Right of Reply

The company Comvex SA does not agree with the information provided by the newspaper BURSA in the article "Comvex file reappears on the ASF table: request to reopen the investigation regarding the 2016 capital increase", published in the edition of April 28, 2025 and sent us the following right of reply, which we publish in full.

"We are doing our duty to the legal truth to assure you that, without noticing the anticipatory triumphalist tone of the title, the epistolary approach of R de Rubeis joins the approximately 63 civil and criminal files, of which only 2 remain: a civil file at the Constanţa Court of Appeal, lost on the merits by R de Rubeis, currently on appeal, and a civil file at the Constanţa Court of Appeal, lost on the merits and appeal by R de Rubeis, currently on appeal.

The above conclusion, regarding the superfluity of the epistolary approach, results from the application of art. 57 and 30 paragraph 6 of the Romanian Constitution regarding Freedom of Expression and Exercise of Rights and Freedoms.

ALL the alleged new information has already been exhibited before:

-Judges at the Constanţa Court, 2nd Civil Section

-DNA and DIICOT Prosecutors

-Judges from the criminal sections of the Bucharest and Constanţa

-ASF, ESMA, ANAF.

Thus:

1. With reference to the share capital increase in question, a notification was identified in June 2017 by R de Rubeis, registered with A.S.F. with no. RG/23150/13.06.2017, through which he brought to the attention of A.S.F. the violation, in his opinion, of legal obligations by the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the administrators of Comvex S.A. This notification erroneously mentions the year 2017 instead of 2016, as the year in which the referred EGMS decision was adopted. To this notification, R de Rubeis responded via the address registered with A.S.F. with no. RG/1114/15.01.2018. To Mr. R de Rubeis' notification, A.S.F responded via the addresses with no. SI/DETA 7451.2/14.07.2017 and SI/DETA 1418/19.02.2018. Following the analysis of the complaint, the Financial Supervisory Authority ("A.S.F.") did not find any violation of the legal provisions for market abuse or of the rules for reporting transactions, as follows from pages 7 and 9 of the A.S.F. address with no. VPI 6593/02.08.2018 sent to the European Securities and Markets Authority ("ESMA").

ESMA, by its address of 7.11.2018, confirmed the conclusions of the ASF investigation:

"The President of ESMA has decided that no investigation should be initiated under Article 17 of the ESMA Regulation in this matter. This file is now considered closed."

2. In 2018, R de Rubeis also notified the criminal investigation bodies regarding an alleged violation of the legal provisions regarding the disclosure and abusive use of privileged information in the context of the capital increase of Comvex S.A. in 2016, as well as regarding the commission of the offenses provided for in art. 12 para. I letter a and art. 12 para. I letter b of Law 78/2000. The criminal investigation bodies and the criminal courts have established with the force of res judicata that the acts notified by R de Rubeis do not constitute the act provided for by the criminal law of disclosure/use of privileged information and/or carrying out financial operations based on such information. In this regard, the Final Conclusion of the Preliminary Chamber of the Bucharest Court of Justice dated 7.07.2022 in File no. 4819/3/2022 and Final Preliminary Chamber Decision no. 461/18.07.2022 of the Constanţa Court - Criminal Section in File no. 3054/118/2022, both final.

3. Last but not least, by Civil Sentence no. 592/23.05.2024, the Constanţa Court, Civil Section II, in file 27863/3/2019* established the following:

"The plaintiff RAIMONDO DE RUBEIS has not proven in this case that the purchase of shares on an organized market (where an investor who intends to buy or sell shares of an issuer has no possibility of controlling or knowing who his counterparty is) would have violated a provision of the law or public order, which is why this cause of absolute nullity must be rejected.

In the present case, the plaintiff has not indicated and has not specifically proven what are the requirements of good morals allegedly disregarded when concluding the share transfers but also at the time of subscribing the shares within the second stage, in the context in which his request to annul the decision of the general meeting in which the increase was approved share capital was definitively rejected.

The plaintiff RAIMONDO DE RUBEIS, in relation to the limits of the court's investment, did not prove the existence of a fraud of the law, respectively it was not proven that the two operations of sale/purchase of shares and respectively subscription of newly issued shares that were concluded, were made with the purpose of evading

some mandatory legal norms, by diverting the latter from for the purpose for which they were enacted by the legislator. In the present case, the plaintiff did not indicate which mandatory legal norm was allegedly violated by the parties when concluding the contested transactions, which were carried out following a transparent procedure that was subject to the approval and control of several state bodies. Taking control itself is not prohibited by the legislation, as long as there is no legal text that provides for such a prohibition. Although the plaintiff stated that the defendants' transactions were carried out to defraud the other shareholders, with the alleged illicit purpose of taking control of Comvex, the court notes that the dilution of the shares of some shareholders as a result of their non-subscription and the increase in the share of others cannot have an illicit purpose in itself, but represents the natural consequence of the exercise of certain rights, in a very competitive business environment.

The plaintiff's claims regarding fraud under the law as a result of the application of the subscription method, first come, first served, are not proven given that the plaintiff himself did not wish to participate, and as long as the subscription operations were carried out in accordance with the legal provisions in force and with the issue prospectus, as shown by the documents submitted to the file by the intermediary of the offer, the company Raiffeisen Bank S.A..

The existence of an intention to defraud the law was not proven, as long as the procedure was approved by the company (by the AGA Decision of 20.09.2016) and by the ASF by Decision no. 2122 of 08.11.2016.

The price was that established by the issue prospectus, all this, given that the plaintiff RAIMONDO DE RUBEIS had the opportunity to subscribe for shares in turn, a right that he did not understand how to use.

The purchase of shares on a regulated market that ensures the transparency of the operations carried out, through automated mechanisms that cannot be defrauded by common means, is permitted by the legislation in force. For these reasons, the court will reject the request for summons as unfounded, and in relation to the solution given to the main request, noting the well-founded nature of the defenses formulated, the court will admit the accessory intervention requests formulated by the interveners XXXX and XXXXX".

Good faith and journalistic flair should lead you to the irrefutable conclusion that, when so many courts and authorities are unanimous in characterizing the exercise of the right to petition of Mr. R de Rubeis as being only the expression of the inability to accept the consequences of anti-corporate behavior, that none of the allegations of the plaintiff/appellant/appellant/journalist/debtor R de Rubeis (to whom you have provided a "tribune") have factual and legal support.

Perhaps now, at the 12th hour, you should use your journalistic prerogatives and admit that R de Rubeis is just a former administrator, former direct shareholder, never an indirect shareholder, debtor to Comvex SA and to the people he attacks, never in control, who knowingly chose passivity at a critical moment for Comvex SA and now refuses to assume the consequences of his choices.

In the hope that the information we have communicated to you is useful to your journalistic endeavors, we assure you that we are prepared to take any legal measure in the event that (consistent with your editorial policy) you will understand to publish articles containing "information" whose veracity has not been confirmed, only for the futile purpose of influencing the court at the next hearing."