick Ayers, plaintiff in the derivative action on behalf of PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (“PureCycle” or the “Company”) styled In re PureCycle Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:21-cv-01569-RGA (D. Del.) (the “Federal Action”), as consolidated; (ii) stockholder John Brunson, plaintiff in the derivative action on behalf of PureCycle styled Brunson v. Otworth, et al., No. 2024-0326-NAC (Del. Ch.) (the “Delaware Chancery Action”), who also served a litigation demand on the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) and a demand on the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220; (iii)

stockholder Tyler Begley, who served a litigation demand on the Board and a demand on the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220; (iv) stockholder Thomas Workman (with Tyler Begley, the “Demanding Stockholders”), who served a demand on the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 (the Federal Action, Delaware Chancery Action, and the Demanding Stockholders’ demands are collectively referred to as the “Derivative Matters,” and the plaintiffs in the Federal Action and Delaware Chancery Action and the Demanding Stockholders are collectively referred to as the “Settling Stockholders”); (v) Michael Otworth, Richard Brenner, Tanya Burnell, Jeffrey Fieler, Tim Glockner, Fernando Musa, John Scott, David Brenner, Michael E. Dee, James Donnally, Andy Glockner, Byron Roth and Tasmin Ettefagh (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”); and (vi) PureCycle (together with the Individual Defendants, the “Settling Defendants”) (Settling Stockholders and Settling Defendants are collectively referred to as the “Settling Parties”).

On May 1, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., the Court will hold a hearing (the “Settlement Hearing”). The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to determine: (i) whether the Settlement of the Derivative Matters on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to PureCycle and Current PureCycle Stockholders, and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) whether a Judgment as provided in, and attached as Exhibit C to the Stipulation should be entered; (iii) whether to approve the payment of the Fee and Expense Amount in the amount negotiated by the Settling Parties and Service Awards for the Settling Stockholders to be drawn therefrom; and (iv) such other matters as may be necessary or proper in the circumstances.

On November 3, 2021, the action Han v. Otworth et al, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-01569-RGA (D. Del.) (the “Han Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Federal Court”), on behalf of the nominal defendant Company, against defendants

Michael Otworth, David Brenner, Michael Dee, Tasmin Ettefagh, and Byron Roth, and nominal defendant PureCycle, alleging claims for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. Byron Roth was dismissed from the Han Action on December 15, 2021. On January 18, 2022, the Federal Court granted the parties’ stipulation providing for a stay of the Han Action pending resolution of a motion to dismiss in the related securities class action styled Theodore v. PureCycle Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-809-PGB-RMN (M.D. Fla.) (the “Securities Action”).

On January 27, 2022, a related derivative action was filed in the Federal Court, captioned Ayers v. Otworth et al., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00110-RGA (D. Del.) (the “Ayers Action”). The Ayers Action brought suit against the Individual Defendants and alleged substantially similar claims to those alleged in the Han Action, including violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting. The complaint in the Ayers Action also alleged claims for indemnification and contribution. On March 17, 2022, the Federal Court granted the parties’ stipulation providing for a stay of the Ayers Action pending resolution of a motion to dismiss in the Securities Action.

On June 15, 2023, the motion to dismiss in the Securities Action was granted in part and denied in part. Thereafter, the remaining defendants in the Securities Action filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order.

On July 27, 2023, the Federal Court entered an order consolidating the Han Action and the Ayers Action, under the caption In re PureCycle Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:21-cv-01569-RGA (D. Del.), and appointing Weiss Law as lead counsel in the Federal Action.

On August 11, 2023, the Federal Action was further stayed pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed in the Securities Action.

On February 23, 2024, a Consolidated Verified Amended Complaint was filed in the Federal Action against the Individual Defendants and alleging claims for violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, aiding and abetting, gross mismanagement, and indemnification and contribution. As set forth below, the plaintiff in the Federal Action agrees to be bound by the terms of the Stipulation.

On February 3, 2023, plaintiff Brunson sent PureCycle a letter seeking production of books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. Following negotiations and the execution of a confidentiality agreement, the Company produced certain non-public books and records to plaintiff Brunson on a rolling basis from October 2023 through February 2024 pertaining to the wrongdoing alleged in the Securities Action.

Following receipt and review of those books and records, on February 23, 2024, plaintiff Brunson sent a letter to the Board demanding, among other things, that it undertake an independent investigation into the Individual Defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting of such breaches of fiduciary duty within thirty (30) days and that the Company enter into appropriate tolling agreements with the Individual Defendants to protect its derivative claims during the pendency of the Board’s investigation.

On March 23, 2024, upon expiration of the deadline requested in plaintiff Brunson’s litigation demand letter for the Board to begin an independent investigation and obtain tolling agreements, plaintiff Brunson filed the Delaware Chancery Action captioned Brunson v. Otworth,

et al., No. 2024-0326-NAC (Del. Ch.). The Delaware Chancery Action asserted claims for wrongful demand refusal, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to obtain tolling agreements, and other related claims under Delaware law against certain Individual Defendants, and all such claims are included as part of this Settlement. As set forth below, plaintiff Brunson agrees to be bound by the terms of the Stipulation, and further agrees to voluntarily dismiss the Delaware Chancery Action with prejudice within ten (10) days after the Final Judgment in the Court in the Federal Action approving the Settlement becomes final and non-appealable.

On October 6, 2023, stockholder Workman sent PureCycle a letter demanding production of books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. On October 27, 2023, stockholder Begley sent PureCycle a letter also demanding the right to inspect books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. Thereafter, the Company produced certain non-public books and records to the Demanding Stockholders.

On February 5, 2024, stockholder Begley sent a letter to the Board demanding that the Company initiate legal action against its officers, directors, or members of senior management for their alleged breach of fiduciary duties and take remedial measures for damages from alleged unjust enrichment and corporate waste.

As set forth below, the Demanding Stockholders agree to be bound by the terms of the Stipulation.

The Settling Parties, by and through their undersigned attorneys, have engaged in good faith, arm’s-length discussions with regard to the possible settlement of the Derivative Matters. To that end, the Settling Parties agreed to participate in mediation before Jed D. Melnick, Esq. (the

“Mediator”) of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”), a nationally recognized mediator with extensive experience mediating complex shareholder disputes similar to the Derivative Matters. Mediation began at the end of February 2024 with the Settling Parties participating in a full day mediation session on March 5, 2024. The Settling Parties did not reach an agreement resolving the derivative litigation during the March 5, 2024 mediation session, but agreed to continue their settlement discussions under the aegis of the Mediator. Counsel for the Settling Parties participated in another, half-day mediation session before the Mediator on March 13, 2024, where they made significant progress. The negotiations continued for several weeks thereafter, including during an additional full-day mediation before the Mediator on April 2, 2024, in which the Settling Parties reached an agreement in principle on the terms of the corporate governance reforms detailed herein.

At the mediation sessions, the Settling Parties engaged in discussions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses at issue, both indirectly through the Mediator and directly in joint sessions attended by counsel for the Settling Parties and the relevant insurers. During the joint sessions, and subject to the Confidential Mediation Agreement and all applicable mediation privileges, the Company provided information regarding the technical and practical considerations that drove its decision-making with respect to PureCycle’s patented technology, its progress commercializing this technology, relevant disclosures and other related issues. The Settling Parties debated their competing views of the essential facts, legal claims and defenses, and the broad range of possible litigation outcomes. The Settling Parties also discussed a range of remedial options and were able to agree on a set of principles and target areas for corporate governance enhancements to be fleshed out through further negotiations, and sharpened the focus on monetary compensation for PureCycle as the driving factor in any potential settlement of the

Derivative Matters. The Settling Parties further exchanged written proposals with the assistance and guidance of the Mediator.

After reaching agreement on the principal terms of the Settlement, the Settling Parties commenced negotiations facilitated by the Mediator regarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses to be paid to Settling Stockholders Counsel, subject to Court approval, in consideration for the substantial benefits conferred upon PureCycle and its shareholders by the Settlement.

On May 2, 2024, the Settling Parties reached an agreement in principle on the remaining material terms for the Settlement, including the monetary component, and thereafter negotiated the terms of a written memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) outlining the essential terms and conditions for the release of all claims asserted in the Derivative Matters in consideration for the Company’s agreement to cause their insurers to pay $3 million to PureCycle as the monetary component of this Settlement (“Monetary Component”), and to adopt, implement, and/or maintain in accordance with the corporate governance practices, policies and procedures, internal controls and board composition reforms as set forth below (the “Reforms”). On May 7, 2024, the Settling Parties signed the MOU outlining the material terms and conditions of the Settlement. The Settling Parties believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of PureCycle and Current PureCycle Stockholders.

The principal terms, conditions and other matters that are part of the Settlement, which is subject to approval by the Court, are summarized below. This summary should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirely by reference to, the text of the Stipulation, which has been filed with the Court and is also available for viewing on the website of PureCycle at https://www.purecycle.com/ and the website of Lead Counsel at https://www.weisslaw.co.

The Settling Parties acknowledge and agree that the filing, pendency, and prosecution of the Derivative Matters were the sole cause of the Monetary Component to be made as part of the Settlement and the primary cause of the Board’s agreement to adopt or to agree to adopt certain changes to its corporate governance practices, policies and procedures, internal controls and Board composition, as set forth below. The Settling Parties further acknowledge and agree that these changes confer substantial benefits on the Company and its stockholders and that the settlement of the Derivative Matters on the terms set forth herein is in the best interests of the Company and Current PureCycle Stockholders. As a result of the Settlement, PureCycle has made, or agreed to make, the following changes to its corporate governance practices, policies and procedures and, subject to the terms set forth in the Stipulation, has agreed to maintain them for no less than five (5) years from the Effective Date:

The Stipulation also provides for the entry of judgment dismissing the Federal Action and the Delaware Chancery Action against PureCycle and the Individual Defendants with prejudice and, as explained in more detail in the Stipulation, barring and releasing certain known or unknown claims that have been or could have been brought in any court by Settling Stockholders in the Derivative Matters or by PureCycle, or any of its stockholders, against PureCycle and the Individual Defendants relating to any of the claims or matters that were or could have been alleged or asserted in any of the Derivative Matters. The Stipulation further provides that the entry of judgment will bar and release any known or unknown claims that have been or could have been brought in any court by Settling Defendants against Settling Stockholders or Settling Stockholders’ Counsel related to any of the claims or matters that were or could have been alleged or asserted in any of the Derivative Matters or based upon or arising out of the institution, prosecution, assertion, settlement, or resolution of the Derivative Matters.

Prior to discussing and agreeing upon the Fee and Expense Amount, the Settling Parties negotiated and agreed upon the Reforms to be adopted as part of the Settlement and negotiated the Monetary Component. The Settling Parties agree that the Settlement confers substantial benefits upon PureCycle and its stockholders, and that Settling Stockholders’ Counsel are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in an amount of $2,000,000.00, subject to the approval of the Court. In connection with seeking final approval of the proposed Settlement, Plaintiff’s lead counsel, on behalf of Settling Stockholders’ Counsel, intends to request approval of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $1,750,000.00 (the “Fee and Expense Amount”). The Fee and Expense Amount includes fees and expenses incurred by Settling Stockholders’ Counsel in connection with the prosecution and settlement of the Derivative Matters. To date, Settling Stockholders’ Counsel have not received any payments for their efforts on behalf of PureCycle stockholders nor have Settling Stockholders’ Counsel been reimbursed for their out-of-pocket litigation expenses. The Fee and Expense Amount will compensate Settling Stockholders’ Counsel for the substantial benefits achieved in the Derivative Matters, and the risks of undertaking the prosecution of the Derivative Matters on a contingent basis.

Settling Defendants agree not to oppose reasonable service awards in the amount of $2,000.00 to each Settling Stockholder to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Amount in recognition of Stockholders’ efforts to achieve the Settlement’s benefits to the Company, subject to Court approval (the “Service Award”).

Counsel for the Settling Parties believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of PureCycle, and its public stockholders.

The Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel brought the claims in good faith and continue to believe that the claims asserted in the Derivative Matters have merit. However, the Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel recognize and acknowledge the expense, time, and uncertainty inherent in the continued prosecution of their claims in the Derivative Matters through trial and any subsequent appeal(s). The Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel also have taken into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation, especially in complex actions such as the Derivative Matters, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation. The Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel also are mindful of the inherent problems of proof of, and possible defenses to, the claims asserted in the Derivative Matters.

Based upon their investigation, Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel have concluded that the terms and conditions of the Stipulation are fair, reasonable and adequate to Settling Stockholders, Current PureCycle Stockholders, and PureCycle, and in their best interests, and have agreed to settle the claims raised in the Derivative Matters pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Stipulation after considering, among other things: (a) the substantial benefits that Current PureCycle Stockholders and PureCycle have received or will receive from the Settlement, (b) the attendant risks of continued litigation, (c) actions taken by the Company and its Board of Directors in response to the alleged material misstatements and omissions; and (d) the desirability of permitting the Settlement to be consummated.

In particular, Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel considered the significant litigation risk inherent in shareholder derivative litigation. The law imposes significant burdens on plaintiffs for pleading and proving a shareholder derivative claim. While Settling

Stockholders believe their claims are meritorious, Settling Stockholders acknowledge that there is a substantial risk that the Derivative Matters may not succeed in producing a recovery in light of the applicable legal standards and possible defenses. Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders’ Counsel believe that, under the circumstances, they have obtained the best possible relief for PureCycle and Current PureCycle Stockholders.

Settling Defendants have strenuously denied, and continue strenuously to deny, each and every allegation of liability or wrongdoing made against them in the Derivative Matters, and assert that they have meritorious defenses to those claims and that judgment should be entered dismissing all claims against them with prejudice. Settling Defendants have thus entered into this Stipulation solely to avoid the continuing additional expense, inconvenience, and distraction of litigating the Derivative Matters and/or any related litigation and to avoid the risks inherent in any lawsuit, and without admitting any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever.

On May 1, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., the Court will hold the Settlement Hearing in person at the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, Courtroom 6A, 844 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and thus should be finally approved and whether the Federal Action should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation. The Court also will rule upon the Fee and Expense Amount to Settling Stockholders’ Counsel and Settling Stockholders’ Service Award.

Any Current PureCycle Stockholder may, but is not required to, appear in person at the Settlement Hearing. If you want to be heard at the Settlement Hearing in opposition to the

Settlement, the Fee and Expense Amount or the Service Award, then you must first comply with the procedures for objecting, which are set forth below. The Court has the right to change the hearing dates or times without further notice. Thus, if you are planning to attend the Settlement Hearing, you should confirm the date and time before going to the Court. CURRENT PURECYCLE STOCKHOLDERS WHO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION.

You have the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement. You must object in writing, and you may request to be heard at the Settlement Hearing. If you choose to object, then you must follow these procedures.

Any objections must be presented in writing and must contain the following information:

The Court will not consider any objection that does not substantially comply with these requirements.

YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT BY HAND OR BY FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PRE-PAID TO SETTLING STOCKHOLDERS’ COUNSEL. THE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN APRIL 17, 2025, WHICH IS FOURTEEN (14) CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE SETTLEMENT HEARING to the following address:

David C. Katz
Joshua M. Rubin
Weiss Law
4 Brighton Rd., Suite 204
Clifton, NJ 07012
Lead Counsel

The Court will not consider any objection that is not timely filed with the Court and delivered to Settling Stockholders’ Counsel.

Any person or entity who fails to object or otherwise requests to be heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have waived the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement or otherwise request to be heard (including the right to appeal) and will be forever barred from raising such objection or request to be heard in this or any other action or proceeding, but shall otherwise be bound by the Judgment to be entered and the releases to be given.

This Notice summarizes the Settling Parties’ Stipulation. It is not a complete statement of the events of the Derivative Matters or the Stipulation. Although the Settling Parties believe that the descriptions about the Settlement that are contained in this Notice are accurate in all material

respects, in the event of any inconsistencies between the descriptions in this Notice and the Stipulation, the Stipulation will control.

You may inspect the Stipulation and other papers at https://www.purecycle.com/ and https://www.weisslaw.co.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO EITHER THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE. Any questions you have about matters in this Notice should be directed by telephone or in writing to Settling Stockholders’ Counsel, David C. Katz or Joshua M. Rubin, at the address set forth above.

Brokerage firms, banks and/or other persons or entities who held shares of PureCycle common stock for the benefit of others are requested to immediately send this Notice to all of their respective beneficial owners. If Current PureCycle Stockholders have questions or comments about the Settlement, they should follow the procedures listed in Section IX.

Dated February 18, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE