Mark

$SRXH Stockholder of SRX Global Inc. September 10, 2026 Via Email SRX Global Inc. Attn: Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officer, and Corporate Secretary 801 US Highway 1 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 Investor Relations KCSA Strategic Communications Attn: Valter Pinto, Managing Director [email protected] Re: Request that SRX Global Inc. promptly notice and hold its 2026 Annual Meeting of Stockholders for the election of directors Ladies and Gentlemen: I am a stockholder of SRX Global Inc. (the “Company”). I am writing to request that the Company promptly notice and hold its 2026 annual meeting of stockholders so that all stockholders may vote on the election of directors. I have consulted Delaware counsel regarding the Company’s obligation under Section 211 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. This letter states my position as a stockholder. It is not a legal opinion and is not a solicitation of proxies. 1.  Last annual meeting
The Company’s Form 10-K filed in December 2025 states that the last annual meeting of shareholders was held on December 18, 2024 and that the next annual meeting had not then taken place. Directors were described as elected at the annual meeting to serve for one year or until successors are elected and qualify. 2.  The December 2025 written consent did not give every stockholder a vote
On or about December 17, 2025, the Company reported that holders of approximately 45.42% of outstanding voting power approved certain matters by written consent, including the naming of Simon Conway, Michael Young, Joshua A. Epstein, and Sammy Dorf as directors, to terms expiring at the “2026 annual meeting of shareholders.” A written consent by a portion of the vote is not an annual meeting. Stockholders who did not execute that consent had no opportunity to vote for directors in an open meeting. The Company’s own 8-K language assumes a 2026 annual meeting will occur. 3.  Section 228 and Section 211 are different
I do not dispute that DGCL § 228 may permit stockholders to approve certain corporate actions without a meeting. That is not the question. DGCL § 211(b) requires an annual meeting for the election of directors unless directors are elected by written consent in lieu of an annual meeting as that subsection permits. If the consent is less than unanimous, it may substitute for an annual meeting only if all directorships that could be elected at an annual meeting then held are vacant and are filled by the consent. The December 2025 consent was not unanimous. The Company’s Form 10-K filed shortly before the consent identified the same four individuals as directors already serving. A non-unanimous consent that names sitting directors does not meet the special conditions in § 211(b) for replacing the annual meeting. 4.  The meeting is overdue
Under DGCL § 211(c), if no annual meeting is held, and no qualifying written-consent election occurs, for 13 months after the last annual meeting, any stockholder or director may apply to the Delaware Court of Chancery for an order that a meeting be held. Thirteen months after December 18, 2024 ran in approximately January 2026. The Delaware Court of Chancery applied this distinction in Wright v. Silver Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. No. 2023-1044-LWW (Del. Ch. Mar. 27, 2024). Sufficient voting power for a § 228 consent does not mean the consent replaces the annual meeting under § 211. Request I respectfully request that the Board and management: (a) confirm in writing the date on which the Company will notice and hold the 2026 annual meeting of stockholders for the election of directors; (b) provide all stockholders a full opportunity to vote at that meeting; and (c) respond to this letter within fourteen (14) days of receipt. If the Company does not promptly notice and hold the meeting, I reserve all rights available to a stockholder under 8 Del. C. § 211(c) and other applicable law, including the right to seek an order from the Court of Chancery.

SRXH Retail ownership update: 8.9% and climbing. If you haven’t already DM’d me your position, please do so. We’re getting close. As I stated previously, I remain fully aligned with Eric Jackson and understand that the structure of the EMJX transaction was designed to navigate legitimate legal considerations. That context is important. (Eric also bought on the open market pre-merger.) However, this does not change the current reality: Current leadership has gone silent and has not demonstrated alignment with retail through open-market purchases. I have received responses from IR in the past. Since I began pressing the issue of insider buying, those responses have stopped. Some claim executives are barred from buying. I call BS — particularly in the absence of any clear confirmation from IR. Leadership being addressed: Executive Team • Kent Cunningham, Chief Executive Officer • Nina Martinez, Chief Financial Officer Board of Directors • Michael Young • Simon Conway • Sammy Dorf • Joshua A. Epstein Get on board. Retail is watching. We are coming for you. $SRXH cc: @ericjackson @SammyDorf @KentCunningham

Haven’t been able to post since March. Got shadowbanned after posting non-stop about $SRXH. Finally back. I was an early investor mid-January and never sold a single share. Still here because I believe in EJ’s treasury vision. Yes Kent Cunningham — you’ve been brought in to trim the fat off Halo and from the earnings call you’re doing a solid job. Retail isn’t stupid though. We see the no-debt balance sheet, the huge cash position, and the investments. But let’s be real… the dilution machine is what made a lot of this possible. Same boat means your hard-earned money too. Not equity-based free shares. Not RSUs. Not stock awards. Actual open-market buys with your own cash — just like the rest of us. I know @ericjackson bought on the open market. What about the rest of you? @ericjackson @SammyDorf Please forward this to the full board (Kent Cunningham, Michael Young, Simon Conway, Joshua Epstein). Put your money where your mouth is and earn Retail following and Trust.