The outcome of that lawsuit is now in the Court's Me with no choice but to file a lawsuit to enforce the Company's McGinnis's 2019 stock ownership, and it left Was part and parcel of the way the Company has responded to all of To review an unknown category of documents that you yourselfД¬oncede are not privileged. What I 'refused' to do was sign aДraconian confidentiality agreement as a condition of being allowed TheДЇact is the Board refused to tell me what specifically you wouldДЄllow me to review or even to identify which categories ofДocuments you were willing to let me review, despite multiple Is in my view a cagey attempt at revisionist history. You offered to allow me to review 'the information reviewed by theД«oard' in connection with its inquiry into Mr. That he was the Company's second largest shareholder in 2019 areД«oth inaccurate and self-contradictory.

Regarding the representations made by the Company and Mr. Responsive corporate governance, whether or not the Board sharesД¬riticisms of my lawsuit seeking production of books and records What the Company's stockholders believe constitutes effective and Unmistakable terms (that are impossible for the Board to ignore) Of Proposal #7 is so important вЂ“ to communicate to the Board in Governance Committee 'plans to begin the process of evaluating theДeclassification of the Board in 2022.' That is why passage

Relying on the Board's promise that the Nominating and Corporate These actions would understandably think twice before blindly #7 at all by seeking agreement from the Securities and ExchangeД¬ommission ('SEC') to refrain from enforcement action if theД¬ompany excluded that proposal from the proxy materials for the Is reminiscent of the Company's vigorous (albeit unsuccessful)ДЄttempts to keep stockholders from being able to consider Proposal This kind of scare-mongering of stockholders Letter's assertion, my proposal does not require immediateДeclassification of the Board, as the Board will of course need toДЄccomplish declassification consistent with the requirements ofДЄpplicable law. Proposal #7 is both puzzling and telling. Substantial shareholders have already come out publicly to support Institutional investors, ISS, Glass Lewis and more. Is why corporate boards are continually being declassified acrossДifferent industries and why declassification is supported by major To decide if they should retain the Board's membership at eachДЄnnual meeting in the name of 'stability' and 'continuity,' or makeД¬hanges as they deem fit based on director performance. And it should be up to the stockholders as owners The Company exists to benefit its owners, not Values that are extremely important to myself and other Responsiveness and accountability to the corporation's owners, You defend the currentД¬lassified Board structure as providing stability and continuity of Respond to the arguments you have raised in your December 20 letter to the Company'sД«oard's reasoning in urging stockholders to vote against my 'Company'), I write to you today to address the concerns and Texas Pacific Land Corporation (NYSE: TPL) ('TPL' or the Texas Pacific's Board of Directors in response to the Board'sД¬riticism of Proposal #7 to de-stagger the Board and his lawsuit Through ATG Capital Management, LLC, has issued an open letter to Gliksberg, a long time stockholder of Texas Pacific LandД¬orporation and, before the conversion, Texas Pacific Land Trust,

Edgar ruse