Dear Corporate Secretary,

I, Shanmukha Sravan Puttagunta, am both a record and beneficial holder of common stock of Luminar Technologies, Inc. ("Luminar" or the "Company"). My ownership of Luminar stock is current, continuous, and sufficient to confer all statutory rights under the Delaware General Corporation Law.

Pursuant to Section 220, this letter constitutes a formal demand to inspect and copy certain books and records of Luminar. These rights are well established under Delaware law and serve as an important accountability mechanism where there is a credible basis to suspect mismanagement, breaches of fiduciary duty, or failures of disclosure.

Proper Purpose: The purpose of this demand is to investigate potential mismanagement, breaches of fiduciary duty, and disclosure violations in connection with Luminar's acquisition of assets from Solfice Research Inc. ("Solfice") via Condor LLC.

This demand is made in connection with, and to cross-reference disclosures against, the related action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Anuj Gupta v. Safko and Harvey, C.A. No. 2024-1296-SEM, which concerns Solfice fiduciaries' conduct in connection with the same transaction.

Specific areas of investigation include:

• Inducements and Side Payments made to Solfice insiders in exchange for voting consents
• Staggered Exit Mechanics through Condor Acquisition Sub II
• Selective Release Waivers imposed on stockholders
• Seller Release Agreements as closing deliverables
• Board Oversight Failures by Solfice directors

[Full demand letter with detailed document categories]

Respectfully submitted,
Shanmukha Sravan Puttagunta

Dear Mr. Puttagunta,

We represent Luminar Technologies, Inc. ("Luminar" or the "Company") with regard to your September 5, 2025 stockholder inspection demand under 8 Del C. § 220. The Demand concerns Luminar's 2024 "acquisition of assets from Solfice Research Inc. ("Solfice") via Condor LLA," and is "made in connection with, and to cross-reference disclosures against, the related action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Anuj Gupta v. Safka and Harvey, C.A. No. 2024-1296-SEM."

In short, you seek documents from Luminar to advance your ongoing claims in the Gupta litigation, and only recently purchased three shares in Luminar in order to bring the Demand.

The Demand, however, does not satisfy the requirements of 8 Del C. § 220 ("Section 220"), and must be rejected for two independent reasons:

First, the Demand does not articulate a proper purpose for inspection. Your stated purpose is "unrelated to the [your] purpose as a stockholder" of Luminar and concerns your interests as a stockholder of Solfice, and your ongoing litigation against Solfice and its insiders. Section 220 is "not a way to circumvent discovery proceedings" in ongoing litigation.

Second, to the extent you maintain the Demand seeks to investigate purported wrongdoing by Luminar, the Demand must be rejected because it does not provide a credible basis to suggest that Luminar did anything wrong. The Demand does not even suggest that Luminar or its insiders committed any wrongdoing in connection with the acquisition of assets from Solfice (or otherwise).

Regards,
M. Todd Scott

Counsel,

I write in response to your September 23, 2025 letter rejecting my demand under 8 Del. C. § 220. Your response reveals either a fundamental misunderstanding of Delaware's books-and-records jurisprudence or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate Luminar's clear custodial obligations and potential liability exposure.

Your letter's central premise—that these are "Solfice's records" rather than Luminar's—ignores established Delaware precedent on acquirer custody, the practical realities of M&A closing mechanics, and the specific admissions already made by Solfice's counsel that these materials are "parked with the buyer."

The Valuation Manipulation Pattern:

• May 2022: Luminar's initial indication valued Solfice at $20-22 million
• Late May 2022: Seller's counsel communicated inability to secure founder cooperation (27% common stake)
• June 2022: Luminar's offer mysteriously drops to $10-12 million—a 50% reduction
• June-July 2022: Employment agreements and special compensation arrangements begin appearing for insiders totaling millions—effectively restoring value extracted from headline price

I hereby demand that Luminar produce the requested documents within ten (10) business days. If Luminar refuses or fails to respond within ten business days, I will immediately petition the Chancery Court for relief.

[Full 21-page comprehensive legal analysis]

Very truly yours,
Sravan Puttagunta
Luminar Stockholder

Dear Mr. Puttagunta,

We write on behalf of Luminar Technologies, Inc. ("Luminar" or the "Company") with reference to your September 5, 2025 stockholder inspection demand under 8 Del C. § 220 (the "Demand"). As you know, Luminar rejected the Demand in a letter dated September 23, 2025 (the "Rejection Letter"), because the Demand does not comport with the requirements of 8 Del C. § 220 ("Section 220").

In a follow-up letter dated September 23, 2025 (the "Demand Follow-Up"), you falsely assert that Luminar rejected the Demand because, purportedly, "Luminar lacks custody" of the documents you seek. In reality, as the Rejection Letter made plain, the Demand was rejected because it "concerns your interests as a stockholder of Solfice [Research Inc.], and your ongoing litigation against Solfice and its insiders."

In the Demand Follow-Up you now speculate that Luminar representatives might face "aiding-and-abetting liability for transaction counterparties [at Solfice] who knowingly participate[d] in fiduciary breaches." Citing to what you call a "suspicious valuation trajectory" and purported "documentary evidence" that is not quoted in or attached to your correspondence, you assert there is a credible basis to infer wrongdoing by Luminar representatives.

But you do not cite any facts to support that conclusory claim, and the Company is well within its rights to "deny requests for inspection … that are based only upon suspicion."

It is clear on the face of your Demand that the purpose for your inspection is "not reasonably related to [your] interest as a stockholder" of Luminar, and the Company is under no obligation, will not, engage any further with you on this matter.

Finally, we note that even if the Demand complied with the requirements of Section 220, and it does not, the voluminous deal documents you seek are not available for inspection under the statute, which was recently amended to limit the scope of document stockholders can review.

Regards,
M. Todd Scott

Dear Luminar Counsel,

This communication puts you on formal notice that the asset referred to internally as "Project Condor" may be subject to rescission, constructive trust, and/or injunctive relief due to an invalid vote under 8 Del. C. §271, compounded by:

• Selective and undisclosed inducements offered to stockholders in exchange for their consent,
• The refusal of fiduciaries to provide written disclosure to at least 40% of the voting block.

These matters are currently the subject of a pending books and records action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which may result in the invalidation of the transaction and a follow-on plenary action seeking rescissory damages and disgorgement.

As a result, any contemplated sale, transfer, assignment, or hypothecation of the underlying IP, assets, or derivative interests must include full written disclosure of:

• The disputed validity of the underlying asset sale,
• The possibility of injunctive or clawback actions,
• And the taint surrounding both stockholder inducements and board-level conduct.

Failure to disclose such risks to a prospective acquirer or creditor may constitute securities fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or a breach of duty—particularly under applicable SEC rules (17 CFR §240.10b-5), and under Delaware's standards for equitable notice in asset transactions.

You are required to preserve all documentation, communications, and transaction materials related to:

• Board consents and 228(e) notices from June 2022
• Any closing deliverables tied to compensation or releases
• Communications involving employment agreements, inducement grants, or buyer-side due diligence

We reserve all rights.

Sincerely,
Sravan Puttagunta

Mr. Puttagunta, I do not represent Luminar in this regard. You will need to contact the company directly.

Best,
Todd

Can you please provide me the appropriate point of contact?

Kind regards, Sravan

Forwarding notice to potential stakeholders.

Kind regards, Sravan

[Original message quoted]

To the General Counsel and Board of Directors of Luminar Technologies, Inc.:

I am writing to formally notify you that I am asserting an equitable, contractual, and fiduciary interest in the intellectual property and other assets originally developed by Solfice Research, Inc., and purportedly transferred via "Project Condor" to Luminar Technologies, Inc.

Disputed Ownership — Invalid §271 Transaction

As detailed in C.A. No. 2024-1296-SEM (Delaware Chancery), I have provided:

A sworn affidavit and supporting exhibits establishing that the asset sale to Luminar was not validly approved under 8 Del. C. §271, due to:

• Inducement offers and vote coercion;
• Material non-disclosure to 40%+ of stockholders;
• Incomplete and selective dissemination of the APA and compensation schedules;
• Use of post hoc board appointment and unsigned consents;
• The offer made to me personally of an $800,000 inducement package in exchange for a proxy vote (which I refused).

As such, the transaction may be rescinded, and your continued assertion of ownership over those assets may constitute unlawful possession and unjust enrichment.

Preservation of Rights in Bankruptcy and M&A Contexts

You are hereby notified that:

1. Any attempted sale, transfer, or assignment of the disputed Solfice assets, including via a 363 bankruptcy sale or "strategic alternative," will be met with formal legal objection and claims for constructive trust and rescissory relief;
2. I am asserting rights as a:
   • Pre-transaction stockholder of Solfice Research, Inc.;
   • Creditor and potential judgment beneficiary of any equitable relief or disgorgement remedy;
   • Interested party with standing to challenge transfer or discharge in any bankruptcy proceeding or merger-related documentation;
3. If Luminar or its successors proceed with any transaction without disclosing the ownership dispute, pending litigation, or regulatory scrutiny, such conduct will be deemed:
   • Materially misleading under SEC Rule 10b‑5;
   • A fraudulent transfer under U.S. Bankruptcy Code §548;
   • Grounds for equitable subordination or clawback under §§547–550.

Demand for Noticing and Preservation

Accordingly, I request that:

• I be added to any noticing list for upcoming restructuring, bankruptcy, asset sales, or public company disclosures;
• You immediately preserve all documents and communications relating to Project Condor, RSU schedules, APA amendments, board consents, and any compensation paid or promised to Solfice insiders;
• You confirm that any CIM, teaser, or dataroom issued to potential acquirers now reflects the contested title and ongoing Delaware litigation.

This letter is issued without waiver of any rights and shall not be construed as acceptance of any transaction, jurisdiction, or settlement position.

Sincerely,

Sravan Puttagunta
Stockholder, Solfice Research, Inc
Sravan.puttagunta@gmail.com
415-710-2791

Forwarding for reference.

Kind regards, Sravan

[Original message quoted]

Hey Arman,

Can you please help me understand why the valuation dropped from 20-22 to 10-12?

Thanks,
Sravan

Sravan,

Let me find out and get back to you.

Best,
Arman

Arman Pahlavan | Partner
Perkins Coie LLP
3150 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
D. +1.650.838.4345
APahlavan@perkinscoie.com

Sravan,

I talked to Luminar and here is what I learned.

So, the total mix of these discussions, your inability to cooperate with them on the India subsidiary issues, the non-cooperation to get to 90% vote for transaction, the market drop all resulted in significant decline in price.

I also understand that Stefan tried to address your issues several times but wasn't able to move past this impasse.

I hope this helps clarify the pricing issues.

Best,
Arman