Jab Acquisition Corp I

This management proposal asks shareholders to approve a special resolution changing the Company’s legal name from JAB Acquisition Corp I to Atlantic Acquisition Corp I. Management states the change is required by, and part of, a previously executed trademark settlement agreement with a third party Claimant to avoid potential market or consumer confusion with the Claimant’s marks; the Company also voluntarily changed its Nasdaq trading symbols to new tickers (ATLQ, ATLQU, ATLQW, ATLQR) effective August 31, 2026. As a Cayman Islands company, the name change requires a special resolution (two-thirds majority) of the votes cast, and management emphasizes no exchange of outstanding share certificates will be required from shareholders. The Board’s unanimous recommendation to vote FOR is framed as a pragmatic risk-mitigation and compliance step that reduces litigation and listing/ticker conflicts and aligns corporate identity with the settlement terms. From a governance perspective, the proposal is routine and non-economic in nature but is connected to the Company’s broader market-branding and listing continuity, which can affect investor perception and trading liquidity. The Name Change is a precondition to adopting amended constitutional documents (Proposal 2), so approval is consequential for implementing related corporate housekeeping. The proposal poses minimal direct financial impact on shareholders, though failure to approve would leave the Company exposed to trademark disputes or continued ticker confusion and could require additional legal or operational remedies. Given the Company is a SPAC, continuity of listing and clear market identity can be important for deal-sourcing and investor relations; management’s explanation links the change directly to a negotiated settlement rather than strategic rebranding alone. Overall, the board frames the proposal as a low-risk, necessary legal/operational action with clear procedural steps and limited shareholder burden, justifying its unanimous support.

This management proposal requests shareholder approval to replace the Company’s existing constitutional documents with amended and restated memorandum and articles of association that reflect the Company’s new name. It is explicitly conditioned on approval and immediate effectuation of the Name Change (Proposal 1), making it a technical but legally necessary companion action to ensure the Company’s governance documents and public filings are consistent with the new corporate name. Because it requires a special resolution (two-thirds majority), shareholders must consider it together with the Name Change; failure of Proposal 1 would render this adoption moot. The amended documents are provided in Annex A and include standard SPAC provisions (share classes, Class B conversion mechanics, redemption mechanics, director powers, voting thresholds, and exclusive forum provisions) and incorporate provisions required by the Designated Stock Exchange and U.S. securities regulation for listed SPACs. Management frames the measure as housekeeping to implement the settlement terms and maintain corporate formality — the adoption does not itself change substantive shareholder rights except to update names and related cross-references. For sophisticated investors, the annexed amended and restated articles are worth reviewing for any substantive deviations from the prior charter (e.g., voting thresholds, indemnities, exclusive jurisdiction, and business opportunity waivers) even though the proxy presents them primarily as conforming changes to reflect the name change. The Board unanimously recommends FOR, arguing the adoption is in shareholders’ interest to keep corporate documentation aligned with the Company’s public identity and legal obligations, reducing operational friction in filings and stock exchange listings. Approval is procedural but necessary to effect the Name Change cleanly across all governance instruments; refusal could create administrative inconsistencies and potential compliance or operational complications.

This management proposal asks shareholders to approve an ordinary resolution empowering the chairman to adjourn the General Meeting to a later date (or indefinitely) if, at the time of the meeting, there are insufficient votes to pass the Name Change or the adoption of the amended constitutional documents or if the Board needs more time to effectuate the Name Change. Functionally, this is a procedural safety valve that allows management to continue soliciting proxies and attempt to secure the two-thirds majority required for the special resolutions without losing the opportunity to complete the corporate name change. The Board argues the measure protects shareholder value by providing flexibility — without it, the meeting could fail and the Name Change and conforming amendments would not occur, potentially leaving the Company exposed under the trademark settlement or with inconsistent public identifiers. From a governance perspective, adjournment authority concentrates discretion in the chairman but is a common mechanism for achieving required vote thresholds; shareholders should weigh the practical benefit of enabling further outreach against concern that adjournments can delay finality and prolong uncertainty. The proposal requires only a simple majority and the Board unanimously recommends voting FOR; management frames it as a necessary contingency to ensure implementation of the settlement-driven Name Change. For investors evaluating deal timelines or SPAC lifecycle implications, passage of this proposal reduces the risk that administrative voting shortfalls prevent the Company from implementing the settlement terms and related corporate housekeeping. However, adjournments could be used strategically to continue solicitations and management should disclose any material developments during any adjourned process to preserve shareholder information rights.