Company: CIO
Filing Date: 2025-09-08
Form Type: DEFM14A
Source: 0001193125-25-198418
Chunk: 85

Company: City Office REIT, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-09-08
Form: DEFM14A
Chunk 85
---
 any alternatives to the Merger. The Raymond James opinion is limited to the fairness, from a financial point of view, of the Common Stock Merger Consideration to be received by our Common Stockholders. Raymond
James expressed no opinion with respect to any other reasons (legal, business, or otherwise) that may support the decision of the Board to approve or consummate the Merger. Furthermore, no opinion, counsel or interpretation was intended by Raymond
James on matters that require legal, regulatory, accounting, environmental or tax advice. Raymond James assumed that such opinions, counsel or interpretations had been or would be obtained from appropriate professional sources. Furthermore, Raymond
James relied, with the consent of the Company, on the fact that the Company was assisted by legal, accounting, and tax advisors, and, with the consent of the Company relied upon and assumed the accuracy and completeness of the assessments by the
Company and its advisors, as to all legal, accounting, regulatory, environmental and tax matters with respect to the Company and the Merger.

In
formulating its opinion, Raymond James considered only the Common Stock Merger Consideration to be received by the Common Stockholders, and Raymond James did not consider, and its opinion did not address, the fairness of the amount or nature of any
compensation to be paid or payable to any of the officers, directors or employees of the Company, or such class of persons, in connection with the Merger whether relative to the Common Stock Merger Consideration or otherwise. Raymond James was not
requested to opine as to, and its opinion did not express an opinion as to or otherwise address, among other things: (1) the fairness of the Merger to the holders of any class of securities, creditors or other constituencies of the Company, or
to any other party, except and only to the extent expressly set forth in the last sentence of its opinion or (2) the fairness of the Merger to any one class or group of the Company’s or any other party’s security holders or other
constituents vis-à-vis any other class or group of the Company’s or such other party’s security holders or other constituents (including, without
limitation, the allocation of any consideration to be received in the Merger amongst or within

54

such classes or groups of security holders or other constituencies). Raymond James expressed no opinion as to the impact of the Merger on the solvency or viability of the Company, Parent or any other party or the ability of