Company: NGVT
Filing Date: 2025-03-26
Form Type: DEFC14A
Source: 0001539497-25-001044
Chunk: 16

Company: Ingevity Corp
Filing Date: 2025-03-26
Form: DEFC14A
Chunk 16
---
. Blackwell and Mr. Fernandez-Moreno stated that they wanted to discuss with the rest of the members of the Board and Mr. Mather offered to hold off on filing Vision One’s preliminary proxy to allow for the Board to consider Mr. Mather’s proposal that the Board add at least one of the Vision One Nominees.

On March 13, 2025, Mr. Fernandez-Moreno called Mr. Mather to state that the Company would not accept Mr. Mather’s proposal to add one of the Vision One Nominees to the Board. Mr. Fernandez-Moreno stated that the Company would be willing to allow Mr. Mather to review the biographical information of the other potential director candidates that had been identified by the Board provided
that Vision One would sign a confidentiality agreement. Mr. Mather rejected Mr. Fernandez-Moreno’s proposal as this was the same proposal that was made by the Company previously and had already been rejected by Vision One. In its proxy statement, the Company indicates that Mr. Fernandez-Moreno “requested Mr. Mather make another proposal” and, then subsequently in its press release issued on March 20, 2025, the Company stated that it “will continue to seek a constructive resolution”
to the proxy fight with Vision One.

Vision One questions how committed the Company really is to resolving this matter constructively with Vision One as the Company does not appear to have seriously considered any of Vision One’s proposals. The Company has consistently asked for Vision One to “make another proposal” while the Company has rejected Vision One’s different proposals without providing
a counterproposal. The Company has pushed Vision One to reconsider and Vision One has done so, as evidenced by Vision One’s decision to decrease its slate of nominees from 4 nominees to two nominees. At the same time, the Company has refused to “make another proposal” but has continued to advance the same proposal—a mutually agreed upon candidate to be chosen from individuals that have been preselected by the Company—which has been rejected by Vision One since February
20, but yet the Company continues to publicly state it wants a “constructive resolution”.

The Company does not dispute that it has experienced challenges or that additional members of the Board may be necessary to address the Company’s challenges. Instead, the Company has argued that the Vision One Nominees are not the candidates that it wishes to include on its Board and that it would rather consider other candidates. The Company’s current directors and executive
officers, which is a