Emerita Provides Shareholders with Additional Facts Regarding Falcon Project and Risk of Activist Led Withhold Campaign

Emerita Resources Corp. (TSXV: EMO) (OTCQX: EMOTF) (FSE: LLJA) ("Emerita" or the "Company") is pleased to provide shareholders with additional facts in response to misleading statements made by PM Super Fund (the "Activist") in connection with its withhold campaign ahead of Emerita's Annual General and Special Meeting of Shareholders on August 25, 2026. Shareholders should assess the current directors based on the complete record, including the independent review undertaken, the actions that followed and the governance and management renewal now in place. The result the Activist wanted has already occurred. Emerita is vigorously pursuing a claim related to the Falcon Project for the benefit of the Company and all shareholders. Shareholders do not need to transfer control of the Company or the conduct of its litigation to the Activist to achieve the action they want on Falcon and the Activist campaign is just causing unnecessary distraction and a drain on Company resources. OSC Process and the Special Committee Investigation Timing From the beginning of OSC inquiries, the Company worked constructively and transparently with the OSC to respond to information requests. The ultimate subject matter of the OSC investigation was not evident until late in that process. When the findings of the investigation were disclosed to the Company in March 2026, the Board then determined that an independent Special Committee should be constituted to review the relevant circumstances and advise the Board on the appropriate course of action. As outlined in Emerita's Statement of Claim, the Board was repeatedly provided with incorrect information concerning Falcon by former officers who are now defendants in the Company's civil action. The Special Committee subsequently reviewed the underlying records with independent advisers and recommended that the Company commence proceedings. Shareholders should be aware that matters before the Special Committee required careful analysis of a substantial historical record. The Special Committee and its advisers reviewed thousands of pages of documents and other materials spanning several years, considered competing and complex legal and factual issues, and assessed the potential claims, remedies, risks and consequences for the Company and its shareholders. That work could not responsibly be reduced to a quick review of a handful of public documents or a draft pleading prepared by another party. The Activist has suggested that the Company should have moved more quickly. That focuses on the wrong measure. The relevant question is not how quickly a claim can be filed, but whether the claim has been developed thoughtfully, is supported by the available evidence and gives the Company the best reasonable opportunity to protect and recover shareholder value. Complex litigation of this nature requires judgment, discipline and a proper evidentiary foundation. Moving hastily would not have served shareholders. Commencing proceedings before the relevant records had been reviewed and the legal issues properly considered could have exposed Emerita to unnecessary legal expense, procedural risk, avoidable amendments and claims or remedies that were not adequately supported by the evidence. The Special Committee's responsibility was to make a thoughtful recommendation in the interests of the Company, not to meet an arbitrary timetable imposed from outside the boardroom, and the Special Committee clearly met those responsibilities. The Board believes the process followed by the Special Committee reflects the seriousness of the matters at stake. Shareholders should judge that process by the quality and substance of the action taken, not by whether it moved as quickly as the Activist would have preferred. The Activist's criticism also highlights an important difference in approach. From outside the Company, it is easy to characterize a complex historical investigation as str...