[Reference is made to the Company’s announcements made on 5 August 2025, 29 October 2025 and 4 November 2025 (“Earlier Announcements”). Unless otherwise stated, all abbreviations used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Earlier Announcements]

Further to the Company’s Earlier Announcements, the Board of Directors of Infomina wishes to update that the Regional Trial Court of Makati in the Philippines (“Court”) had on 27 November 2025 issued joint orders in respect of various motions filed by the Plaintiff and Defendant in relation to the Civil Case (“Joint Orders”).

Pursuant to the Joint Orders:

1. Extension of time for the Plaintiff to file answer to counterclaims

The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for additional time to file answer and allowed an additional period of thirty (30) days from 15 November 2025, i.e. until 15 December 2025, to file its answer to the Defendant’s counterclaims.

2. Denial of Defendant’s motion to summon additional defendants (“Motion to Implead”)

The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to summon additional defendants to the Defendant’s counterclaims, which was an attempt by the Defendant to implead the following:

1. Infomina;
2. The Plaintiff’s Board of Directors, namely, Yee Chee Meng, Tan Siang Pin, Jimmy S. Soo, Milagros E. Soriano and Nina Sarah D. Cabeza; and
3. Siow Liew Fei, Infomina’s former Chief Technology Officer,

as additional defendants to its counterclaims. In its ruling, the Court upheld the Plaintiff’s objections and ruled that the Defendant’s motion was procedurally improper.

3. Denial of Defendant’s ex-parte motion to serve written interrogatories

The Court denied the Defendant’s ex-parte motion to serve written interrogatories, which was an attempt by the Defendant to compel the Plaintiff and the proposed additional defendants to answer certain written interrogatories. In its ruling, the Court held that written interrogatories may only be directed to parties properly impleaded and, in view of its denial of the Motion to Implead, the proposed additional defendants cannot be compelled to answer interrogatories.

The Court further agreed with the Plaintiff’s objections and denied the interrogatories directed to the Plaintiff.

4. Denial of Defendant’s motion for partial reconsideration and motions to strike

The Court denied the Defendant’s motion for partial reconsideration of the Court’s order on 4 November 2025, which had directed the Plaintiff to file a comment on the Defendant’s affirmative defences and its Motion to Implead.

The Court affirmed that its order on 4 November 2025 remains in full force and further denied all motions to strike filed by the Defendant, finding no basis to strike any of the submissions filed by the Plaintiff. The Court also noted that the affirmative defences raised by the Defendant are evidentiary in nature and will be considered and resolved at trial together with the merits of the main case.

Further announcements on any material development in respect of the above matter will be made in due course.

This announcement is dated 28 November 2025.