Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (Form: 8-K, Received: 01/02/2020 16:22:59)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

Current Report

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): January 2, 2020

JAGGED PEAK ENERGY INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Delaware	001-37995	81-3943703
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(Commission File Number)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

1401 Lawrence St., Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80202

(720) 215-3700

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

☑Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

☐Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

☐Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

☐Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).

Emerging growth company ☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:



Title of each class	Ticker Symbol	Name of each exchange on which registered
Common stock, par value $0.01 per share	JAG	New York Stock Exchange

Item 8.01 Other Events.

As previously disclosed, on October 14, 2019, Jagged Peak Energy Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Jagged Peak”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), by and among Parsley Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Parsley”), and Jackal Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parsley (“Merger Sub”). The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things, the merger of Merger Sub with and into Jagged Peak, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement (the “Merger”), with Jagged Peak continuing as the surviving corporation in the Merger. As a result of the Merger, Jagged Peak would become a wholly owned subsidiary of Parsley. On November 26, 2019, Jagged Peak filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a Definitive Proxy Statement for the solicitation of proxies in connection with the special meeting of Jagged Peak’s stockholders, to be held on January 9, 2020, to vote upon, among other things, matters necessary to complete the Merger (the “Proxy Statement”).

Litigation Related to the Merger

Following the initial filing of the Proxy Statement with the SEC, six purported stockholders of Jagged Peak filed separate complaints (including several putative class actions complaints, on behalf of themselves and all owners of Jagged Peak’s common stock, other than defendants and related or affiliated persons) against Jagged Peak and the directors of Jagged Peak. The six complaints (collectively referred to as the “Stockholder Actions”) are captioned as follows: Eric Sabatini v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02114 (D. Del.) (the “Sabatini Action”), Jean-Pierre Enguehard v. Jagged Peak Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 2019-cv-34328 (Distr. Ct., Denver, CO) (the “Enguehard Action”), Kelly Small v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10698 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Small Action”), Sherrie Wynne v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03281 (D. Colo.) (the “Wynne Action”), Mark Prinzel v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10886 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Prinzel Action”), and Stephen Bushansky v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-3433 (D. Colo.) (the “Bushansky Action”).

The Stockholder Actions allege that, among other things, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as Rule 14a-9 under the Exchange Act. The Enguehard Action further alleges that the directors of Jagged Peak failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by purportedly initiating a process to sell Jagged Peak in a transaction that undervalues Jagged Peak. The complaints seek injunctive relief enjoining the Merger and damages and costs, among other remedies. Copies of the complaint in each of the Stockholder Actions are attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, 99.2, 99.3, 99.4, 99.5 and 99.6, respectively, and incorporated by reference herein.

It is possible that additional, similar complaints may be filed or the complaints described above may be amended. If this occurs, Jagged Peak does not intend to announce the filing of each additional, similar complaint or any amended complaint unless it contains materially new or different allegations. Although Jagged Peak cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of loss from these matters, Jagged Peak and Jagged Peak’s defendant directors believe that these complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend them.

Jagged Peak believes that no supplemental disclosures are required under applicable laws; however, in order to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying the Merger and minimize the expense of defending the Stockholder Actions, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Jagged Peak is voluntarily making certain disclosures below that supplement those contained in the Proxy Statement. These disclosures, and disclosures on certain other matters, are provided in this Current Report on Form 8-K. Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, Jagged Peak specifically denies all allegations in the foregoing complaints, including that any additional disclosure was or is required.

SUPPLEMENT TO PROXY STATEMENT

Jagged Peak is supplementing the Proxy Statement with certain additional information set forth below. These disclosures should be read in connection with the Proxy Statement, which should be read in its entirety. All page references are to pages in the Proxy Statement, and terms used below, unless otherwise defined, have the meanings set forth in the Proxy Statement. New text is underlined and bolded, and deleted text is stricken through.

The disclosure on page 66 is hereby supplemented by adding the following sentence at the end of the last paragraph on the page.

The mutual confidentiality agreement with Company E was on customary terms, did not contain a “don’t ask, don’t waive” provision, permitted private offers during the standstill period and provided that the standstill provisions would fall-away if Jagged Peak entered into an agreement similar to the merger agreement.

The disclosure on page 68 is hereby supplemented by adding the following sentence at the end of the last paragraph on the page.

The mutual confidentiality agreement with Company A was on customary terms, did not contain a “don’t ask, don’t waive” provision, permitted private offers during the standstill period and provided that the standstill provisions would fall-away if Jagged Peak entered into an agreement similar to the merger agreement.

The disclosure on page 88 of the Proxy Statement is hereby supplemented by inserting the following as line items on the table at the top of the page under the heading “Oil and Gas Strip Pricing” and revising footnote (1) in such table as follows:



Interest expense	$	20		$	50		$	50	$	47	$	40	$	33
Unlevered free cash flow (calculated as free cash flow plus interest expense) ⁽⁴⁾	$	(126	)	$	(116	)	$	24	$	158	$	206	$	212
Unlevered free cash flow (calculated as EBITDA less capital expenditures and cash taxes excluding the effect of interest expense) ⁽⁵⁾	$	(142	)	$	(116	)	$	24	$	158	$	206	$	212

______________

(1) EBITDA is defined as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, depletion and amortization, adjusted for exploration expense. EBITDA is not a measure of financial performance under GAAP. Accordingly, it should not be considered as a substitute for net income (loss), operating income (loss) or other measures prepared in accordance with GAAP. 2025E EBITDA used by RBCCM in its discounted cash flow analysis to derive the terminal value was $743 million.

(4) Arithmetically derived by RBCCM for purposes of its discounted cash flow analysis based on estimates of Jagged Peak’s management. Unlevered free cash flow is not a measure of financial performance under GAAP. Accordingly, it should not be considered as a substitute for net income (loss), operating income (loss) or other measures prepared in accordance with GAAP.

(5) Arithmetically derived by Citi for purposes of its discounted cash flow analysis based on estimates of Jagged Peak’s management; assumes additional leasehold and acquisition-related capital expenditures of approximately $15 million in the second half of fiscal year 2019. Unlevered free cash flow is not a measure of financial performance under GAAP. Accordingly, it should not be considered as a substitute for net income (loss), operating income (loss) or other measures prepared in accordance with GAAP.

The disclosure on page 88 of the Proxy Statement is hereby supplemented by inserting the following as line items on the table at the bottom of the page under the heading “Wall Street Consensus Pricing” and revising footnote (1) in such table as follows:



Interest expense	$	20		$	49		$	45	$	36	$	30	$	29
Unlevered free cash flow (calculated as free cash flow plus interest expense) ⁽⁴⁾	$	(121	)	$	(96	)	$	151	$	296	$	338	$	341
Unlevered free cash flow (calculated as EBITDA less capital expenditures and cash taxes excluding the effect of interest expense) ⁽⁵⁾	$	(136	)	$	(96	)	$	151	$	296	$	338	$	345

______________

The disclosure on page 89 of the Proxy Statement is hereby supplemented by inserting the following as line items on the table in the middle of the page under the heading “Oil and Gas Strip Pricing” and revising footnote (1) in such table as follows:



Interest expense	$	60	$	123	$	123	$	123	$	123	$	123
Unlevered free cash flow (calculated as free cash flow plus interest expense) ⁽⁴⁾	$	162	$	281	$	202	$	215	$	389	$	496
Unlevered free cash flow (calculated as EBITDA less capital expenditures and cash taxes excluding the effect of interest expense) ⁽⁵⁾	$	163	$	281	$	144	$	189	$	363	$	471

______________

(5) Arithmetically derived by Citi for purposes of its discounted cash flow analysis based on estimates of Jagged Peak’s management. Unlevered free cash flow is not a measure of financial performance under GAAP. Accordingly, it should not be considered as a substitute for net income (loss), operating income (loss) or other measures prepared in accordance with GAAP.

The disclosure on page 89 of the Proxy Statement is hereby supplemented by inserting the following as line items on the table at the bottom of the page under the heading “Wall Street Consensus Pricing” and revising footnote (1) in such table as follows:



Interest expense	$	60	$	123	$	123	$	123	$	123	$	123
Unlevered free cash flow (calculated as free cash flow plus interest expense) ⁽⁴⁾	$	182	$	345	$	440	$	489	$	668	$	778
Unlevered free cash flow (calculated as EBITDA less capital expenditures and cash taxes excluding the effect of interest expense) ⁽⁵⁾	$	182	$	345	$	382	$	463	$	643	$	752

______________

The disclosure on page 108 of the Proxy Statement is hereby supplemented by revising the third and fourth sentences of the paragraph summarizing the discounted cash flow analysis of Jagged Peak as follows:

Citi calculated terminal values for Jagged Peak by applying to Jagged Peak’s fiscal year 2023 estimated EBITDA a selected range of EBITDA multiples of 4.5x to 5.5x selected based on Citi’s professional judgment and taking into account, among other things, observed EBITDA trading multiples of Jagged Peak and the Jagged Peak selected companies. The present values (as of June 30, 2019) of the cash flows and terminal values were then calculated using a selected range of discount rates of 9.0% to 10.3% derived from a weighted average cost of capital calculation.

Citi calculated terminal values for Parsley by applying to Parsley’s fiscal year 2023 estimated EBITDA a selected range of EBITDA multiples of 4.5x to 5.5x selected based on Citi’s professional judgment and taking into account, among other things, observed EBITDA trading multiples of Parsley and the Parsley selected companies. The present values (as of June 30, 2019) of the cash flows and terminal values were then calculated using a selected range of discount rates of 8.2% to 9.5% derived from a weighted average cost of capital calculation.

The disclosure on page 109 of the Proxy Statement is hereby supplemented by revising the third sentence of the paragraph summarizing the net asset value analysis of Jagged Peak as follows:

An implied aggregate reference range was derived, based on the Jagged Peak forecasts (reflecting both Strip Pricing and Wall Street Consensus Pricing), public filings and other publicly available information, as applicable, from (i) the after-tax net present values (as of June 30, 2019 and using a selected range of discount rates of 9.0% to 10.3% derived from a weighted average cost of capital calculation) of (a) the unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Jagged Peak was projected to generate from Jagged Peak’s proved developed producing reserves and currently undeveloped resources and (b) Jagged Peak’s estimated non-drilling and completion capital expenditures, corporate expenses and net hedge and pricing contract gains and losses, and (ii) Jagged Peak’s net debt as of June 30, 2019 and estimated non-operated acreage value.

The disclosure on page 109 of the Proxy Statement is hereby supplemented by revising the third sentence of the paragraph summarizing the net asset value analysis of Parsley as follows:

An implied aggregate reference range was derived, based on the Jagged Peak-Parsley forecasts (reflecting both Strip Pricing and Wall Street Consensus Pricing), public filings and other publicly available information, as applicable, from (i) the after-tax net present values (as of June 30, 2019 and using a selected range of discount rates of 8.2% to 9.5% derived from a weighted average cost of capital calculation) of (a) the unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Parsley was projected to generate from Parsley’s proved developed producing reserves and currently undeveloped resources and (b) Parsley’s estimated non-drilling and completion capital expenditures, corporate expenses and net hedge gains and losses, and (ii) Parsley’s net debt as of June 30, 2019 and estimated non-operated and non-drilling spacing units acreage value.

The disclosure on page 115 of the Proxy Statement is hereby supplemented by revising the first sentence of the first paragraph as follows:

Unless the context indicates otherwise, the analyses performed below were calculated using (i) the closing prices of Jagged Peak common stock, Parsley Class A common stock and the selected U.S. companies in the acquisition, exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas business (“E&P”) as of October 11, 2019, (ii) historical, financial and operating data for the selected companies based on publicly available information for each company as of October 11, 2019, (iii) the Enterprise Values for (a) Jagged Peak based on net debt as of June 30, 2019 of approximately $625 million and (b) Parsley based on net debt as of June 30, 2019 of approximately $2,176 million and (iv) per share amounts for (a) Jagged Peak based on diluted shares outstanding as of October 11, 2019 of approximately 216.3 million using the treasury stock method and (b) Parsley based on diluted shares outstanding as of October 11, 2019 of approximately 318.2 million using the treasury stock method.

The disclosure on page 116 of the Proxy Statement is hereby supplemented by revising the second sentence of the subsection summarizing the discounted cash flow analysis of Jagged Peak as follows:

RBCCM performed the discounted cash flow analysis using (i) discount rates ranging from 9.0% to 11.0% based on an estimated WACC of Jagged Peak, using the capital asset pricing model (“CAPM”) as well as applying a size premium and (ii) a terminal value at the end of the forecast period, using terminal multiples ranging from 3.0x to 4.0x estimated calendar year 2025 (“2025E”) EBITDA,. The terminal multiples were selected based on RBCCM’s professional judgment and taking into account, among other things, observed EBITDA trading multiples of Jagged Peak and the selected publicly traded companies that RBCCM reviewed for purposes of its Jagged Peak selected companies analysis, and the which estimated EBITDA year was the terminal year EBITDA for Jagged Peak based on the Standalone Jagged Peak Projections.

The disclosure on page 118 of the Proxy Statement is hereby supplemented by revising the second sentence of the subsection summarizing the discounted cash flow analysis of Parsley as follows:

RBCCM performed the discounted cash flow analysis using (i) discount rates ranging from 8.5% to 10.5% based on an estimated WACC of Parsley, using CAPM, as well as applying a size premium and (ii) a terminal value at the end of the forecast period, using terminal multiples ranging from 3.50x to 4.50x 2025E EBITDA,. The terminal multiples were selected based on RBCCM’s professional judgment and taking into account, among other things, observed EBITDA trading multiples of Parsley and the selected publicly traded companies that RBCCM reviewed for purposes of its Parsley selected companies analysis, and the which estimated EBITDA year was the terminal year EBITDA for Parsley based on the Standalone Parsley Projections.

No Offer or Solicitation

This communication relates to a proposed business combination transaction (the “Transaction”) between Jagged Peak and Parsley. This communication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities or a solicitation of any vote or approval, in any jurisdiction, pursuant to the Transaction or otherwise, nor shall there be any sale, issuance, exchange or transfer of the securities referred to in this document in any jurisdiction in

contravention of applicable law. No offer of securities shall be made except by means of a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Important Additional Information

In connection with the Transaction, Parsley filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), on November 22, 2019, an amendment to the registration statement on Form S-4 that was originally filed on November 5, 2019, that includes a joint proxy statement of Jagged Peak and Parsley and a prospectus of Parsley. The registration statement was declared effective on November 26, 2019, and Jagged Peak and Parsley commenced mailing the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus on or about November 27, 2019. Jagged Peak and Parsley may also file other documents with the SEC regarding the Transaction. This communication is not a substitute for the registration statement and joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC or any other documents that Parsley or Jagged Peak may file with the SEC or send to stockholders of Parsley or Jagged Peak in connection with the Transaction. INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS OF JAGGED PEAK AND PARSLEY ARE URGED TO READ THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND THE JOINT PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS REGARDING THE TRANSACTION WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS THAT ARE FILED OR WILL BE FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THESE DOCUMENTS, CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRANSACTION AND RELATED MATTERS.

Investors and security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the registration statement and the joint proxy statement/prospectus (when available) and all other documents filed or that will be filed with the SEC by Parsley or Jagged Peak through the website maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of documents filed with the SEC by Jagged Peak will be made available free of charge on Jagged Peak’s website at http://www.jaggedpeakenergy.com, under the heading “SEC Filings,” or by directing a request to Investor Relations, Jagged Peak Energy Inc., 1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 1800, Denver, CO 80202, Tel. No. (720) 215-3754. Copies of documents filed with the SEC by Parsley will be made available free of charge on Parsley’s website at http://www.parsleyenergy.com/investors or by directing a request to Investor Relations, Parsley Energy, Inc., 303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000, Austin, TX 78701, Tel. No. (512) 505-5199.

Participants in the Solicitation

Parsley, Jagged Peak and their respective directors and executive officers may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies in respect to the Transaction.

Information regarding Jagged Peak’s directors and executive officers is contained in the proxy statement for Jagged Peak’s 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders filed with the SEC on April 10, 2019, and certain of its Current Reports on Form 8-K. You can obtain a free copy of this document at the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov or by accessing Jagged Peak’s website at http://www.jaggedpeakenergy.com. Information regarding Parsley’s executive officers and directors is contained in the proxy statement for the Parsley’s 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders filed with the SEC on April 8, 2019 and certain of its Current Reports on Form 8-K. You can obtain a free copy of this document at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov or by accessing the Parsley’s website at http://www.parsleyenergy.com/investors.

Investors may obtain additional information regarding the interests of those persons and other persons who may be deemed participants in the Transaction by reading the joint proxy statement/prospectus regarding the Transaction when it becomes available. You may obtain free copies of this document as described above.

Forward-Looking Statements and Cautionary Statements

This Current Report on Form 8-K (“Form 8-K”) contains “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included in this communication that address activities, events or developments that Parsley or Jagged Peak expects, believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future are forward-looking statements. Words such as “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “potential,” “create,” “intend,” “could,” “may,” “foresee,” “plan,” “will,” “guidance,” “look,” “outlook,” “goal,” “future,” “assume,” “forecast,” “build,” “focus,” “work,” “continue” or the negative of such terms or other variations thereof and words and terms of similar substance used in connection with any discussion of future plans, actions, or events identify forward-looking statements. However, the absence of these words does not mean that the statements are not forward-looking. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the Transaction, pro forma descriptions of the combined company and its operations, integration and transition plans, synergies, opportunities and anticipated future performance. There are a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements included in this communication. These include the expected timing and likelihood of completion of the Transaction, including the timing, receipt and terms and conditions of any required governmental and regulatory approvals of the Transaction that could reduce anticipated benefits or cause the parties to abandon the Transaction, the ability to successfully integrate the businesses, the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstances that could give rise to the termination of the merger agreement, the possibility that stockholders of Parsley may not approve the issuance of new shares of common stock in the Transaction or that stockholders of Jagged Peak may not approve the merger

agreement, the risk that the parties may not be able to satisfy the conditions to the Transaction in a timely manner or at all, risks related to disruption of management time from ongoing business operations due to the Transaction, the risk that any announcements relating to the Transaction could have adverse effects on the market price of Parsley’s common stock or Jagged Peak’s common stock, the risk that the Transaction and its announcement could have an adverse effect on the ability of Parsley and Jagged Peak to retain customers and retain and hire key personnel and maintain relationships with their suppliers and customers and on their operating results and businesses generally, the risk the pending Transaction could distract management of both entities and they will incur substantial costs, the risk that problems may arise in successfully integrating the businesses of the companies, which may result in the combined company not operating as effectively and efficiently as expected, the risk that the combined company may be unable to achieve synergies or it may take longer than expected to achieve those synergies and other important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. All such factors are difficult to predict and are beyond Parsley’s or Jagged Peak’s control, including those detailed in Parsley’s annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K that are available on its website at http://www.parsleyenergy.com/investors and on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov, and those detailed in Jagged Peak’s annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K that are available on Jagged Peak’s website at http://www.jaggedpeakenergy.com and on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov. All forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that Parsley or Jagged Peak believe to be reasonable but that may not prove to be accurate. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made, and Parsley and Jagged Peak undertake no obligation to correct or update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements that speak only as of the date hereof.


Item 9.01	Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d) Exhibits.



Exhibit Number		Description

99.1		Complaint filed by Eric Sabatini on November 8, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
99.2		Complaint filed by Jean-Pierre Enguehard on November 12, 2019 in the District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado.
99.3		Complaint filed by Kelly Small on November 19, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
99.4		Compliant filed by Sherrie Wynne on November 20, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
99.5		Complaint filed by Mark Prinzel on November 25, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
99.6		Complaint filed by Stephen Bushansky on December 5, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
104		Cover page interactive data file (embedded within the Inline XBRL document).

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



			JAGGED PEAK ENERGY INC.


Date:	January 2, 2020

		By:	/s/ Christopher I. Humber
		Name:	Christopher I. Humber
		Title:	Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf ) of All Others Similarly Situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. ______________ ) v. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) JAGGED PEAK ENERGY INC., CHARLES ) CLASS ACTION D. DAVIDSON, ROGER L. JARVIS, ) JANEEN S. JUDAH, MICHAEL C. LINN, ) ADRIANNA C. MA, JOHN R. SULT, S. ) WIL VANLOH, JR., DHEERAJ VERMA, ) BLAKE A. WEBSTER, JAMES J. ) KLECKNER, PARSLEY ENERGY, INC., ) and JACKAL MERGER SUB, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Plaintiff, by his undersigned attorneys, for this complaint against defendants, alleges upon personal knowledge with respect to himself, and upon information and belief based upon, inter alia, the investigation of counsel as to all other allegations herein, as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October 14, 2019 (the “Proposed Transaction”), pursuant to which Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (“Jagged Peak” or the “Company”) will be acquired by Parsley Energy, Inc. (“Parent”) and Jackal Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub,” and together with Parent, “Parsley”). 2. On October 14, 2019, Jagged Peak’s Board of Directors (the “Board” or “Individual Defendants”) caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with Parsley. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Jagged Peak’s stockholders will receive 0.447 shares of Parent common stock for each share of Jagged Peak

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2 common stock they own. 3. On November 5, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement (the “Registration Statement”) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the Proposed Transaction. 4. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) in connection with the Registration Statement. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to Section 27 of the 1934 Act because the claims asserted herein arise under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over defendants because each defendant is either a corporation that conducts business in and maintains operations within this District, or is an individual with sufficient minimum contacts with this District so as to make the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial portion of the transactions and wrongs complained of herein occurred in this District. PARTIES 8. Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, the owner of Jagged Peak common stock. 9. Defendant Jagged Peak is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 1800, Denver, Colorado 80202. Jagged Peak’s 2

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3 common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “JAG.” 10. Defendant Charles D. Davidson is Chairman of the Board of the Company. 11. Defendant Roger L. Jarvis is a director of the Company. 12. Defendant Janeen S. Judah is a director of the Company. 13. Defendant Michael C. Linn is a director of the Company. 14. Defendant Adrianna C. Ma is a director of the Company. 15. Defendant John R. Sult is a director of the Company. 16. Defendant S. Wil VanLoh, Jr. is a director of the Company. 17. Defendant Dheeraj Verna is a director of the Company. 18. Defendant Blake A. Webster is a director of the Company. 19. Defendant James J. Kleckner is Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company. 20. The defendants identified in paragraphs 10 through 19 are collectively referred to herein as the “Individual Defendants.” 21. Defendant Parent is a Delaware corporation and a party to the Merger Agreement. 22. Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 23. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of himself and the other public stockholders of Jagged Peak (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are defendants herein and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with any defendant. 24. This action is properly maintainable as a class action. 3

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4 25. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. As of October 14, 2019, there were approximately 213,404,153 shares of Jagged Peak common stock outstanding, held by hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals and entities scattered throughout the country. 26. Questions of law and fact are common to the Class, including, among others, whether defendants will irreparably harm plaintiff and the other members of the Class if defendants’ conduct complained of herein continues. 27. Plaintiff is committed to prosecuting this action and has retained competent counsel experienced in litigation of this nature. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class and plaintiff has the same interests as the other members of the Class. Accordingly, plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 28. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendants, or adjudications that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of individual members of the Class who are not parties to the adjudications or would substantially impair or impede those non-party Class members’ ability to protect their interests. 29. Defendants have acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the Class as a whole, and are causing injury to the entire Class. Therefore, final injunctive relief on behalf of the Class is appropriate. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS Background of the Company and the Proposed Transaction 30. Jagged Peak is an independent oil and natural gas company focused on the 4

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 5 acquisition and development of unconventional oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the southern Delaware Basin, a sub-basin of the Permian Basin of West Texas. 31. On October 14, 2019, Jagged Peak’s Board caused the Company to enter into the Merger Agreement with Parsley. 32. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Jagged Peak’s stockholders will receive 0.447 shares of Parent common stock for each share of Jagged Peak common stock they own. 33. According to the press release announcing the Proposed Transaction: Parsley Energy, Inc. (NYSE: PE) (“Parsley,” or “Parsley Energy”) and Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (NYSE: JAG) (“Jagged Peak”) today announced they have entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Parsley will acquire Jagged Peak in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $2.27 billion, including Jagged Peak’s net debt of approximately $625 million as of June 30, 2019. Under the terms of the agreement, Jagged Peak shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.447 shares of Parsley Class A common stock for each share of Jagged Peak common stock they own. This represents $7.59 per Jagged Peak share based on Parsley’s closing price on October 11, 2019, and a premium of 1.5% compared to Jagged Peak’s 30-day volume weighted average price and 11.2% compared to Jagged Peak’s closing price on October 11, 2019. The transaction, which is expected to close in the first quarter of 2020, has been unanimously approved by each company’s board of directors. Following the close of the transaction, Parsley shareholders will own approximately 77% of the combined company, and Jagged Peak shareholders will own approximately 23% of the combined company, in each case on a fully diluted basis. The all-stock transaction is intended to be tax-free to Jagged Peak shareholders. . . . Governance and Leadership The boards of directors at both Parsley and Jagged Peak have unanimously approved the transaction, and recommended that their respective shareholder groups approve the transaction. Upon closing, Parsley’s board of directors will be expanded to eleven directors to include two members from the current Jagged Peak board of directors. The combined company will be led by Parsley’s executive management team and will remain headquartered in Austin, Texas. 5

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6 Timing and Approvals The transaction, which is expected to close during the first quarter of 2020, is subject to customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals, including the approval of Parsley and Jagged Peak shareholders. Jagged Peak’s controlling shareholder, Quantum Energy Partners, which owns approximately 68 percent of the outstanding voting shares of Jagged Peak, has committed to vote its shares in favor of the transaction. Advisors Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co is serving as exclusive financial advisor to Parsley Energy, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP is serving as Parsley’s legal counsel. Citi and RBC Capital Markets, LLC are serving as financial advisors to Jagged Peak and Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. is serving as Jagged Peak’s legal counsel. The Registration Statement Omits Material Information 34. Defendants filed the Registration Statement with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction. 35. As set forth below, the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. 36. First, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding the Company’s and Parsley’s financial projections. 37. With respect to the Company’s financial projections, the Registration Statement fails to disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate (a) EBITDAX, (b) EBITDA, (c) Adjusted EBITDA, and (d) free cash flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. 38. With respect to Parsley’s financial projections, the Registration Statement fails to disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate (a) EBITDAX, (b) EBITDA, (c) Adjusted EBITDA, and (d) free cash flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP 6

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7 metrics. 39. The disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses performed by the company’s financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion. 40. Second, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding the analyses performed by the Company’s financial advisors in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citi”) and RBC Capital Markets, LLC (“RBC”). 41. With respect to Citi’s Selected Public Companies Analyses, the Registration Statement fails to disclose the individual multiples and metrics for the companies observed by Citi in the analyses. 42. With respect to Citi’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for the Company, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the standalone unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Jagged Peak was forecasted to generate during the second half of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 through the full fiscal year ending December 31, 2023 and all underlying line items; (ii) the net operating loss carryforwards expected by Jagged Peak’s management during the forecast period; (iii) the terminal values for the Company; (iv) Citi’s basis for applying a selected range of EBITDA multiples of 4.5x to 5.5x; and (v) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the range of discount rates of 9.0% to 10.3%. 43. With respect to Citi’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for Parsley, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the standalone unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Parsley was forecasted to generate during the second half of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 through the full fiscal year ending December 31, 2023 and underlying line items; (ii) the net operating loss 7

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8 carryforwards expected by Jagged Peak’s management during the forecast period; (iii) the terminal values for Parsley; (iv) Citi’s basis for applying a selected range of EBITDA multiples of 4.5x to 5.5x; and (v) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the range of discount rates of 8.2% to 9.5%. 44. With respect to Citi’s Net Present Value Analysis of the Company, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the net operating loss carryforwards expected by Jagged Peak’s management during the forecast period; (ii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the range of discount rates of 9.0% to 10.3%; (iii) the unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Jagged Peak was projected to generate from the Company’s proved developed producing reserves and currently undeveloped resources and all underlying line items; (iv) Jagged Peak’s estimated non- drilling and completion capital expenditures, corporate expenses, and net hedge and pricing contract gains and losses; and (v) Jagged Peak’s net debt and estimated non-operated acreage value. 45. With respect to Citi’s Net Present Value Analysis of Parsley, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the net operating loss carryforwards expected by Jagged Peak’s management during the forecast period; (ii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the range of discount rates of 8.2% to 9.5%; (iii) the unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Parsley was projected to generate from Parsley’s proved developed producing reserves and currently undeveloped resources and all underlying line items; (iv) Parsley’s estimated non-drilling and completion capital expenditures, corporate expenses, and net hedge gains and losses; and (v) Parsley’s net debt and estimated non-operated and non-drilling spacing units acreage value. 46. With respect to Citi’s analyses of price targets, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the price targets observed by Citi in the analyses; and (ii) the sources thereof. 8

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 9 47. With respect to RBC’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis of the Company, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the after-tax free cash flows of Jagged Peak and all underlying line items; (ii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from 9.0% to 11.0%; (iii) the terminal values of the Company; (iv) RBC’s basis for using terminal multiples ranging from 3.0x to 4.0x; and (v) the net debt and diluted share information used by RBC. 48. With respect to RBC’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis of Parsley, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the after-tax free cash flows of Parsley and all underlying line items; (ii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from 8.5% to 10.5%; (iii) the terminal values of Parsley; (iv) RBC’s basis for using terminal multiples ranging from 3.50x to 4.50x; and (v) the net debt and diluted share information used by RBC. 49. With respect to RBC’s analyses of price targets, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the price targets observed by RBC in the analyses; and (ii) the sources thereof. 50. With respect to RBC’s Selected Precedent Transactions Analysis, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the transactions observed by RBC in the analysis; and (ii) the individual multiples and metrics for the transactions. 51. When a banker’s endorsement of the fairness of a transaction is touted to shareholders, the valuation methods used to arrive at that opinion as well as the key inputs and range of ultimate values generated by those analyses must also be fairly disclosed. 52. Third, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of RBC. 53. The Registration Statement fails to disclose the circumstances under which the “additional fee of $1,000,000” is payable to RBC, and whether the Individual Defendants intend 9

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10 to pay the additional fee to RBC. 54. Full disclosure of investment banker compensation and all potential conflicts is required due to the central role played by investment banks in the evaluation, exploration, selection, and implementation of strategic alternatives. 55. Fourth, the Registration Statement fails to disclose whether the Company entered into any confidentiality agreements that contained standstill and/or “don’t ask, don’t waive” provisions that are or were preventing the counterparties from submitting superior offers to acquire the Company. 56. Without this information, stockholders may have the mistaken belief that, if these potentially interested parties wished to come forward with a superior offer, they are or were permitted to do so, when in fact they are or were contractually prohibited from doing so. 57. The omission of the above-referenced material information renders the Registration Statement false and misleading, including, inter alia, the following sections of the Registration Statement: (i) Background of the Merger; (ii) Recommendation of the Jagged Peak Board of Directors and Reasons for the Merger; (iii) Certain Parsley Unaudited Prospective Financial and Operating Information; (iv) Certain Jagged Peak Unaudited Prospective Financial and Operating Information; and (v) Opinions of Jagged Peak’s Financial Advisors. 58. The above-referenced omitted information, if disclosed, would significantly alter the total mix of information available to the Company’s stockholders. COUNT I Claim for Violation of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9 Promulgated Thereunder Against the Individual Defendants and Jagged Peak 59. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein. 10

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 11 60. The Individual Defendants disseminated the false and misleading Registration Statement, which contained statements that, in violation of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements therein not materially false or misleading. Jagged Peak is liable as the issuer of these statements. 61. The Registration Statement was prepared, reviewed, and/or disseminated by the Individual Defendants. By virtue of their positions within the Company, the Individual Defendants were aware of this information and their duty to disclose this information in the Registration Statement. 62. The Individual Defendants were at least negligent in filing the Registration Statement with these materially false and misleading statements. 63. The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. In addition, a reasonable investor will view a full and accurate disclosure as significantly altering the total mix of information made available in the Registration Statement and in other information reasonably available to stockholders. 64. The Registration Statement is an essential link in causing plaintiff and the Company’s stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction. 65. By reason of the foregoing, defendants violated Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. 66. Because of the false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement, plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm. 11

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 12 COUNT II Claim for Violation of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act Against the Individual Defendants and Parsley 67. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein. 68. The Individual Defendants and Parsley acted as controlling persons of Jagged Peak within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as officers and/or Board members of Jagged Peak and participation in and/or awareness of the Company’s operations and/or intimate knowledge of the false statements contained in the Registration Statement, they had the power to influence and control and did influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision making of the Company, including the content and dissemination of the various statements that plaintiff contends are false and misleading. 69. Each of the Individual Defendants and Parsley was provided with or had unlimited access to copies of the Registration Statement alleged by plaintiff to be misleading prior to and/or shortly after these statements were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of the statements or cause them to be corrected. 70. In particular, each of the Individual Defendants had direct and supervisory involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Company, and, therefore, is presumed to have had the power to control and influence the particular transactions giving rise to the violations as alleged herein, and exercised the same. The Registration Statement contains the unanimous recommendation of the Individual Defendants to approve the Proposed Transaction. They were thus directly involved in the making of the Registration Statement. 71. Parsley also had supervisory control over the composition of the Registration Statement and the information disclosed therein, as well as the information that was omitted and/or misrepresented in the Registration Statement. 12

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13 72. By virtue of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants and Parsley violated Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. 73. As set forth above, the Individual Defendants and Parsley had the ability to exercise control over and did control a person or persons who have each violated Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9, by their acts and omissions as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as controlling persons, these defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows: A. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction; B. In the event defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages; C. Directing the Individual Defendants to disseminate a Registration Statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading; D. Declaring that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the 1934 Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder; E. Awarding plaintiff the costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff’s attorneys’ and experts’ fees; and F. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 13

Case 1:19-cv-02114-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/08/19 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 14 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Dated: November 8, 2019 RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. By: /s/ Gina M. Serra Seth D. Rigrodsky (#3147) Brian D. Long (#4347) Gina M. Serra (#5387) OF COUNSEL: 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 RM LAW, P.C. Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Richard A. Maniskas Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com Berwyn, PA 19312 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Email: gms@rl-legal.com Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 Email: rm@maniskas.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 14

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street Denver, CO 80202 Plaintiff: JEAN-PIERRE ENGUEHARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COURT USE ONLY Defendants: JAGGED PEAK ENERGY, INC., CHARLES D. DAVIDSON, ROGER L. JARVIS, Case Number: JANEEN S. JUDAH, MICHAEL C. LINN, ADRIANNA C. MA, JOHN R. SULT, S. WILL Division: VANLOH, JR., DHEERAJ VERMA, BLAKE A. WEBSTER, PARSLEY ENERGY, INC. and JACKAL MERGER SUB, INC. Jeffrey A. Berens (#28007) Berens Law LLC 2373 Central Park Boulevard, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 Telephone: (303) 861-1764 Facsimile: (303) 861-1764 jeff@jberenslaw.com [Additional counsel appear on signature page] Attorney for Plaintiff CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff Jean-Pierre Enguehard (“Plaintiff”), by his attorneys, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, files this action against the defendants and alleges upon information and belief, except for those allegations that pertain to him, which are alleged upon personal knowledge, as follows: SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 1. Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of Jagged Peak Energy, Inc. (“Jagged Peak” or the “Company”) against Jagged Peak, its Board of Directors (the “Board” or the “Individual Defendants,”) and Parsley Energy, Inc. (“Parsley Energy”) and Jackal Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub”) for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants’ efforts to sell the Company to Parsley Energy, a Delaware corporation. In the all-stock transaction, Jagged Peak shareholders will receive only a fixed exchange ratio of 0.447 Parsley shares for each share of Jagged Peak common stock owned, for an implied value of

$7.59 per Jagged Peak share based on Parsley Energy’s closing price on October 11, 2019, and a premium of only 1.5% compared to Jagged Peak’s 30-day volume weighted average price and 11.2% compared to Jagged Peak’s closing price on October 11, 2019 (the “Proposed Transaction”). 2. The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a October 14, 2019 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”). 3. Thereafter, on November 5, 2019, Parsley filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the “S-4”) with the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction 4. The Proposed Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number of reasons. Significantly, the S-4 describes an insufficient sales process in which the Board rushed through an inadequate “sales process” in which the only end goal was a sale to Parsley, and in which no disinterested committee of Jagged Peak directors was created to run the sales process. 5. Further compounding the unfair process is the fact that majority stockholder Quantum Energy Partners (“Quantum”), which owns approximately 69% of the voting stock of Jagged Peak has agreed to vote its stock in favor of the Proposed Transaction. Coupled with the fact that the Merger Agreement contains no “majority of the minority” provision to protect the interests of the Company’s minority stockholders, the unfair process has ensured that the consummation of the Proposed Transaction is a virtual certainty. 6. Such a sales process, or lack thereof, clearly indicates that the only end-goal acceptable to the Defendants was an acquisition of Jagged Peak by Parsley. 7. In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell Jagged Peak without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class members (defined below) would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the Proposed Transaction to benefit themselves and/or Parent without regard for Jagged Peak’s public stockholders. Accordingly, this action seeks to enjoin the upcoming stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and compel the Individual Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary duties to Jagged Peak’s stockholders. 8. Next, it appears as though the Board has entered into the Proposed Transaction to procure for themselves and senior management of the Company significant and immediate benefits with no thought to the Company’s public stockholders. For instance, pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, upon the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, Company Board Members and executive officers will be able to exchange all Company equity awards for the merger consideration. Moreover, certain Directors and other insiders will also be the recipients of lucrative change-in-control agreements, triggered upon the termination of their employment as a consequence of the consummation of the Proposed Transaction. 2

9. Furthermore, the Individual Defendants, as defined herein, have exacerbated their breaches of express and implied contractual duties and fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock up the Merger with preclusive and onerous deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making successful competing offers for the Company and act to render the Merger a fait accompli. For example, the Board agreed to: (i) a “no solicitation” provision that prevents the Company from negotiating with or providing confidential information to competing bidders except under extremely limited circumstances; (ii) a “matching rights” provision that allows Parent to match any competing proposal in the unlikely event that one emerges; and (iii) up to over $73 million in termination fees and expenses if the Board agrees to a competing proposal. 10. In further violation of their fiduciary duties, Defendants caused to be filed the materially deficient S-4 on November 5, 2019 with SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote their Jagged Peak shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The S-4 is materially deficient, deprives Jagged Peak stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, and is thus in breach of the Defendants fiduciary duties. As detailed below, the S-4 omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process and in particular certain conflicts of interest for management; (b) the financial projections for Jagged Peak and Parsley, provided by Jagged Peak and Parsley to their respective financial advisors Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (“Citigroup”), RBC Capital Markets, LLC (“RBC Capital”), and Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. Advisors LP (“TPH”) for use in their respective financial analyses; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness opinions provided by Citigroup, RBC Capital, and TPH. 11. Consequently, the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care. 12. The special meeting of Jagged Peak shareholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction is forthcoming. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Registration Statement is disclosed to the Company’s shareholders prior to the forthcoming shareholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. 13. Absent judicial intervention, the merger will be consummated, resulting in irreparable injury to Plaintiff and the Class. This action seeks to enjoin the unreasonable steps taken by the Defendants in entering into the merger agreement without attempting to maximize stockholder value. Immediate judicial intervention is warranted here to rectify existing and future irreparable harm to the Company’s stockholders. Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, seek only to level the playing field and to ensure that if stockholders are to be ultimately stripped of their respective equity interests through the Proposed Transaction, that the Proposed Transaction is conducted in a manner that is not overtly improper, unfair and illegal, and that all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction is disclosed to the Jagged Peak’s stockholders so that they are able to make informed decisions as to whether to vote in favor or against the Proposed Transaction or to seek appraisal of their shares. 3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. This Court has jurisdiction over each defendant named herein because each defendant is either a corporation that is incorporated in, conducts business in, and maintains operations in this State, or is an individual who has sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Colorado so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction by the Colorado courts permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 15. Venue is proper in this Court because one or more of the defendants either resides in or maintains executive offices in this District, a substantial portion of the transactions and wrongs complained of herein, including the defendants’ primary participation in the wrongful acts detailed herein and aiding and abetting and conspiracy in violation of fiduciary duties owed to Jagged Peak occurred in this District, and defendants have received substantial compensation in this District by doing business here and engaging in numerous activities that had an effect in this District. 16. This action is not removable under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standard Act (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f), because this action is based upon the statutory or common law of the State of Colorado, in which Jagged Peak is headquartered, and seeks injunctive relief. Additionally, this action involves: (1) a communication with respect to sale of Jagged Peak common stock; (2) that was made by and on behalf of Jagged Peak to its stockholders; and (3) concerns decisions of Jagged Peak stockholders with respect to voting their securities, or acting in response to a possible acquisition offer. PARTIES 17. Plaintiff Jean-Pierre Enguehard is a resident of Texas. He has been and continues to be a stockholder of Jagged Peak during all relevant times thereto. 18. Defendant Jagged Peak operates as an independent oil and natural gas company. The company focuses on the acquisition and development of unconventional oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the Southern Delaware basin, a sub-basin of the Permian basin of West Texas. As of December 31, 2018, it held an 87% average working interest in approximately 79,500 net acres with an estimated net proved reserves of 118,890 thousand barrel of oil equivalent, as well as owned an 89% average working interest in 143 net productive wells. Jagged Peak Energy Inc was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. The Company’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “JAG.” As of November 1, 2019, the Company had over 213 million shares of common stock outstanding. 19. Defendant Charles D. Davidson has served on the Jagged Peak Board of Directors at all relevant times. In addition, he is Chairman of the Board. Davidson is a Venture Partner with Quantum Energy Partners (“Quantum”), Jagged Peak’s largest shareholder, and serves on the firm’s Investment Committee. Quantum owns approximately 69% of the Company’s outstanding stock and has entered into the “Quantum Voting Agreement,” pursuant to which Quantum has agreed to vote its shares in favor of the matters to be submitted to Jagged Peak’s stockholders in 4

connection with the Merger, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Quantum Voting Agreement. 20. Defendant James J. Kleckner has served on the Jagged Peak Board of Directors since 2017 and has served as President and CEO since March 2018. 21. Defendant Roger L. Jarvis has served on the Jagged Peak Board of Directors since 2017. 22. Defendant Janeen S. Judah has served on the Jagged Peak Board of Directors since April 2019. 23. Defendant Michael C. Linn has served on the Jagged Peak Board of Directors since 2017. Linn is also a Senior Advisor to Quantum, a position he has held since August 2012. 24. Defendant Adrianna C. Ma has served on the Jagged Peak Board of Directors since July 2019. 25. Defendant John R. Sult has served on the Jagged Peak Board of Directors since January 2017. 26. Defendant S. Wil VanLoh, Jr. has served on the Jagged Peak Board of Directors since 2016. He is also the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Quantum Energy Partners, Jagged Peak’s controlling shareholder 27. Defendant Dheeraj Verma has served on the Jagged Peak Board of Directors since 2017. He is also President of Quantum. 28. Defendant Blake A. Webster has served on the Jagged Peak Board of Directors since 2016. He is also a Managing Director of Quantum. 29. The Defendants named in paragraphs 19-28 are referred to herein as “Individual Defendants” or “Director Defendants.” 30. The Director Defendants owe fiduciary duties including good faith, loyalty, fair dealing, due care and candor to Jagged Peak and its stockholders. 31. By reason of their positions as officers and/or directors of the Company, the Individual Defendants named above are in a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff and the other public stockholders of Jagged Peak and owe them the highest duties of good faith, loyalty and due care, as set forth in further detail herein. 32. The Director Defendants, by reason of their corporate directorships and/or executive positions, are fiduciaries to and for the Company’s stockholders, which fiduciary relationship required them to exercise their best judgment, and to act in a prudent manner and in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders. 5

33. Each Director Defendant herein is sued individually, as a conspirator and aider and abettor, as well as in their capacity as an officer and/or director of the Company, and the liability of each arises from the fact that he or she has engaged in all or part of the unlawful acts, plans, schemes, or transactions complained of herein. 34. Defendant Parsley Energy is an oil and natural gas company, which engages in the acquisition, development and exploitation of unconventional oil and natural gas reserves. Its portfolio includes the Midland and Southern Delaware basin. The company was founded by Bryan Sheffield, Mike Hinson, and Paul Treadwell in 2008 and is headquartered in Austin, TX. The Company’s common stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol “PE.” 35. Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parsley Energy and a party to the Merger Agreement. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS Company Background 36. Jagged Peak operates as an independent oil and natural gas company. The company focuses on the acquisition and development of unconventional oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the Southern Delaware basin, a sub-basin of the Permian basin of West Texas. As of December 31, 2018, it held an 87% average working interest in approximately 79,500 net acres with an estimated net proved reserves of 118,890 thousand barrel of oil equivalent, as well as owned a 89% average working interest in 143 net productive wells., Jagged Peak is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 1401 Lawrence Street, Denver, CO 80202. 37. In 2013, Quantum announced the formation of the Company and presently holds approximately 69% of the outstanding stock. Quantum also has the right to designate nominees to the Board and, as of this date, Quantum holds five of the ten seats on the Board. The Company identifies itself as a “controlled” company under NYSE rules. 38. The Company has emphasized the fact that it is gradually shifting to full-field development which, commentators have indicated, “will meaningfully improve its cost structure” and “production will move higher in the coming quarters while costs will decline which should help improve its margins and free cash flow profile.” 39. In November 2018, the Company announced its Third Quarter 2018 Financial Results. Its quarterly earnings were $.18 a share, beating consensus estimates of $.14 a share and more than doubling revenue results from the preceding year. This followed up the Company’s positive results the previous quarter where it was expected that this company would post earnings of $0.13 per share when it actually produced earnings of $0.20, delivering a surprise of 53.85%. 40. In fact, over the preceding four quarters, the Company had surpassed consensus EPS estimates three times. Similarly, the Company had topped consensus revenue estimates four times over the same last four quarters. 6

41. Jagged Peak posted its Second Quarter 2019 Financial Results on August 8, 2019. At that time, Jim Kleckner, President and Chief Executive Officer, commented, “I am pleased with our Company's execution and performance through the first half of the year, with our DC&E costs down significantly from 2018. We continue to be intently focused on creating additional value through further reductions of these DC&E costs and preserving our high operating margins. Leveraging these efficiency gains will remain an important part of our business as we move to development projects in 2019 and 2020. During the quarter, we started operations on the six-well Coriander pad. The wells have been drilled and the completions are progressing on schedule to deliver first production in the next few weeks. Also during the quarter, we turned online two wells in the Big Tex area and have seen encouraging initial results. While it's too early to make a full assessment of these results, we remain cautiously optimistic on the future optionality of our Big Tex area.” 42. It is clear that Jagged Peak, which has shown consistent profitable financial results in its recent financial results is a strong Company poised to continue its solid performance in the future. However, should the Proposed Transaction be consummated, Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of the Company will be significantly diluted from benefiting on the future of the Company they invested in. The Flawed Sales Process 43. As detailed in the S-4 the process deployed by the Individual Defendants was flawed and inadequate, was conducted out of the self-interest of the Individual Defendants, and was designed with only one concern in mind – to effectuate a sale of the Company to Parsley, which had been interested in an acquisition of Jagged Peak since at least 2016, before the Company even initiated its IPO. 44. First and foremost, the S-4 indicates that no committee of independent board members was created to run the sales process. This is especially concerning given that there is no majority of the minority provision protecting the rights of the minority stockholders of Jagged Peak. 45. Doubling down on this lack of independence, the S-4 makes clear that on several occasions throughout the sales process representatives of controlling stockholder Quantum were present and engaged in meetings between Jagged Peak management and financial advisor Citi. Such brazen biased conduct clearly indicates that the interests of Plaintiff and other minority stockholders was of no matter to the Defendants. 46. The decision to forego a committee of independent directors is also concerning given that the decision by the Board to allow the Merger Agreement to be executed without a collar protecting minority stockholders from fluctuations of Parsley’s stock price and the eventual merger consideration 47. Additionally it appears that an inadequate market check was conducted by Company and its financial advisors during the sales process, with the S-4 noting that a list of only 7

“six potential counterparties” was created, out of which three were immediately determined to be unlikely to transact and which were not contacted. 48. The S-4 also notes that in several instances the import of conversations between the Company, Board, and Quantum representatives on the one hand and Parsley on the other was more focused on Board seats for current Company insiders post-close rather than on consideration for minority public stockholders of Jagged Peak. 49. The S-4 is also unclear as to the nature of any specific standstill restrictions arising out of the terms of any of the non-disclosure agreements entered into between Jagged Peak on the one hand and any interested third party, including Parsley, on the other, and if the terms of any included “don’t-ask, don’t-waive” provisions or standstill provisions in any such agreements, and if so, the specific conditions, if any, under which such provisions would fall away. 50. Moreover, the S-4 is also unclear as to any differences that may exist between the various non-disclosure agreements entered into between Jagged Peak and any interested third parties. 51. It is not surprising, given this background to the overall sales process, that it was conducted in a completely inappropriate and misleading manner. The Proposed Transaction 52. On October 14, 2019, Jagged Peak and Parsley Energy issued a press release announcing it had entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Parsley will acquire the Company in the Proposed Transaction in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $1.7 billion. The press release stated in relevant part: Austin, Texas, and Denver, Colorado, October 14, 2019 — Parsley Energy, Inc. (NYSE: PE) (“Parsley,” or “Parsley Energy”) and Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (NYSE: JAG) (“Jagged Peak”) today announced they have entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Parsley will acquire Jagged Peak in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $2.27 billion, including Jagged Peak’s net debt of approximately $625 million as of June 30, 2019. Under the terms of the agreement, Jagged Peak shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.447 shares of Parsley Class A common stock for each share of Jagged Peak common stock they own. This represents $7.59 per Jagged Peak share based on Parsley’s closing price on October 11, 2019, and a premium of 1.5% compared to Jagged Peak’s 30-day volume weighted average price and 11.2% compared to Jagged Peak’s closing price on October 11, 2019. The transaction, which is expected to close in the first quarter of 2020, has been unanimously approved by each company’s board of directors. Following the close of the transaction, Parsley shareholders will own approximately 77% of the combined company, and Jagged Peak shareholders will own approximately 23% of 8

the combined company, in each case on a fully diluted basis. The all-stock transaction is intended to be tax-free to Jagged Peak shareholders. Key Transaction Highlights · Complementary, High-Margin Delaware Basin Footprint: Parsley possesses an institutional familiarity with Jagged Peak’s Delaware Basin assets, with the majority of the acreage directly offsetting Parsley’s legacy position. Furthermore, Jagged Peak’s high-margin, oil-weighted asset base will integrate smoothly into Parsley’s near-term development program. On a pro forma basis, Parsley will have approximately 267,000 net acres in the Permian, comprised of 147,000 net acres in the Midland Basin and a highly contiguous 120,000 net acre footprint in the Delaware Basin. · Accretive on Key Metrics: Parsley expects the low-premium transaction to be immediately accretive to key metrics in 2020, including: cash flow per share, free cash flow per share, cash return on capital invested, and net asset value. · Corporate Cost Optimization Accrues to Shareholders: The combination is expected to generate cash general and administrative (“G&A”) savings of approximately $25 million in the first year and $40-50 million of annual savings thereafter, translating to a net present value of $250-300 million. Parsley expects this synergy to facilitate margin expansion and enhance corporate free cash flow. · Additional Synergies Clearly Identified: In addition to G&A savings, Parsley has identified further synergies that are anticipated to be realized over time: · Capital Efficiency Gains: Parsley and Jagged Peak have seen material improvements in recent Delaware Basin well costs. Sustained drilling and completion efficiency improvements coupled with the supply chain advantages of optimized scale have facilitated a material reduction in Parsley’s Delaware Basin well costs during 2019. Parsley estimates its current average drilling, completion and equipment cost in the Delaware Basin are $1,100-$1,150 per lateral foot. Parsley believes applying its scale advantages and employing collaborative best practices can translate to well cost savings of at least $100 per lateral foot across Jagged Peak’s remaining inventory in the Delaware Basin. · Overlapping Acreage: The combination of Parsley’s and Jagged Peak’s acreage positions will create a highly contiguous, interlocking footprint in the Delaware Basin that allows for a more optimized lease geometry with additional 9

extended lateral wells. Additionally, the close proximity of Jagged Peak’s acreage supports additional operational efficiencies. · Expansive Company-Owned Water Infrastructure Network: Jagged Peak has invested nearly $90 million developing significant fresh and produced water infrastructure across its acreage position, which is located nearby Parsley’s existing water assets. Integration of Jagged Peak’s water infrastructure network increases corporate flexibility and operational scale. · Cost of Capital Advantages: Parsley believes this transaction can accelerate progress toward an investment grade credit profile, which could help facilitate opportunistic debt refinancing in the future. · Maintains Strong Balance Sheet: An all-stock transaction ensures the combined company will retain a strong balance sheet with a pro forma net leverage ratio of 1.6x LTM adjusted earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization, and exploration expense. Parsley expects to maintain its dividend per share at current levels in the near term, with the anticipated free cash flow enhancements from this transaction expected to support increased return of capital in the future. Finally, both Parsley and Jagged Peak recently added to their respective 2020 hedge positions, and a majority of the combined company’s expected 2020 oil production is subject to hedge protection. For details on Parsley and Jagged Peak’s respective hedge positions, please see the presentation posted to each company’s website that supplements the information in this release. Management Commentary “The combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak is a natural fit,” said Matt Gallagher, Parsley’s President and CEO. “Jagged Peak’s oily, high-margin asset base slots in nicely to our returns-focused development approach, its acreage footprint and water infrastructure dovetails into our legacy Delaware Basin position, and its corporate culture aligns with our core values. In short, we now have a premier Delaware Basin business that rivals our foundational Midland Basin business. This transaction also creates tangible synergies that will enhance our corporate free cash flow profile and will be shared by the combined shareholder base. Ultimately, I am proud of the high level of execution Parsley has delivered throughout 2019, and I am excited by the prospects of what the combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak can deliver for shareholders in 2020.” Jim Kleckner, President and Chief Executive Officer of Jagged Peak, commented, “The combined assets of Jagged Peak and Parsley Energy are a great fit that create a stronger combined Permian company. The pro-forma company provides our shareholders with premier acreage in both the Midland and Delaware sub-basins, while providing additional scale, significant operational synergies, and free cash flow in this competitive environment. Our team has made tremendous progress to increase efficiencies as we evolved to pad development on our acreage position. 10

We look forward to working closely with Parsley to ensure that we provide an efficient changeover of asset-level institutional knowledge, so our shareholders and the shareholders of Parsley Energy can reap the maximized benefits of this transaction.” S. Wil VanLoh, Jr., a Jagged Peak director and the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Quantum Energy Partners, Jagged Peak’s controlling shareholder, commented, “The inevitable consolidation in the Permian has started and Jagged Peak made a decisive move to team up with the right partner. Quantum has known Bryan, Matt and the Parsley team for many years and has tremendous respect for the industry-leading execution capabilities and top-tier rock they possess. The combination of the two companies will create a unique platform that will benefit from scale, capital allocation optionality, and peer-leading economics (IRRs, oil-weighting and netback margins) that we believe will represent one of the most compelling investment vehicles in the Permian. We look forward to partnering with the Parsley team as they mature into a Permian pure-play large cap. I would also like to thank every current and former employee of Jagged Peak for creating a great private equity success story and for positioning Jagged Peak’s shareholders for continued value creation in a very tough macro energy environment. It’s been an honor being your partner.” Third Quarter Operational Update Activity Overview For the third quarter of 2019, Parsley expects net oil production of 91.2-91.7 MBo per day, translating to 5-6% quarter-over-quarter growth. During 3Q19, Parsley placed on production 35 gross operated horizontal wells with an average working interest of approximately 95% and an average completed lateral length of approximately 10,000 feet. Parsley expects to report third quarter capital expenditures of approximately $315-325 million. Third quarter development spending decreased relative to second quarter spending, driven by lower well costs, fewer net completions, and quarter-over-quarter decreases in facilities and infrastructure spending. Preliminary Pro Forma 2020 Outlook · Parsley remains committed to a growing free cash flow profile that returns capital to shareholders. Parsley continues to use a $50 WTI oil price assumption for its baseline capital budget in 2020. · Parsley estimates that capital expenditures of $1.6-$1.9 billion will translate to oil production of 126-134 MBo per day in 2020, representing healthy 11

year-over-year production growth. Both production and capital expenditure range estimates assume a full-year of contribution from Jagged Peak. · Parsley plans to deploy 15 development rigs and four-to-five frac spreads on average in 2020. Parsley anticipates five of its development rigs will operate in the Delaware Basin, where Parsley has seen a material reduction in well costs in 2019. Governance and Leadership The boards of directors at both Parsley and Jagged Peak have unanimously approved the transaction, and recommended that their respective shareholder groups approve the transaction. Upon closing, Parsley’s board of directors will be expanded to eleven directors to include two members from the current Jagged Peak board of directors. The combined company will be led by Parsley’s executive management team and will remain headquartered in Austin, Texas. Timing and Approvals The transaction, which is expected to close during the first quarter of 2020, is subject to customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals, including the approval of Parsley and Jagged Peak shareholders. Jagged Peak’s controlling shareholder, Quantum Energy Partners, which owns approximately 68 percent of the outstanding voting shares of Jagged Peak, has committed to vote its shares in favor of the transaction. Advisors Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co is serving as exclusive financial advisor to Parsley Energy, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP is serving as Parsley’s legal counsel. Citi and RBC Capital Markets, LLC are serving as financial advisors to Jagged Peak and Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. is serving as Jagged Peak’s legal counsel. The Inadequate Merger Consideration 53. Significantly, analyst expectations, the Company’s strong market position, growth, positive future outlook and synergistic benefits to Parent, establish the inadequacy of the merger consideration. 54. The compensation afforded under the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders significantly undervalues the Company. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the transaction values each share of Jagged Peak stock at $7.59 based on Parsley’s closing price on October 11, 2019, representing a paltry premium of 1.5% compared to Jagged 12

Peak’s 30-day volume weighted average price. However, this valuation does not adequately take into consideration how the Company is performing and the significant synergies involved. 55. In fact, the offer is significantly lower than the Company’s 52-week high of $13.50. In fact, the stock traded above the implied deal price as recently as September 2019. 56. Additionally, according to recent news reports, the average 12-month price target among brokerages that have updated their coverage on Jagged Peak stock in the last year is $10.73 57. Further, the consideration fails to properly account for the significant synergies to be derived by Parsley Energy. As indicated in the merger announcement, “The combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak is a natural fit,” said Matt Gallagher, Parsley’s President and CEO. “Jagged Peak’s oily, high-margin asset base slots in nicely to our returns-focused development approach, its acreage footprint and water infrastructure dovetails into our legacy Delaware Basin position, and its corporate culture aligns with our core values. In short, we now have a premier Delaware Basin business that rivals our foundational Midland Basin business. This transaction also creates tangible synergies that will enhance our corporate free cash flow profile and will be shared by the combined shareholder base. Ultimately, I am proud of the high level of execution Parsley has delivered throughout 2019, and I am excited by the prospects of what the combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak can deliver for shareholders in 2020.” 58. Additionally, shareholders have no idea how much the deal will be worth when it closes. The exchange ratio is fixed and has no collar or floor to protect Jagged Peak stockholders. In fact, since the announcement of the deal, Parsley stock has failed to close at the share utilized to calculate the implied value. Instead, it has fluctuated more than a dollar below the October 11, 2019 closing. As such, Jagged Peak stockholder may receive significantly less than the contemplated $6.57 a share. 59. Clearly, while the deal will be beneficial to Parsley, it comes at great expense to Plaintiff and other public stockholders of the Company. 60. It is clear from these statements and the facts set forth herein that this deal is designed to maximize benefits for Parsley at the expense of Jagged Peak stockholders, which clearly indicates that Jagged Peak stockholders were not an overriding concern in the formation of the Proposed Transaction. Preclusive Deal Protection Mechanisms 61. The Merger Agreement contains certain provisions that unduly benefit Parent by making an alternative transaction either prohibitively expensive or otherwise impossible. For example, the Merger Agreement contains a termination fee provision that requires Jagged Peak to pay up to $35 million to Parent in fees and an additional amount in expenses if the Merger Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances. 13

62. The termination fee payable under this provision will make the Company that much more expensive to acquire for potential purchasers, while resulting in a corresponding decline in the amount of consideration payable to Jagged Peak’s stockholders. 63. The Merger Agreement also contains a “no solicitation” provision that restricts Jagged Peak from considering alternative acquisition proposals by, inter alia, constraining Jagged Peak’s ability to solicit or communicate with potential acquirers or consider their proposals. Specifically, the provision prohibits the Company from soliciting any alternative proposal, but permits the Board to consider a “Company Competing Proposal” if it constitutes or is reasonably calculated to lead to a “Company Superior Proposal” as defined in the Merger Agreement. 64. Moreover, the Agreement further reduces the possibility of a topping offer from an unsolicited purchaser. Here, Defendants agreed to provide Parent information in order to match any other offer, thus providing Parent access to the unsolicited bidder’s financial information and giving Parent the ability to top the superior offer. Thus, a rival bidder is not likely to emerge with the cards stacked so much in favor of Parent. 65. The Merger Agreement does not include protections to ensure that the consideration payable to shareholders will remain within a range of reasonableness. In a conventional stock-for- stock transaction, the parties customarily negotiate and implement a “floor” on the value of the consideration payable to shareholders, which establishes the lowest possible price payable. In other cases, the parties limit the stock component of the consideration (and thus the volatility in the value of the consideration), by agreeing that the shareholders will receive cash and stock in exchange for their shares. Such transactions also often include a “collar,” which establishes parameters that attempt to minimize the impact of stock price fluctuations on the value of the consideration payable to shareholders. The Merger Agreement contains none of these protections. Rather, the Merger Agreement contains a fixed exchange ratio of 0.447 which means that in addition to the cash component, Jagged Peak shareholders will receive 0.447 shares of Parsley common stock for each of their shares, regardless of the stock price at the close of the Transaction. Thus, the consideration payable to Jagged Peak shareholders is not insulated from fluctuations in Parsley Energy’s stock price – which has fluctuated significantly in the weeks since the announcement and failed to return to the price implied as of October 11th - and shareholders are left in the precarious position of not knowing whether the consideration payable to them will decline further. 66. Finally, the Proposed Transaction contains no “majority of the minority provision.” This coupled with the voting agreement which majority stockholder Quantum entered into creates a near certainty that the Proposed Transaction will be consummated, no matter the votes of the minority stockholders. 67. These provisions, individually and collectively, materially and improperly impede the Board’s ability to fulfill its fiduciary duties with respect to fully and fairly investigating and pursuing other reasonable and more valuable proposals and alternatives in the best interests of the Company and its public stockholders. 14

68. Accordingly, the Company’s true value is compromised by the consideration offered in the Proposed Transaction. Potential Conflicts of Interest 69. The breakdown of the benefits of the deal indicate that Jagged Peak insiders are the primary beneficiaries of the Proposed Transaction, not the Company’s public stockholders. The Board and the Company’s executive officers are conflicted because they will have secured unique benefits for themselves from the Proposed Transaction not available to Plaintiff and the public stockholders of Jagged Peak. 70. Certain insiders stand to receive financial benefits as a result of the Proposed Transaction. Notably, Company insiders, including the Individual Defendants, currently own large, illiquid portions of Company stock that will be exchanged for large Parsley stock blocks upon the consummation of the Proposed Transaction. 71. While the S-4 does not specifically indicate the amount of outstanding large illiquid blocks of Company stock Company insiders own, the Company’s most recent proxy statement indicates that ownership of such blocks is as follows: Percentage of Outstanding Number of Common Common Shares Beneficially Name of Beneficial Owner(1) Shares Beneficially Owned Owned 5% or Greater Stockholders: Q-Jagged Peak Energy Investment Partners, LLC(2) 146,337,026 68.7 % T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.(3) 14,154,019 6.6 % Wellington Management Group LLP(4) 11,824,247 5.6 % Directors and Named Executive Officers: James J. Kleckner 104,709 (6) * % Joseph N. Jaggers 5,225,297 (7) 2.5 % Robert W. Howard 1,805,987 * % Craig R. Walters 38,730 * % Christopher I. Humber 69,834 * % J. Jay Stratton, Jr. 65,681 (8) * % Charles D. Davidson 11,000 * % S. Wil VanLoh, Jr.(2)(5) 0 0 % Blake A. Webster 0 0 % Roger L. Jarvis 34,187 * % Michael C. Linn 24,187 * % John R. Sult 49,187 * % Dheeraj Verma 0 0 % All current directors and executive officers as a group (Eleven Persons) 2,090,234 * % 72. Furthermore, upon the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, each outstanding Company option or equity award, will be canceled and converted into the right to receive certain consideration according to the merger agreement as follows: 15

Number of Shares Subject to Outstanding Jagged Peak Restricted Stock Units Executive Name (#) James J. Kleckner 225,089 Robert W. Howard 161,274 Christopher I. Humber 88,876 Craig R. Walters 105,904 Number of Shares Subject to Outstanding Jagged Peak Restricted Stock Units and Vested Deferred Shares Director Name (#) Charles D. Davidson — Roger L. Jarvis 16,730 Janeen S. Judah 17,418 Michael C. Linn 16,730 Adrianna C. Ma 19,393 John R. Sult 26,981 (1) S. Wil VanLoh, Jr. — Dheeraj Verma — Blake A. Webster — Number of Shares Subject to Number of Shares Subject to Outstanding Jagged Peak Outstanding Jagged Peak Performance Stock Units at Performance Stock Units at Target Maximum Executive Name (#) (#) James J. Kleckner 413,813 827,626 Robert W. Howard 221,000 442,000 Christopher I. Humber 121,813 243,626 Craig R. Walters 222,023 444,046 73. Moreover, certain employment agreements with certain Jagged Peak executives, entitle such executives to severance packages should their employment be terminated under certain circumstances. These packages are significant, and will grant each director or officer entitled to them millions of dollars, compensation not shared by Jagged Peak’s common stockholders. 74. Additionally, as stated in the S-4 at least two members of the Jagged Peak board will be appointed to the Parsley board immediately after the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, gaining further consideration for company insiders not shared amongst the public stockholders of the Company. 16

75. These payouts will be paid to Company insiders, as a consequence of the Proposed Transaction’s consummation, as follows: Golden Parachute Compensation. Cash Equity Benefits Total ($)(1) ($)(2) ($)(3) ($) James J. Kleckner $ 3,200,000 $ 5,335,821 $ 27,743 $ 8,563,564 Robert W. Howard — $ 5,028,222 $ 19,233 $ 5,047,455 Christopher I. Humber $ 1,597,221 $ 1,614,739 $ 27,558 $ 3,239,518 Craig R. Walters $ 2,060,000 $ 2,857,971 $ 27,743 $ 4,945,714 76. Thus, while the Proposed Transaction is not in the best interests of Jagged Peak stockholders, it will produce lucrative benefits for the Company’s officers and directors. The Materially Misleading and/or Incomplete S-4 77. On November 5, 2019, the Jagged Peak Board and Parsley caused to be filed with the SEC a materially misleading and incomplete S-4 that, in violation their fiduciary duties, failed to provide the Company’s stockholders with material information and/or provides them with materially misleading information critical to the total mix of information available to the Company’s stockholders concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the Proposed Transaction. Omissions and/or Material Misrepresentations Concerning the Sales Process Leading Up to the Proposed Transaction 78. Specifically, the S-4 fails to provide material information concerning the process conducted by the Company and the events leading up to the Proposed Transaction. In particular, the S-4 fails to disclose: a. Why no committee of independent board members was created to run the sales process; b. Why no majority of the minority provision was included in the merger agreement to protect the rights of minority stockholders; c. The specific reasoning as to why Quantum representatives were present and participated in meetings between the Company’s financial advisor(s) and the Company Board and/or executives; d. The nature of any specific standstill restrictions arising out of the terms of any of the non-disclosure agreements entered into between Jagged Peak on the one hand and any interested third party, including Parsley, on the other, and if the terms of any included “don’t-ask, don’t-waive” provisions or standstill 17

provisions in any such agreements, and if so, the specific conditions, if any, under which such provisions would fall away; e. The nature of any differences that exist between the various non-disclosure agreements entered into between Jagged Peak and any interested third parties; f. Under what circumstances the additional $1 million fee would be paid to RBC; and g. Communications regarding post-transaction employment during the negotiation of the underlying transaction must be disclosed to stockholders. This information is necessary for stockholders to understand potential conflicts of interest of management and the Board, as that information provides illumination concerning motivations that would prevent fiduciaries from acting solely in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders. Omissions and/or Material Misrepresentations Concerning Jagged Peak’s and Parsley’s Financial Projections 79. The S-4 fails to provide material information concerning financial projections provided by Jagged Peak and Parsley management and relied upon by Citigroup, RBC Capital, and TPH in their analyses. The S-4 discloses management-prepared financial projections for the Company and Parent which are materially misleading. The S-4 indicates that in connection with the rendering of their fairness opinions, Citi, RBC Capital, and TPH reviewed financial forecasts and/or financial projections of Jagged Peak and Parsley, prepared by Jagged Peak management and Parsley management. Accordingly, the S-4 should have, but fails to provide, certain information in the projections that Jagged Peak management and Parsley management provided to the Board, Citigroup, RBC Capital, and TPH. Courts have uniformly stated that “projections … are probably among the most highly-prized disclosures by investors. Investors can come up with their own estimates of discount rates or [] market multiples. What they cannot hope to do is replicate management’s inside view of the company’s prospects.” In re Netsmart Techs., Inc. S’holders Litig., 924 A.2d 171, 201-203 (Del. Ch. 2007) 80. With respect to the “Jagged Peak Projections for Jagged Peak” the S-4 fails to provide material information concerning the financial projections prepared by Jagged Peak management. Specifically, the S-4 fails to disclose material line items for Non-GAAP metrics. 81. Specifically, the S-4 provides non-GAAP financial metrics, but fails to disclose a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics, including – a. For Oil and Gas Strip Pricing EBITDA and Wall Street Consensus EBITDA: i. Earnings, interest, taxes, depreciation, depletion and amortization, and exploration expense; 18

b. For Oil and Gas Strip Pricing Adjusted EBITDA and Wall Street Consensus Adjusted EBITDA: i. Earnings, interest, taxes, depreciation, depletion and amortization, exploration expense, and certain non-recurring, non-cash and other items; c. For Oil and Gas Strip Pricing Free Cash Flows and Wall Street Consensus Free Cash Flows: i. Interest Expense and Cash taxes. 82. With respect to the “Jagged Peak Projections for Parsley” the S-4 fails to provide material information concerning the financial projections prepared by Jagged Peak management. Specifically, the S-4 fails to disclose material line items for Non-GAAP metrics. 83. Specifically, the S-4 provides non-GAAP financial metrics, but fails to disclose a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics, including – a. For Oil and Gas Strip Pricing EBITDA and Wall Street Consensus EBITDA: i. Earnings, interest, taxes, depreciation, depletion and amortization, and exploration expense; b. For Oil and Gas Strip Pricing Adjusted EBITDA and Wall Street Consensus Adjusted EBITDA: i. Earnings, interest, taxes, depreciation, depletion and amortization, exploration expense, and certain non-recurring, non-cash and other items; c. For Oil and Gas Strip Pricing Free Cash Flows and Wall Street Consensus Free Cash Flows: i. Interest Expense and Cash taxes. 84. With respect to the “Parsley Management Projection for Parsley,” for both “Parsley Case A” and “Parsley Case B” the S-4 fails to provide material information concerning the financial projections prepared by Parsley management. Specifically, the S-4 fails to disclose material line items for Non-GAAP metrics. 85. Specifically, the S-4 provides non-GAAP financial metrics, but fails to disclose a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics, including – a. For NYMEX Strip EBITDAX, Wall Street Consensus EBITDAX, and Three- Year Historical Average EBITDAX: 19

i. Earnings, interest, income taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization, and exploration expense. 86. With respect to the “Parsley Management Projection for Jagged Peak”, for both “Jagged Peak Case A” and “Jagged Peak Case B” the S-4 fails to provide material information concerning the financial projections prepared by Parsley management. Specifically, the S-4 fails to disclose material line items for Non-GAAP metrics. 87. Specifically, the S-4 provides non-GAAP financial metrics, but fails to disclose a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics, including – a. For NYMEX Strip EBITDAX, Wall Street Consensus EBITDAX, and Three- Year Historical Average EBITDAX: i. Earnings, interest, income taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization, and exploration expense. 88. With respect to the “Certain Additional Parsley Management Projection for Parsley and Jagged Peak”, for “Parsley Case A”, “Parsley Case B”, “Jagged Peak Case A”, and “Jagged Peak Case B” the S-4 fails to provide material information concerning the financial projections prepared by Parsley management. Specifically, the S-4 fails to disclose material line items for Non-GAAP metric. 89. Specifically, the S-4 provides non-GAAP financial metrics, but fails to disclose a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics, including – a. For EBITDAX; i. Earnings, interest, income taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization, and exploration expense. 90. This information is necessary to provide Company stockholders a complete and accurate picture of the sales process and its fairness. Without this information, stockholders were not fully informed as to Defendants’ actions, including those that may have been taken in bad faith, and cannot fairly assess the process. 91. Without accurate projection data presented in the S-4, Plaintiff and other stockholders of Jagged Peak are unable to properly evaluate the Company’s true worth, the value of the merger consideration, the accuracy of Citigroup, RBC Capital, and TPH’s financial analyses, or make an informed decision whether to vote their Company stock in favor of the Proposed Transaction. As such, the Board has breached their fiduciary duties by failing to include such information in the S-4. Omissions and/or Material Misrepresentations Concerning the Financial Analyses by Citigroup 20

92. In the S-4, Citigroup describes its respective fairness opinion and the various valuation analyses performed to render such opinion. However, the descriptions fail to include necessary underlying data, support for conclusions, or the existence of, or basis for, underlying assumptions. Without this information, one cannot replicate the analyses, confirm the valuations or evaluate the fairness opinions. 93. With respect to the Selected Public Companies Analysis for Jagged Peak, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. Why only five companies were chosen to compare, one of which was Parsley; b. The specific benchmark multiples for each Comparable Company; c. The specific benchmark multiples for Jagged Peak. 94. With respect to the Selected Public Companies Analysis for Parsley, the S-4 fails to disclose the following a. The specific benchmark multiples for each Comparable Company; b. The specific benchmark multiples for Jagged Peak. 95. With respect to the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for Jagged Peak, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The basis for and specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the EBITDA Multiples of 4.5x to 5.5x; b. The UFCF for 2019-2023, including the underlying line items; c. The net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards projected during the forecasted period; d. The terminal values for the Company; and e. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount Rate range of 9.0% to 10.3%. 96. With respect to the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for Parsley, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The basis for and specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the EBITDA Multiples of 4.5x to 5.5x; b. The UFCF for 2019-2023, including the underlying line items; 21

c. The net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards projected during the forecasted period; d. The terminal values for Parsley; and e. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount rate range of 8.2% to 9.5%. 97. With respect to the Net Present Value Analysis for Jagged Peak, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount rate range of 9.0% to 10.3%; b. The NOLs expected during the forecasted period; c. The UFCF projected, and associated line items, from undeveloped resources/ proven reserves; and d. The Company’s net debt. 98. With respect to the Net Present Value Analysis for Parsley, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount rate range of 8.2% to 9.5%; b. The NOLs expected during the forecasted period; c. The UFCF projected, and associated line items, from undeveloped resources/ proven reserves; and d. The Company’s net debt. 99. These disclosures are critical for stockholders to be able to make an informed decision on whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. Omissions and/or Material Misrepresentations Concerning the Financial Analyses by RBC Capital 100. In the S-4, RBC Capital describes its respective fairness opinion and the various valuation analyses performed to render such opinion. However, the descriptions fail to include necessary underlying data, support for conclusions, or the existence of, or basis for, underlying assumptions. Without this information, one cannot replicate the analyses, confirm the valuations or evaluate the fairness opinions. 22

101. With respect to the Jagged Peak Net Value Analysis, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount Rate range of 9.0% to 11.0%, including – i. RPC Capital’s estimate of Jagged Peak’s weighted average cost of capital. 102. With respect to the Jagged Peak Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount rate range of 9.0% to 11.0%; b. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the terminal multiples range of 3.0x to 4.0x 2025E EBITDA; and c. The Company’s terminal values, net debt and number of fully-diluted shares utilized in the analysis. 103. With respect to the Parsley Net Value Analysis, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount rate range of 8.5% to 10.5%, including – i. RPC Capital’s estimate of Parsley’s weighted average cost of capital. 104. With respect to the Parsley Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount rate range of 8.5% to 10.5%; b. Parsley’s terminal values, net debt and number of fully-diluted shares utilized in the analysis; and c. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the terminal multiples range of 3.50x to 4.50x 2025E EBITDA. 105. These disclosures are critical for stockholders to be able to make an informed decision on whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. Omissions and/or Material Misrepresentations Concerning the Financial Analyses by TPH 23

106. In the S-4, TPH describes its respective fairness opinion and the various valuation analyses performed to render such opinion. However, the descriptions fail to include necessary underlying data, support for conclusions, or the existence of, or basis for, underlying assumptions. Without this information, one cannot replicate the analyses, confirm the valuations or evaluate the fairness opinions. 107. With respect to the Selected Precedent Transactions Analysis, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The total value of each selected transaction; b. The specific date on which each selected transaction closed; c. The specific benchmark multiples for each transaction. 108. With respect to the Jagged Peak Net Value Analysis, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount rate range of 8.5% to 11.0%, including – i. TPH’s estimate of Jagged Peak’s weighted average cost of capital; b. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the assumed tax rate of 21% for Jagged Peak. 109. With respect to the Parsley Net Value Analysis, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount rate range of 8.5% to 10.5%, including – i. TPH’s estimate of Parsley’s weighted average cost of capital; b. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the assumed tax rate of 19% for Parsley. 110. With respect to the Jagged Peak Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount rate range of 8.5% to 11.0%, including – i. TPH’s estimate of Jagged Peak’s weighted average cost of capital; 24

b. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the terminal value range of 3.25x to 4.75x. 111. With respect to the Parsley’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the S-4 fails to disclose the following: a. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the Discount rate range of 8.5% to 10.5%, including – i. TPH’s estimate of Parsley’s weighted average cost of capital; b. The specific inputs and assumptions used to calculate the terminal value range of 3.50x to 5.00x. 112. These disclosures are critical for stockholders to be able to make an informed decision on whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. 113. Without the omitted information identified above, Jagged Peak’s public stockholders are missing critical information necessary to evaluate whether the proposed consideration truly maximizes stockholder value and serves their interests. Moreover, without the key financial information and related disclosures, Jagged Peak’s public stockholders cannot gauge the reliability of the fairness opinion and the Board’s determination that the Proposed Transaction is in their best interests. As such, the Board has breached their fiduciary duties by failing to include such information in the Preliminary Stockholders. THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ FIDUCIARY DUTIES 114. In any situation where the directors of a publicly traded corporation undertake a transaction that will result in either a change in corporate control or a break-up of the corporation’s assets, the directors have an affirmative fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of the company’s stockholders, including the duty to obtain maximum value under the circumstances. To diligently comply with these duties, the directors may not take any action that: (a) adversely affects the value provided to the corporation’s stockholders; (b) will discourage or inhibit alternative offers to purchase control of the corporation or its assets; (c) contractually prohibits them from complying with their fiduciary duties; and/or (d) will provide the directors, executives or other insiders with preferential treatment at the expense of, or separate from, the public stockholders, and place their own pecuniary interests above those of the interests of the company and its stockholders. 115. In accordance with their duties of loyalty and good faith, the Individual Defendants, as directors and/or officers of Jagged Peak, are obligated to refrain from: 25

(a) participating in any transaction where the directors’ or officers’ loyalties are divided; (b) participating in any transaction where the directors or officers are entitled to receive a personal financial benefit not equally shared by the public stockholders of the corporation; and/or (c) unjustly enriching themselves at the expense or to the detriment of the public stockholders. 116. Plaintiff alleges herein that the Individual Defendants, separately and together, in connection with the Proposed Transaction, violated, and are violating, the fiduciary duties they owe to Plaintiff and the other public stockholders of Jagged Peak, including their duties of loyalty, good faith, candor, and due care. As a result of the Individual Defendants’ divided loyalties, Plaintiff and Class members will not receive adequate, fair or maximum value for their Jagged Peak common stock in the Proposed Transaction. 117. As a result of these breaches of fiduciary duty, the Company’s public stockholders will not receive adequate or fair value for their common stock in the Proposed Transaction. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 118. Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and as a class action pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 on behalf of all holders of Jagged Peak common stock who are being and will be harmed by the Individual Defendants’ actions, described herein (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are Defendants and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with any Defendant. 119. This action is properly maintainable as a class action because, inter alia: a. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Jagged Peak’s stock is publicly traded on the NYSE and Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds if not thousands of holders of such shares. Moreover, the holders of these shares are geographically dispersed throughout the United States; b. There are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class and which predominate over questions affecting any individual Class member. These common questions include, inter alia: (i) whether the Individual Defendants have engaged in self-dealing, to the detriment of Jagged Peak’s public stockholders; (ii) whether the Proposed Transaction is unfair to the Class, in that the price is inadequate and is not the fair value that could be obtained under the circumstances; and (iii) whether the Class is entitled to injunctive relief and/or damages as a result of the wrongful conduct committed by Defendants; 26

c. Plaintiff is committed to prosecuting this action and has retained competent counsel experienced in litigation of this nature. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class and Plaintiff has the same interests as the other members of the Class. Accordingly, Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class; d. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, or adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; and e. Defendants have acted, or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to, and causing injury to, the Class and, therefore, preliminary and final injunctive relief on behalf of the Class as a whole is appropriate. FIRST COUNT Class Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against the Individual Defendants 120. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation set forth herein. 121. The Director Defendants are knowingly or recklessly and in bad faith violating fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of Jagged Peak and have acted to put their personal interests ahead of the interests of Jagged Peak stockholders. 122. By the acts, transactions and courses of conduct alleged herein, the Director Defendants, individually and as a part of a common plan, have acted knowingly or recklessly and in bad faith. 123. The Director Defendants have knowingly or recklessly and in bad faith violated their fiduciary duties by approving the Proposed Transaction without regard to the fairness of the transaction to Jagged Peak stockholders and by failing to disclose all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to such stockholders. 124. As demonstrated by the allegations above, the Director Defendants are knowingly or recklessly violating their fiduciary duties because, among other reasons: a. they are taking steps to avoid competitive bidding, by, among other things, failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirers or alternative transactions; b. they are ignoring or are not protecting against the conflicts of interest resulting from the directors’ own interrelationships or connection with the Proposed Transaction; and 27

c. they are failing to disclose all material information that would permit Jagged Peak’s stockholders to cast a fully informed vote on the Proposed Transaction, including both financial information and regulatory information which may materially affect the Company and the its stockholders. 125. Because the Director Defendants dominate and control the business and corporate affairs of Jagged Peak, and are in possession of private corporate information concerning Jagged Peak’s assets, business and future prospects, there exists an imbalance and disparity of knowledge and economic power between them and the public stockholders of Jagged Peak which makes it inherently unfair for them to pursue any proposed transaction wherein they will reap disproportionate benefits to the exclusion of maximizing shareholder value. 126. By reason of the foregoing acts, practices and course of conduct, the Director Defendants are knowingly or recklessly and in bad faith failing to exercise ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of their fiduciary obligations toward Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. 127. Unless enjoined by this Court, the Director Defendants will continue to knowingly or recklessly and in bad faith breach their fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and the Class, and may consummate the Proposed Transaction which will exclude the Class from its fair share of Jagged Peak’s valuable assets and businesses, and/or benefit them in the unfair manner complained of herein, all to the irreparable harm of the Class. 128. The Director Defendants are engaging in self-dealing, are not acting in good faith toward Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, and knowingly or recklessly have breached and are continuing to breach their fiduciary duties to the members of the Class. 129. As a result of the Director Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are being harmed in that Director Defendants will deprive Plaintiff and the entire Class of a fair sale process. Unless the Proposed Transaction is enjoined by the Court, the Director Defendants will continue to knowingly or recklessly and in bad faith breach their fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and the members of the Class, will not engage in arm’s-length negotiations on the Proposed Transaction terms, and will not supply to Jagged Peak’s stockholders sufficient information to enable them to cast informed votes on the Proposed Transaction and may consummate the Proposed Transaction, all to the irreparable harm of the members of the Class. 130. Plaintiff and the members of the Class have an inadequate remedy at law. Only through the exercise of this Court’s equitable powers can Plaintiff and the Class be fully protected from the immediate and irreparable injury which the Director Defendants’ actions threaten to inflict. SECOND COUNT Class Claim for Aiding and Abetting Against Parsley Energy and Merger Sub 28

131. Plaintiff repeats all previous allegations as if set forth in full herein. 132. As alleged in more detail above, Defendants Parsley Energy and Merger Sub have aided and abetted the Individual Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties. 133. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class members are being harmed. 134. Plaintiff and the Class have no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands injunctive relief, in his favor and in favor of the Class, and against the Defendants, as follows: (a) Declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a class action, certifying Plaintiff as Class representative and certifying his counsel as class counsel; (b) Declaring and decreeing that the Proposed Transaction was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the Individual Defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable, and rescinding and invalidating any merger agreement or other agreements that Defendants entered into in connection with, or in furtherance of, the Proposed Transaction; (c) Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, counsel, employees and all persons acting in concert with them from consummating the Proposed Transaction; (d) Directing the Individual Defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of Jagged Peak’s stockholders; (e) Imposing a constructive trust, in favor of Plaintiff and the Class, upon any benefits improperly received by Defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct; (f) Awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees; and (g) Granting such other and further equitable relief as this Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all claims so triable. 29

Dated: November 12, 2019 Respectfully submitted, BERENS LAW LLC By: /s/ Jeffrey A. Berens_________ Jeffrey A. Berens (#28007) 2373 Central Park Boulevard, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80238 Telephone: (303) 861-1764 Facsimile: (303) 861-1764 Email: jeff@jberenslaw.com Local Counsel for Plaintiff Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice to be Submitted): BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Marc L. Ackerman Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 (610) 667-6200 (610) 667-9029 (fax) Plaintiff’s Address: 2767 Longleaf Pines Dr., Kingwood, Texas 30

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KELLY SMALL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. ) v. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) JAGGED PEAK ENERGY INC., JAMES J. ) KLECKNER, CHALES D. DAVIDSON, ) ROGER L. JARVIS, JANEEN S. JUDAH, ) MICHAEL C. LINN, ADRIANNA C. MA, ) JOHN R. SULT, S. WIL VANLOH JR., ) DHEERAJ VERMA, and BLAKE A. ) WEBSTER, ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Plaintiff, Kelly Small, by his undersigned attorneys, for this complaint against Defendants, alleges upon personal knowledge with respect to himself, and upon information and belief based upon, inter alia, the investigation of counsel, as to all other allegations herein, as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action brought by Plaintiff against Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (“Jagged Peak” or the “Company”) and the members of the Company’s board of directors (collectively referred to as the “Board” or the “Individual Defendants” and, together with the Company, the “Defendants”) for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78n(a), 78t(a) respectively, and United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9. Plaintiff’s claims arise in connection with the proposed acquisition of Jagged Peak by Parsley Energy, Inc. (“Parsley”). 2. On October 14, 2019, Jagged Peak and Parsley entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the “Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which Jackal Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parsley (“Merger Sub”), will be merged with and into Jagged Peak, with Jagged Peak 1

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 2 of 25 surviving the merger (the “initial merger” and the surviving entity, the “First Interim Corporation”), and the First Interim Corporation will be merged with and into another wholly owned subsidiary of Parlsey (“LLC Sub”), with LLC Sub continuing as the surviving entity as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parsley (the “subsequent merger” and together with the initial merger, the “integrated mergers” or the “Proposed Transaction”). 3. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Jagged Peak’s shareholders will be entitled to receive 0.447 shares of Parlsey Class A common stock (the “Exchange Ratio” or the “Merger Consideration”). Based on the trading price of Parlsey Class A common stock at closing on the last day before the Proposed Transaction was announced, the Merger Consideration was worth approximately $7.59 per share of Jagged Peak common stock. 4. On or about November 5, 2019, in order to convince Jagged Peak’s public common stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading S-4 Registration Statement (the “Registration Statement”) with the SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. 5. In particular, the Registration Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the background of the Proposed Transaction and the valuation analyses performed by Jagged Peak’s financial advisors, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citi”) and RBC Capital Markets, LLC (“RBCCM” and together with Citi, the “Financial Advisors”) regarding the Proposed Transaction. 6. The Proposed Transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of fiscal 2020 and the special meeting of the Company’s shareholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction is scheduled for January 9, 2020. Therefore, it is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Registration Statement is disclosed prior to the special meeting, so Plaintiff can properly exercise his corporate voting rights. 2

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 3 of 25 7. For these reasons, and as set forth in detail herein, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information discussed below is disclosed to Jagged Peak’s public common stockholders sufficiently in advance of the upcoming shareholder vote or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants’ violations of the Exchange Act. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has jurisdiction over all claims asserted herein pursuant to Section 27 of the 1934 Act because the claims asserted herein arise under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9. 9. Personal jurisdiction exists over each Defendant either because the Defendant conducts business in or maintains operations in this District, or is an individual who is either present in this District for jurisdictional purposes or has sufficient minimum contacts with this District as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over each Defendant by this Court permissible under the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. “Where a federal statute such as Section 27 of the [Exchange] Act confers nationwide service of process, the question becomes whether the party has sufficient contacts with the United States, not any particular state.” Sec. Inv’r Prot. Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1315 (9th Cir. 1985). “[S]o long as a defendant has minimum contacts with the United States, Section 27 of the Act confers personal jurisdiction over the defendant in any federal district court.” Id. at 1316. 10. Venue is proper in this District under Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, as well as 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because Defendants are found or are inhabitants or transact business in this District. Indeed, Jagged Peak’s common stock trades on the New York Stock 3

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 4 of 25 Exchange (“NYSE”), which is headquartered in this District. See, e.g., United States v. Svoboda, 347 F.3d 471, 484 n.13 (2d Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). PARTIES 11. Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, the owner of Jagged Peak common stock. 12. Defendant Jagged Peak, a Delaware Corporation, is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company with operations in the southern Delaware Basin, a sub- basing of the Permian Basin in West Texas. Jagged Peak has its principal executive offices located at 1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 1800, Denver, Colorado 80202. Jagged Peak’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the ticker symbol “JAG.” 13. Individual Defendant James J. Kleckner (“Kleckner”) is, and has been at all relevant times, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Company. 14. Individual Defendant Charles D. Davidson (“Davidson”) is, and has been at all relevant times, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors. 15. Individual Defendant Roger L. Jarvis (“Jarvis”) is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. 16. Individual Defendant Janeen S. Judah (“Judah”), is and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. 17. Individual Defendant Michael C. Linn (“Linn”) is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. 18. Individual Defendant Adrianna C. Ma (“Ma”) is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. 19. Individual Defendant John R. Sult (“Sult”) is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. 4

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 5 of 25 20. Individual Defendant S. Wil VanLoh, Jr. (“VanLoh”) is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. 21. Individual Defendant Dheerag Verma (“Verma”) is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. 22. Individual Defendant Blake A. Webster (“Webster”) is, and has been at all relevant times, a director of the Company. 23. The Defendants identified in paragraphs 13 through 22 are collectively referred to herein as the “Board” or the “Individual Defendants,” and together with the Company, the “Defendants.” SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS Background of the Company and the Proposed Transaction 24. Jagged Peak is an independent oil and natural gas company focused on the acquisition and development of unconventional oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the Southern Delaware Basin, a sub-basin of the Permian Basin of West Texas. Jagged Peak’s acreage is located on large, contiguous blocks in the adjacent counties of Winkler, Ward, Reeves and Pecos, with significant oil-in-place within multiple stacked hydrocarbon-bearing formations. 25. Jagged Peak was formed in September 2016 as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jagged Peak Energy LLC (“JPE LLC”), which was formed by an affiliate of Quantum Energy Partners (“Quantum”) and former members of Jagged Peak’s management team, to act as the holding company of JPE LLC in connection with Jagged Peak’s initial public offering, which was initiated on January 27, 2017. 26. Jagged Peak maintains a substantial portfolio of asset reserves. With approximately 75,000 net acres in the adjacent counties of Winkler, Ward, Reeves and Pecos, Jagged Peak has identified more than 2,000 drilling locations targeting significant oil-in-place within multiple stacked 5

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 6 of 25 hydrocarbon-bearing formations. These assets are positioned to perform well due to the abundant amount of oil-in-place, stacked pay potential, low breakeven prices, attractive well economics, favorable operating environment and in-place midstream infrastructure. 27. In light of this portfolio of assets, Jagged Peak had exceptional long-term prospects prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. As the Company announced in its August 9, 2019 Press Release entitled Jagged Peak Energy Inc. Announces Second Quarter 2019 Financial and Operating Results: Jim Kleckner, President and Chief Executive Officer, commented, "I am pleased with our Company's execution and performance through the first half of the year, with our DC&E costs down significantly from 2018. We continue to be intently focused on creating additional value through further reductions of these DC&E costs and preserving our high operating margins. Leveraging these efficiency gains will remain an important part of our business as we move to development projects in 2019 and 2020. During the quarter, we started operations on the six-well Coriander pad. The wells have been drilled and the completions are progressing on schedule to deliver first production in the next few weeks. Also during the quarter, we turned online two wells in the Big Tex area and have seen encouraging initial results. While it's too early to make a full assessment of these results, we remain cautiously optimistic on the future optionality of our Big Tex area." 28. Indeed, on the analyst conference call that accompanied the August 9, 2019 Press Release, Kleckner boasted that Jagged Peak’s second quarter results were “continued examples” of Jagged Peak’s execution on its strategy to remain “focused on its core competencies of operational execution by running this business as effectively as possible.” 29. Kleckner further explained that the Company was poised to achieve positive free cash flow in the near future: “By focusing on items within our control, we plan to continue to grow our asset base, keep leverage in check and get to a point where we’ll be in a position to provide free cash flow back to our investors.” 30. Thus, the Proposed Transaction comes at a time when Jagged Peak’s recent and future success was not fully reflected by its share price. The Proposed Transaction will “compensate” Jagged Peak’s stockholders with Merger Consideration that fails to adequately compensate them for 6

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 7 of 25 the intrinsic value of their shares. 31. Despite Jagged Peak’s intrinsic value and growth prospects, the Individual Defendants are agreeing to a merger that deprives Jagged Peak’s public stockholders of the ability to partake in the Company’s individual growth and instead dilutes the value of their Jagged Peak stock with an inadequate interest in Parsley. The Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Jagged Peak’s stockholders by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction for the unfair Merger Consideration, and by allowing the unfair and flawed sales process to unfold in the manner that it did, which will cause Plaintiff and the Class to receive an inadequate Merger Consideration while Company insiders receive millions of dollars in severance payments and accelerated stock unit vesting and two of the Individual Defendants will be appointed to act as directors of the combined company. The Announcement of the Proposed Transaction 32. Prior to the opening of U.S. stock markets on October 14, 2019, Jagged Peak and Parsley issued a joint press release to announce the Proposed Transaction: PARSLEY ENERGY ANNOUNCES ACQUISITION OF JAGGED PEAK ENERGY IN ALL-STOCK TRANSACTION; MODEST PREMIUM ACQUISITION ENHANCES 2020 FREE CASH FLOW AUSTIN, Texas and DENVER, Oct. 14, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Parsley Energy, Inc. (NYSE: PE) ("Parsley," or "Parsley Energy") and Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (NYSE: JAG) ("Jagged Peak") today announced they have entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Parsley will acquire Jagged Peak in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $2.27 billion, including Jagged Peak's net debt of approximately $625 million as of June 30, 2019. Under the terms of the agreement, Jagged Peak shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.447 shares of Parsley Class A common stock for each share of Jagged Peak common stock they own. This represents $7.59 per Jagged Peak share based on Parsley's closing price on October 11, 2019, and a premium of 1.5% compared to Jagged Peak's 30- day volume weighted average price and 11.2% compared to Jagged Peak's closing price on October 11, 2019. The transaction, which is expected to close in the first quarter of 2020, has been unanimously approved by each company's board of directors. Following the close of the transaction, Parsley shareholders will own approximately 77% of the combined company, and Jagged Peak shareholders will own approximately 23% of the combined company, in each case on a fully diluted basis. The all-stock transaction is intended to be tax-free to Jagged Peak shareholders. 7

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 8 of 25 Key Transaction Highlights  Complementary, High-Margin Delaware Basin Footprint: Parsley possesses an institutional familiarity with Jagged Peak's Delaware Basin assets, with the majority of the acreage directly offsetting Parsley's legacy position. Furthermore, Jagged Peak's high- margin, oil-weighted asset base will integrate smoothly into Parsley's near-term development program. On a pro forma basis, Parsley will have approximately 267,000 net acres in the Permian, comprised of 147,000 net acres in the Midland Basin and a highly contiguous 120,000 net acre footprint in the Delaware Basin.  Accretive on Key Metrics: Parsley expects the low-premium transaction to be immediately accretive to key metrics in 2020, including: cash flow per share, free cash flow per share, cash return on capital invested, and net asset value.  Corporate Cost Optimization Accrues to Shareholders: The combination is expected to generate cash general and administrative ("G&A") savings of approximately $25 million in the first year and $40-50 million of annual savings thereafter, translating to a net present value of $250-300 million. Parsley expects this synergy to facilitate margin expansion and enhance corporate free cash flow.(1)  Additional Synergies Clearly Identified: In addition to G&A savings, Parsley has identified further synergies that are anticipated to be realized over time: o Capital Efficiency Gains: Parsley and Jagged Peak have seen material improvements in recent Delaware Basin well costs. Sustained drilling and completion efficiency improvements coupled with the supply chain advantages of optimized scale have facilitated a material reduction in Parsley's Delaware Basin well costs during 2019. Parsley estimates its current average drilling, completion and equipment cost in the Delaware Basin are $1,100-$1,150 per lateral foot. Parsley believes applying its scale advantages and employing collaborative best practices can translate to well cost savings of at least $100 per lateral foot across Jagged Peak's remaining inventory in the Delaware Basin. o Overlapping Acreage: The combination of Parsley's and Jagged Peak's acreage positions will create a highly contiguous, interlocking footprint in the Delaware Basin that allows for a more optimized lease geometry with additional extended lateral wells. Additionally, the close proximity of Jagged Peak's acreage supports additional operational efficiencies. o Expansive Company-Owned Water Infrastructure Network: Jagged Peak has invested nearly $90 million developing significant fresh and produced water infrastructure across its acreage position, which is located nearby Parsley's existing water assets. Integration of Jagged Peak's water infrastructure network increases corporate flexibility and operational scale. o Cost of Capital Advantages: Parsley believes this transaction can accelerate progress toward an investment grade credit profile, which could help facilitate opportunistic debt refinancing in the future.  Maintains Strong Balance Sheet: An all-stock transaction ensures the combined company will retain a strong balance sheet with a pro forma net leverage ratio of 1.6x LTM adjusted earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization, and exploration expense. Parsley expects to maintain its dividend per share at current levels in the near term, 8

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 9 of 25 with the anticipated free cash flow enhancements from this transaction expected to support increased return of capital in the future. Finally, both Parsley and Jagged Peak recently added to their respective 2020 hedge positions, and a majority of the combined company's expected 2020 oil production is subject to hedge protection. For details on Parsley and Jagged Peak's respective hedge positions, please see the presentation posted to each company's website that supplements the information in this release. Management Commentary "The combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak is a natural fit," said Matt Gallagher, Parsley's President and CEO. "Jagged Peak's oily, high-margin asset base slots in nicely to our returns- focused development approach, its acreage footprint and water infrastructure dovetails into our legacy Delaware Basin position, and its corporate culture aligns with our core values. In short, we now have a premier Delaware Basin business that rivals our foundational Midland Basin business. This transaction also creates tangible synergies that will enhance our corporate free cash flow profile and will be shared by the combined shareholder base. Ultimately, I am proud of the high level of execution Parsley has delivered throughout 2019, and I am excited by the prospects of what the combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak can deliver for shareholders in 2020." Jim Kleckner, President and Chief Executive Officer of Jagged Peak, commented, "The combined assets of Jagged Peak and Parsley Energy are a great fit that create a stronger combined Permian company. The pro-forma company provides our shareholders with premier acreage in both the Midland and Delaware sub-basins, while providing additional scale, significant operational synergies, and free cash flow in this competitive environment. Our team has made tremendous progress to increase efficiencies as we evolved to pad development on our acreage position. We look forward to working closely with Parsley to ensure that we provide an efficient changeover of asset-level institutional knowledge, so our shareholders and the shareholders of Parsley Energy can reap the maximized benefits of this transaction." S. Wil VanLoh, Jr., a Jagged Peak director and the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Quantum Energy Partners, Jagged Peak's controlling shareholder, commented, "The inevitable consolidation in the Permian has started and Jagged Peak made a decisive move to team up with the right partner. Quantum has known Bryan, Matt and the Parsley team for many years and has tremendous respect for the industry-leading execution capabilities and top-tier rock they possess. The combination of the two companies will create a unique platform that will benefit from scale, capital allocation optionality, and peer-leading economics (IRRs, oil- weighting and netback margins) that we believe will represent one of the most compelling investment vehicles in the Permian. We look forward to partnering with the Parsley team as they mature into a Permian pure-play large cap. I would also like to thank every current and former employee of Jagged Peak for creating a great private equity success story and for positioning Jagged Peak's shareholders for continued value creation in a very tough macro energy environment. It's been an honor being your partner." Third Quarter Operational Update Activity Overview For the third quarter of 2019, Parsley expects net oil production of 91.2-91.7 MBo per day, translating to 5-6% quarter-over-quarter growth. During 3Q19, Parsley placed on production 9

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 10 of 25 35 gross operated horizontal wells with an average working interest of approximately 95% and an average completed lateral length of approximately 10,000 feet. Parsley expects to report third quarter capital expenditures of approximately $315-325 million. Third quarter development spending decreased relative to second quarter spending, driven by lower well costs, fewer net completions, and quarter-over-quarter decreases in facilities and infrastructure spending. Preliminary Pro Forma 2020 Outlook  Parsley remains committed to a growing free cash flow profile that returns capital to shareholders. Parsley continues to use a $50 WTI oil price assumption for its baseline capital budget in 2020.  Parsley estimates that capital expenditures of $1.6-$1.9 billion will translate to oil production of 126-134 MBO per day in 2020, representing healthy year-over-year production growth. Both production and capital expenditure range estimates assume a full-year of contribution from Jagged Peak.  Parsley plans to deploy 15 development rigs and four-to-five frac spreads on average in 2020. Parsley anticipates five of its development rigs will operate in the Delaware Basin, where Parsley has seen a material reduction in well costs in 2019. Governance and Leadership The boards of directors at both Parsley and Jagged Peak have unanimously approved the transaction and recommended that their respective shareholder groups approve the transaction. Upon closing, Parsley's board of directors will be expanded to eleven directors to include two members from the current Jagged Peak board of directors. The combined company will be led by Parsley's executive management team and will remain headquartered in Austin, Texas. Timing and Approvals The transaction, which is expected to close during the first quarter of 2020, is subject to customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals, including the approval of Parsley and Jagged Peak shareholders. Jagged Peak's controlling shareholder, Quantum Energy Partners, which owns approximately 68 percent of the outstanding voting shares of Jagged Peak, has committed to vote its shares in favor of the transaction. The Preclusive Deal Protection Devices 33. To the detriment of the Company’s public shareholders, the Individual Defendants agreed, in the Merger Agreement, to certain onerous and preclusive deal protection devices that operate conjunctively to make the Proposed Transaction a fait accompli and all but ensure that the Proposed Transaction is consummated and that no competing offers emerge for the Company. 10

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 11 of 25 34. Section 6.3 of the Merger Agreement (“No Solicitation by the Company”) is a restrictive “no-shop” provision that prohibits the members of the Board from soliciting proposals relating to alternative offers or business combinations. 35. Section 6.3 of the Merger Agreement strictly prohibits, except under extremely limited circumstances, the Individual Defendants from engaging in discussions or negotiations relating to proposals regarding alternative acquisitions or business combinations 36. Section 6.3(c) of the Merger Agreement also requires the Board to provide Parsley with written notice of any Company Competing Proposal within the shorter of one Business Day and forty-eight (48) hours of its receipt, and Section 6.3(d) further requires that the Board provide prior written notice of its intention to terminate the Merger Agreement due to receipt of a Company Superior Proposal so that Parsley may negotiate with Jagged Peak following Parsley’s receipt of a Company Superior Proposal by adjusting the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement so that the Company Competing Proposal ceases to be a Superior Offer. 37. In addition, the Merger Agreement provides that the Company will be required to pay to Parsley a termination fee of $57,400,000.00 with respect to any termination under the No-Shop provisions of the Merger Agreement. 38. The Merger Agreement also provides that the Company will be required to pay to Parsley an expenses “reimbursement” up to $16,400,000.00 with respect to any termination of the Merger Agreement as a result of the failure to obtain approval of the Jagged Peak stockholders. 39. Ultimately, these preclusive deal protection devices restrained and continue to restrain the Company's ability to solicit or engage in negotiations with any third party regarding a proposal to acquire all or a significant interest in the Company, and further restrain the Company’s public stockholders’ ability to disapprove the Proposed Transaction. 40. Indeed, the Proposed Transaction was negotiated through a flawed and conflicted 11

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 12 of 25 sales process pursuant to which Jagged Peak did not actually entertain any competing offers from other counterparties in spite of their interest because Jagged Peak did not perform a market check and rushed the few potential counterparties that had expressed interest in acquiring Jagged Peak without any solicitation. 41. The aggregate effect of the preclusive deal protection devices, viewed in light of the materially inadequate consideration offered for the Company’s shares in the Proposed Transaction and the flawed and conflicted sales process pursuant to which the Proposed Transaction was negotiated, supports an inference that the Board was not acting in good faith in approving the terms of the Merger Agreement. 42. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief to prevent the irreparable injury that the Company’s shareholders will continue to suffer absent judicial intervention. The Registration Statement Omits Material Information 43. On or about November 5, 2019, in order to convince Jagged Peak’s public common stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Defendants authorized the filing of the materially incomplete and misleading Registration Statement with the SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. 44. The special meeting of Jagged Peak stockholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction is forthcoming. The Individual Defendants were obligated to carefully review the Registration Statement before it was filed with the SEC and disseminated to the Company’s shareholders to ensure that it did not contain any material misrepresentations or omissions. However, the Registration Statement misrepresents or omits material information that is necessary for the Company’s shareholders to make an informed voting decision in connection with the Proposed Transaction. 45. Specifically, the Registration Statement omits two types of material information: (i) information regarding the background of the transaction and the Individual Defendants’ potential conflicts of interest, and (ii) information that renders the Company’s Financial Advisors’ fairness 12

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 13 of 25 analysis materially false, misleading, or incomplete. A. The Registration Statement Omits Material Information Regarding the Background of the Transaction 46. The Registration Statement fails to disclose whether any potential counterparties other than Parsley were and/or remain subject to standstill obligations. Indeed, the Registration Statement states that Parsley and Jagged Peak “entered into a mutual confidentiality agreement on customary terms, including reciprocal standstill obligations” on September 3, 2019. Registration Statement, 63. However, the Registration Statement further states that Jagged Peak entered a “mutual confidentiality agreement” with Company E on September 17, 2019 but fails to disclose whether the confidentiality agreement with Company E also included standstill obligations. Id. Likewise, the Registration Statement states that Jagged Peak entered a “mutual confidentiality agreement” with Company A on September 30, 2019 but again fails to disclose whether the confidentiality agreement with Company E also included standstill obligations. Id., 65. Whether Jagged Peak entered into standstill agreements with these parties, or any other potential counterparties for that matter, is material information that must be disclosed before Jagged Peak’s public shareholders vote on the Proposed Transaction. 47. Further, assuming that any potential counterparties executed standstill obligations, the Registration Statement fails to disclose which, if any, of those standstill agreements included “Don’t Ask Don’t Waive” (“DADW”) clauses and which ones included “fall-away” provisions that terminated the standstill obligations upon Jagged Peak’s announcement of the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement further states that “Jagged Peak has agreed not to (and it will cause its subsidiaries not to) terminate, amend, modify or waive any provision of any confidentiality, “standstill” or similar agreement to which it or any of its subsidiaries is a party. However, prior to, but not after, the time the Jagged Peak merger proposal has been approved by the Jagged Peak 13

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 14 of 25 stockholders, if, in response to an unsolicited request from a third party to wave any “standstill” or similar provision, the Jagged Peak board determines in good faith . . . that the failure to take such action would be inconsistent with the fiduciary duties owed by the Jagged Peak board to the stockholders of Jagged Peak under applicable law, Jagged Peak may waive such “standstill” or similar provision . . . .” Registration Statement, 151. If the standstill provisions included DADW provisions, the implication that these parties may make an “unsolicited request” that Jagged Peak waive the standstill obligations is misleading because it suggests to Jagged Peak’s public shareholders that these parties can still submit a competing proposal when they cannot do so without breaching their standstill obligations. See, e.g., In re Ancestry.com, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 7988- CS, at *26-27 (Del. Ch. Dec. 17, 2012) (Transcript Ruling) (ECF No. 10-2). 48. On October 9, 2019 and October 11, 2019, just days before the Proposed Transaction was announced, Company A and Company E, respectively “formally declined” to pursue a transaction with Jagged Peak. Registration Statement, 66. The Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) what reasons, if any, Company A and/or Company E gave for declining to further pursue a transaction with Jagged Peak, and (ii) whether Jagged Peak gave a fast deadline for Company A or Company E to provide a proposal. As Jagged Peak and Parsley announced the Proposed Transaction just days after Company A and Company E “formally declined” to further pursue a transaction and the Registration Statement leaves open the possibility that Company A and/or Company E remain subject to standstill obligations with DADW provisions, any reasonable stockholder would wonder whether Company A and/or Company E may have made a superior offer if they had more time to develop a proposal. 49. The Registration Statement fails to provide any details regarding the “updates” that were made when Craig R. Walters, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Jagged Peak “updated the Jagged Peak board regarding Jagged Peak’s long-range forecast” on September 26, 2019. Registration Statement, 64, 83-84. 14

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 15 of 25 B. The Registration Statement Omits Material Information Regarding the Financial Advisors’ Fairness Analysis 50. The Registration Statement also omits material information regarding the Company’s Financial Advisors’ Fairness Opinion and the various valuation analyses that the Company’s Financial Advisors performed to render the opinion but fails to provide enough information regarding the necessary data, support for conclusions, or the existence of, or basis for, the underlying assumptions that underpin the fairness opinion. Specifically, the Registration Statement does not disclose enough information regarding the financial projections, inputs and assumptions for various financial valuations. Without this information, stockholders cannot replicate the analyses, confirm the valuations, evaluate the Financial Advisors’ opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair, or accurately assess the reliability of the Fairness Opinion. The informative value of the Fairness Opinion is not in its conclusions, but in the valuation analyses that support them. Thus, the key inputs, which are intrinsically baked into those conclusions, must also be fairly disclosed. 51. With respect to the management projections, the Registration Statement fails to disclose material information. With respect to these financial projections, directors are obligated to provide complete valuation metrics to shareholders, particularly in cash-out transactions where non- GAAP metrics were used by the banker, since such metrics are not uniformly defined and shareholders are therefore unable to assess the utility and legitimacy of the actual metrics without seeing the underlying components. Notably, the Registration Statement fails to provide all of the financial projections provided by the companies’ management and relied upon by the Company’s Financial Advisors in rendering their opinions. 52. The Registration Statement fails to provide Jagged Peak Management Projections for the pro forma combined company and Jagged Peak Management Projections for expected synergies. Page 74 of the Registration Statement states that one of the primary factors that Board “viewed as 15

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 16 of 25 generally positive or favorable to its determination, approval and related recommendation” was the “Benefits of a Combined Company” as a result of “the potential operating synergies” between the two companies. The Registration Statement discloses the synergies expected by Parsley management but fails to disclose how Jagged Peak management adjusted the synergies projections provided by Parsley. 53. With respect to the Jagged Peak Management Projections for Jagged Peak and Parsley beginning on Page 84 and Page 86, the Registration Statement fails to provide financial projections for the following items: (i) Taxes (or tax rate), (ii) Stock-based compensation expense, (iii) Changes in net working capital, (iv) Adjusted Depreciation & Amortization, (v) Interest expense, and (vi) Any other line items used in the calculation of free cash flow. 54. Further, the Registration Statement states that RBCCM relied on projections of Calendar Year 2025 EBITDA for purposes of the Discounted Cash Flow analyses found on Pages 113 and 115 but the Jagged Peak Management Projections for Jagged Peak and Parsley beginning on Pages 84 and 86 only provide projections through Calendar Year 2024. 55. With respect to Citi’s Selected Public Companies Analyses beginning on Page 103 and Page 104, the Registration Statement fails to disclose (i) the objective criteria that Citi relied on in selecting the purportedly comparable companies, (ii) the individual trading multiples for the selected companies, (iii) the enterprise valuations of each selected company, and (iv) the Company’s projected 2019 and 2020 Cash Flow Per Share as derived by Citi. As just five (5) companies were selected as comparable to Jagged Peak and just eight (8) companies were selected as comparable to Parsley, the failure to disclose this information is misleading to investors who are left uncertain whether the results provide a fair benchmark on which to value Jagged Peak and Parsley. See, e.g., Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil Co., Case No. 5278, 1983 Del. Ch. LEXIS 570, at *71-72 (Del. Ch. Sept. 19, 1983) (rejecting analysis that used “smaller oil and gas producing companies as opposed to a major 16

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 17 of 25 integrated company such as [the appraised company]”), aff’d, 493 A.2d 929 (Del. 1985). Further, while RBCCM’s analysis discloses individual multiples for many of the companies included in Citi’s Selected Public Companies Analyses, the multiples RBCCM derived are inconsistent with the multiples that Citi derived. Compare Registration Statement, 104 (stating that the Calendar Year 2019 and 2020 Adjusted EBITDA multiples for Parsley were 5.3x and 4.5x, respectively) with Registration Statement, 112 (stating that the Calendar Year 2020 and 2021 Enterprise Value/EBITDA multiples for Parsley were 4.3x and 4.0x, respectively). 56. With respect to Citi’s Discounted Cash Flow Analyses, (“DCF”) beginning on Page 105, the Registration Statement fails to: (i) disclose Citi’s rationale and basis for selecting a discount rate range of 9.0% to 10.3% for Jagged Peak but a discount rate range of 8.2% to 9.5% for Parsley, (ii) disclose Citi’s rationale and basis for calculating the implied terminal value ranges by applying a selected range of adjusted EBITDA multiples of 4.5x to 5.5x to Jagged Peak’s and Parsley’s fiscal year 2023 estimated adjusted EBITDA, and (iii) provide a sensitivity table that presents the derived enterprise values across the full range of discount rates, terminal values, and projected cash flows. As the analysis suggests that the Exchange Ratio may be inadequate, the Proxy is misleading without full disclosure of all of the DCF inputs and results. 57. All of this information is material to shareholders, and the omission of this information renders the summary of the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis incomplete and misleading. As one highly-respected law professor explained regarding these crucial inputs, in a discounted cash flow analysis a banker takes management’s forecasts, and then makes several key choices “each of which can significantly affect the final valuation.” Steven M. Davidoff, Fairness Opinions, 55 Am. U.L. Rev. 1557, 1576 (2006). Such choices include “the appropriate discount rate, and the terminal value…” Id. As Professor Davidoff explains: There is substantial leeway to determine each of these, and any change can markedly affect the discounted cash flow value. For example, a change in 17

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 18 of 25 the discount rate by one percent on a stream of cash flows in the billions of dollars can change the discounted cash flow value by tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars….This issue arises not only with a discounted cash flow analysis, but with each of the other valuation techniques. This dazzling variability makes it difficult to rely, compare, or analyze the valuations underlying a fairness opinion unless full disclosure is made of the various inputs in the valuation process, the weight assigned for each, and the rationale underlying these choices. The substantial discretion and lack of guidelines and standards also makes the process vulnerable to manipulation to arrive at the “right” answer for fairness. This raises a further dilemma in light of the conflicted nature of the investment banks who often provide these opinions. Id. at 1577-78 (emphasis added). 58. With respect to Citi’s Net Asset Value Analyses beginning on Page 105, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) Citi’s rationale and basis for selecting a discount rate range of 9.0% to 10.3% for Jagged Peak but a discount rate range of 8.2% to 9.5% for Parsley. 59. With respect to RBCCM’s Selected Companies Analyses beginning on Page 112 and Page 114, the Registration Statement fails to disclose the enterprise valuations of each selected company. As just eight (8) companies were selected as comparable to Jagged Peak and just twelve (12) companies were selected as comparable to Parsley, the failure to disclose this information is misleading to investors who are left uncertain whether the results provide a fair benchmark on which to value Jagged Peak and Parsley. Indeed, it appears that the selected companies for which RBCCM observed the highest multiples were selected as comparable to Parsley but not Jagged Peak, likely because their Enterprise Values were between $10 billion and $25 billion. See, e.g., Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil Co., Case No. 5278, 1983 Del. Ch. LEXIS 570, at *71-72 (Del. Ch. Sept. 19, 1983) (rejecting analysis that used “smaller oil and gas producing companies as opposed to a major integrated company such as [the appraised company]”), aff’d, 493 A.2d 929 (Del. 1985). 60. With respect to RBCCM’s Net Asset Value Analyses beginning on Page 113 and Page 114, the Registration Statement fails to fully disclose: (i) RBCCM’s rationale for selecting discount rate ranges of 9.0% to 11.0% for Jagged Peak but 8.5% to 10.5% for Parsley because it does not 18

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 19 of 25 disclose the “size premium” applied for each of Jagged Peak and Parsley in selecting these discount rate ranges. 61. With respect to RBCCM’s Discounted Cash Flow Analyses beginning on Page 113 and Page 115, the Registration Statement fails to: (i) fully disclose RBCCM’s rationale and basis for selecting a discount rate range of 9.0% to 11.0% for Jagged Peak but a discount rate range of 8.5% to 10.5% for Parsley because it does not disclose the “size premium” applied for each of Jagged Peak and Parsley, (ii) fully disclose RBCCM’s rationale and basis for calculating the terminal value ranges by using terminal multiples ranging from 3.0x to 4.0x calendar year 2025E EBITDA but 3.50x to 4.50x calendar year 2025E EBITDA for Parsley, (iii) disclose the Calendar Year 2025E projected free cash flows on which the analyses were based, (iv) disclose the calendar year 2025E EBITDA amounts from which the terminal values were derived based on the multiples ranges that RBCCM selected, and (v) provide a sensitivity table that presents the derived enterprise values across the full range of discount rates, terminal values, and projected cash flows. 62. Finally, although the analyses performed by Parsley’s financial advisors, Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. Advisors LP (“TPH”) suggest the Proposed Transaction should provide a substantial premium for the Company’s stockholders even though the Proposed Transaction contemplates stock consideration, the fairness analyses by Jagged Peak’s Financial Advisors do not provide any research on what constitutes a typical premium in comparable transactions. Compare Registration Statement, 90 (observing Value/2019E EBITDAX trading multiples ranging from 3.2x to 6.6x) with Registration Statement, 93 (observing transaction value/one-year forward EBITDAX multiples with a mean of 6.7x in 100% equity transactions), see also Registration Statement, 96 (Premiums Paid Analysis). Given that the press release announcing the Proposed Transaction itself described the premium as “modest,” this information bears directly on the fairness of the Exchange Ratio and its omission renders the presentation of the other fairness analyses results misleading and 19

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 20 of 25 incomplete. 63. If a proxy discloses financial projections and valuation information, such projections and valuations must be complete, accurate, and honest. The question is not simply whether there is a duty to speak, but also whether there may be liability for not having spoken enough. With regard to future events, uncertain figures, and other so-called soft information, a company may choose silence or speech elaborated by the factual basis as then known—but it may not choose half-truths. See Campbell v. Transgenomic, et al., No. 18-2198 (8th Cir., March 1, 2019) (noting that “half-truths” are actionable misrepresentations under securities laws and collecting cases). Accordingly, Defendants have disclosed some of the information related to the projections, assumptions, and inputs relied upon by Defendants’ financial advisors, but have omitted crucial line items, reconciliations, and other information. Thus, Defendants’ omission renders the projections disclosed in the Registration Statement misleading. 64. In sum, the omission of the above-referenced information renders the Registration Statement materially incomplete and misleading, in contravention of the Exchange Act. Absent disclosure of the foregoing material information prior to the upcoming shareholder vote concerning the Proposed Transaction, Plaintiff will be unable to make an informed decision regarding whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, and is thus threatened with irreparable harm, warranting the injunctive relief sought herein. COUNT I (Against All Defendants for Violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9) 65. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 66. Section 14(a)(1) of the Exchange Act makes it “unlawful for any person, by the use of the mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of any facility of a national 20

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 21 of 25 securities exchange or otherwise, in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors, to solicit or to permit the use of his name to solicit any proxy or consent or authorization in respect of any security (other than an exempted security) registered pursuant to section 78l of this title.” 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a)(1). 67. Rule 14a-9, promulgated by the SEC pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, provides that proxy communications shall not contain “any statement which, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein not false or misleading.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9. 68. The omission of information from a proxy will violate Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 if other SEC regulations specifically require disclosure of the omitted information. 69. Defendants have issued the Registration Statement with the intention of soliciting the Company’s common shareholders’ support for the Proposed Transaction. Each of the Individual Defendants reviewed and authorized the dissemination of the Registration Statement, which fails to provide critical information regarding the valuation analyses performed by the Company’s Financial Advisors in support of its fairness opinion. 70. In so doing, Defendants made untrue statements of fact and/or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. Each of the Individual Defendants, by virtue of their roles as officers and/or directors, were aware of the omitted information but failed to disclose such information, in violation of Section 14(a). The Individual Defendants were therefore negligent, as they had reasonable grounds to believe material facts existed that were misstated or omitted from the Registration Statement, but nonetheless failed to obtain and disclose such information to the Company’s shareholders although they could have done so without extraordinary effort. 21

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 22 of 25 71. The Individual Defendants knew or were negligent in not knowing that the Registration Statement is materially misleading and omits material facts that are necessary to render it not misleading. The Individual Defendants undoubtedly reviewed and relied upon most if not all of the omitted information identified above in connection with their decision to approve and recommend the Proposed Transaction; indeed, the Registration Statement states that the Company’s Financial Advisors reviewed and discussed its financial analyses with the Board, and further states that the Board considered the financial analyses provided by the Company’s Financial Advisors, as well as its fairness opinion and the assumptions made and matters considered in connection therewith. Further, the Individual Defendants were privy to and had knowledge of the projections for the Company and the details surrounding the process leading up to the signing of the Merger Agreement. The Individual Defendants knew or were negligent in not knowing that the material information identified above has been omitted from the Registration Statement, rendering the sections of the Registration Statement identified above to be materially incomplete and misleading. Indeed, the Individual Defendants were required to, separately, review the Company’s Financial Advisors’ analyses in connection with their receipt of the fairness opinions, question the Company’s Financial Advisors as to its derivation of fairness, and be particularly attentive to the procedures followed in preparing the Registration Statement and review it carefully before it was disseminated, to corroborate that there are no material misstatements or omissions. 72. The Individual Defendants were, at the very least, negligent in preparing and reviewing the Registration Statement. The preparation of a proxy statement by corporate insiders containing materially false or misleading statements or omitting a material fact constitutes negligence. The Individual Defendants were negligent in choosing to omit material information from the Registration Statement or failing to notice the material omissions in the Registration Statement upon reviewing it, which they were required to do carefully as the Company’s directors. 22

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 23 of 25 Indeed, the Individual Defendants were intricately involved in the process leading up to the signing of the Merger Agreement and preparation and review of the Company’s financial projections. 73. The Company is also deemed negligent as a result of the Individual Defendants’ negligence in preparing and reviewing the Registration Statement. 74. The misrepresentations and omissions in the Registration Statement are material to Plaintiff, who will be deprived of his right to cast an informed vote if such misrepresentations and omissions are not corrected prior to the Shareholder Vote. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Only through the exercise of this Court’s equitable powers can Plaintiff be fully protected from the immediate and irreparable injury that Defendants’ actions threaten to inflict. COUNT II (Against the Individual Defendants for Violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act) 75. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 76. The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of the Company within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as officers and/or directors of the Company, and participation in and/or awareness of the Company’s operations and/or intimate knowledge of the incomplete and misleading statements contained in the Registration Statement filed with the SEC, they had the power to influence and control and did influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision making of the Company, including the content and dissemination of the various statements that Plaintiff contends are materially incomplete and misleading. 77. Each of the Individual Defendants was provided with or had unlimited access to copies of the Registration Statement and other statements alleged by Plaintiff to be misleading prior to and/or shortly after these statements were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of the 23

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 24 of 25 statements or cause the statements to be corrected. 78. In particular, each of the Individual Defendants had direct and supervisory involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Company, and, therefore, is presumed to have had the power to control or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the Exchange Act violations alleged herein, and exercised the same. The Registration Statement contains the unanimous recommendation of each of the Individual Defendants to approve the Proposed Transaction. They were thus directly involved in preparing this document. 79. In addition, as the Registration Statement sets forth at length, and as described herein, the Individual Defendants were involved in negotiating, reviewing, and approving the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement purports to describe the various issues and information that the Individual Defendants reviewed and considered. The Individual Defendants participated in drafting and/or gave their input on the content of those descriptions. 80. By virtue of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. 81. As set forth above, the Individual Defendants had the ability to exercise control over and did control a person or persons who have each violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 by their acts and omissions as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as controlling persons, these Defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As a direct and proximate result of Individual Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed. 82. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Only through the exercise of this Court’s equitable powers can Plaintiff be fully protected from the immediate and irreparable injury that Defendants’ actions threaten to inflict. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows: 24

Case 1:19-cv-10698 Document 1 Filed 11/19/19 Page 25 of 25 A. Preliminarily enjoining Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with the Shareholder Vote or consummating the Proposed Transaction, unless and until the Company discloses the material information discussed above which has been omitted from the Registration Statement; B. Directing the Defendants to account to Plaintiff for all damages sustained as a result of their wrongdoing; C. Awarding Plaintiff, the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees and expenses; and D. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Dated: November 19, 2019 MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC By: /s/ Juan E. Monteverde __________ Juan E. Monteverde (JM-8169) OF COUNSEL: The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite ADEMI & O’REILLY, LLP 4405 New York, NY 10118 Guri Ademi Tel:(212) 971-1341 Jesse Fruchter Fax:(212) 202-7880 3620 East Layton Avenue Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Cudahy, Wisconsin 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: gademi@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 25

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. SHERRIE WYNNE, Plaintiff, v. JAGGED PEAK ENERGY INC., CHARLES D. DAVIDSON, ROGER L. JARVIS, JANEEN S. JUDAH, MICHAEL C. LINN, ADRIANNA C. MA, JOHN R. SULT, S. WIL VANLOH, JR., DHEERAJ VERMA, and BLAKE A. WEBSTER, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Sherrie Wynne (“Plaintiff”), by her attorneys, alleges upon information and belief, except for her own acts, which are alleged on knowledge, as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff brings this action against Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (“Jagged Peak” or the “Company”) and the Company’s Board of Directors (collectively, the “Board” or the “Individual Defendants,” as further defined below) for violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15.U.S.C. §§ 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9, in connection with the proposed merger of Jagged Peak with Parsley Energy, Inc. (“Parent”) and Jackal Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub,” and together with Parent, “Parsley”). Specifically, Defendants solicit stockholder approval in connection with the sale of the Company through a proxy statement that omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein not 1

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 25 false or misleading. Stockholders need this material information to decide whether to vote in favor of the merger. 2. On October 14, 2019, the Company announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) with Parsley pursuant to which Jagged Peak will be merged with and into Parsley. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Jagged Peak’s stockholders will receive 0.447 shares of Parsley common stock for each share of Jagged Peak common stock they own (the “Merger Consideration”) in a transaction valued at approximately $2.27 billion (the “Proposed Transaction”). 3. In connection with the Proposed Transaction, on November 5, 2019, the Company authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading registration statement on Form S- 4 Registration Statement (the “Registration Statement”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Specifically, the Registration Statement is materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material information about (i) the analyses performed by the Company’s financial advisors in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citi”) and RBC Capital Markets, LLC (“RBC” and with Citi the “Financial Advisors”); (ii) potential conflicts of interest involving the financial advisors; and (iii) the terms of the confidentiality agreements Jagged Peak agreed to. 4. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as Jagged Peak stockholders need such information in order to make a fully-informed decision in connection with the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction. 5. For these reasons and as set forth in detail herein, the Individual Defendants have violated federal securities laws. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction 2

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 25 or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual Defendants’ violations of these laws. Judicial intervention is warranted here to rectify existing and future irreparable harm to the Company’s stockholders. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. The claims asserted herein arise under §§ 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to § 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78aa, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). 7. The Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because each conducts business in and maintains operations in this District or is an individual who either is present in this District for jurisdictional purposes or has sufficient minimum contacts with this District as to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 8. Venue is proper in this District under § 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78aa, as well as pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because: (i) the conduct at issue took place and had an effect in this District; (ii) Jagged Peak maintains its principal place of business in this District and each of the Individual Defendants, and Company officers or directors, either resides in this District or has extensive contacts within this District; (iii) a substantial portion of the transactions and wrongs complained of herein, occurred in this District; (iv) most of the relevant documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s claims are stored (electronically and otherwise), and evidence exists, in this District; and (v) defendants have received substantial compensation in this District by doing business here and engaging in numerous activities that had an effect in this District. PARTIES 9. Plaintiff is, and has been at all relevant times, the owner of shares of Jagged Peak common stock. 3

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 25 10. Defendant Charles D. Davidson is Chairman of the Board of the Company. He has served as a director of the Company since 2016. 11. Defendant Roger L. Jarvis is a director of the Company. He has served as a director of the Company since 2017. 12. Defendant Janeen S. Judah is a director of the Company. She has served as a director of the Company since 2019. 13. Defendant Michael C. Linn is a director of the Company. He has served as a director of the Company since 2017. 14. Defendant Adrianna C. Ma is a director of the Company. She has served as a director of the Company since 2019. 15. Defendant John R. Sult is a director of the Company. He has served as a director of the Company since 2017. 16. Defendant S. Wil VanLoh, Jr. is a director of the Company. He has served as a director of the Company since 2016. 17. Defendant Dheeraj Verna is a director of the Company. He has served as a director of the Company since 2017. 18. Defendant Blake A. Webster is a director of the Company. He has served as a director of the Company since 2016. 19. Defendants Webster, Verna, VanLoh, Sult, Ma, Linn, Judah, Jarvis, and Davidson, are collectively referred to as “Individual Defendants” and/or the “Board.” 20. Defendant Jagged Peak Energy Inc. is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company focused on the acquisition and development of unconventional oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the southern Delaware Basin. 4

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 25 Prior to Jagged Peak’s incorporation in the state of Delaware in September 2016 and subsequent initial public offering in January 2017, Jagged Peak was originally formed as a limited liability company in April 2013 by an affiliate of Quantum Energy Investment Partners (“Quantum”) and former members of its management team at the time. Shares of Jagged Peak’s common stock are traded on the NYSE under the symbol “JAG.” The principal executive offices of Jagged Peak are located at 1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 1800, Denver, Colorado 80202. 21. The Individual Defendants and Jagged Peak are referred to collectively herein as “Defendants.” OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES 22. Parsley is an independent oil and natural gas company focused on the acquisition, development, exploration and production of unconventional oil and natural gas properties in the Permian Basin. The Permian Basin is located in west Texas and southeastern New Mexico and is characterized by high oil and liquids-rich natural gas content, multiple vertical and horizontal target horizons, extensive production histories, long-lived reserves and historically high drilling success rates. Parsley’s properties are located in two sub areas of the Permian Basin, the Midland and Delaware Basins, where, given the associated returns, it focuses predominantly on horizontal development drilling. Shares of Parsley common stock are traded on the NYSE under the symbol “PE.” The principal executive offices of Parsley are located at 303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000, Austin, Texas 78701. FURTHER SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS Background 23. In late spring and early summer 2019, at the request of the Jagged Peak board, Jagged Peak’s management engaged in a broad based strategic review of Jagged Peak’s assets and other potential opportunities to enhance stockholder value, including acquisition opportunities and 5

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 25 potential sales. This broad strategic review, which was assisted by Citi, led to a number of discussions with potential third-party acquirers. 24. On May 1, 2019, Dheeraj Verma, a director of Jagged Peak, met with members of a publicly traded oil and gas producer (“Company A”) about the industry generally and the Permian Basin specifically. At this meeting, Mr. Verma and the representatives of Company A discussed the possibility of a merger of Jagged Peak and Company A. 25. On May 30, 2019, Wil VanLoh, also a director of Jagged Peak, had dinner with Bryan Sheffield, the Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board of Parsley and Matt Gallagher, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Parsley. During the course of dinner, Mr. Sheffield inquired as to whether the Jagged Peak board would consider a potential combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak. 26. On June 24, 2019, Defendants VanLoh and Verma met with principals of a private equity firm that sponsors a private exploration and production company (“Company B”). Among other things discussed at this meeting was a potential combination of Jagged Peak and Company B. 27. Jagged Peaks outreach to Company A, Company B, and Parsley, were discussed on August 2, 2019, at the Jagged Peak board’s regularly scheduled quarterly meeting. During this meeting, the Jagged Peak board directed management to broadly review potential M&A transactions, including acquisitions, mergers of equals and other strategic combinations. 28. On August 8, 2019, Defendant VanLoh discussed the possibility of combining Jagged Peak with another publicly traded Permian Basin exploration and production company (“Company C”) with Company C. That same day, Defendant VanLoh met with executives from Parsley, indicating that Parsley remained interested in discussing a potential strategic combination 6

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 25 with Jagged Peak, and inquiring as to the status of Jagged Peak and Quantum’s consideration of the idea. 29. Over the next two weeks, Parsley executives held high-level discussion with Defendant VanLoh and James J. Kleckner, Jagged Peak’s Chief Executive Officer, about a potential strategic combination involving Parsley and Jagged Peak. 30. On August 22, 2019, Defendant VanLoh met with the chief executive officer of a publicly traded, multi-basin oil and gas producer (“Company D”) to discuss a potential acquisition. 31. On September 3, 2019, Parsley and Jagged Peak entered into a mutual confidentiality agreement on customary terms, including reciprocal standstill obligations, and began exchanging due diligence information. 32. On September 6, 2019, Defendant Verma had a telephonic meeting with the chief executive officer and the executive vice president of a publicly traded exploration and production company (“Company E”), regarding Company E’s potential interest in a strategic combination with Jagged Peak. 33. That same day, the Jagged Peak board held a meeting attended by Jagged Peak’s management. At this meeting, Mr. Kleckner updated the Jagged Peak board on Jagged Peak’s ongoing review of strategic opportunities, including recent discussions with Parsley regarding a potential transaction with Jagged Peak at an exchange ratio of 0.40 of a share of Parsley Class A common stock for each outstanding share of Jagged Peak common stock. 34. On September 11, 2019, Mr. Kleckner met with Company E’s chief executive officer at Company E’s request, regarding Company E’s potential interest in a strategic combination with Jagged Peak, and scheduled a management meeting between the two companies to be held on September 20, 2019. 7

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 25 35. On September 12, 2019, the management teams of Parsley and Jagged Peak met to exchange technical information and evaluate the potential economic and strategic merits of a strategic combination between Parsley and Jagged Peak. 36. On September 13, 2019, Company B’s chief executive officer contacted Defendant VanLoh to express interest in discussing a potential strategic combination of Jagged Peak and Company B once Company B completed the sale of one of its subsidiary businesses, which was expected to occur by the end of the year. 37. That same day, representatives of Jagged Peak management and Quantum met with representatives of Citi regarding potential merger partners and, after considering confidentiality concerns, likelihood of consummation and the attractiveness of the counterparties, narrowed the list to six potential counterparties, including Parsley, Company A and Company E. Three of the other potential counterparties discussed were determined to be unlikely to transact primarily as a result of their current share price and trading multiples, asset mix and/or recent transaction history. 38. On September 19, 2019, Jagged Peak received a non-binding proposal to combine Parsley and Jagged Peak (the “September 19th proposal”) in a stock-for-stock transaction. The non-binding proposal offered to exchange each outstanding share of Jagged Peak common stock for 0.410 of a share of Parsley Class A common stock. 39. Four days later, on September 23, 2019, the Jagged Peak board held a meeting to discuss the negotiations with Parsley and the September 19th proposal. Following these discussions, the Jagged Peak board determined that additional discussions with Parsley should be pursued, but that it was premature to engage in merger agreement negotiations or agree to exclusivity as the Jagged Peak board was considering a number of different potential strategic opportunities, including Company A, Company B and Company E. 8

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 25 40. On September 30, 2019, Jagged Peak and Company A entered into a mutual confidentiality agreement and began exchanging due diligence information. 41. On October 4, 2019, the Jagged Peak board held a meeting to discuss the interest from Parsley, Company A and Company E, and concluded that a transactions with Parsley, Company A, or Company E at a modest premium was preferable to an at-the-market combination or even a modest premium transaction with Company D. As a result, the Jagged Peak board determined to not pursue a combination with Company D. During this same meeting, Citi discussed with the Jagged Peak board certain information regarding Citi’s material investment banking relationships with 42. Jagged Peak, Quantum, Parsley, Company A and Company E. Following Citi’s presentation, the Jagged Peak board determined to engage an additional financial advisor and instructed Robert W. Howard, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Jagged Peak, to contact RBCCM, which also has had an investment banking relationship with Jagged Peak. Lastly, the Jagged Peak board discussed a potential response to Parsley while allowing Company A and Company E time to provide indications of interest by October 9, 2019. After reviewing trading data, the Jagged Peak board instructed management to contact Parsley and propose an exchange ratio of 0.480 of a share of Parsley Class A common stock for each outstanding share of Jagged Peak common stock. 43. That same day, Parsley responded to Jagged Peak’s counterproposal and indicated that it was at a higher premium than the Parsley board would be comfortable pursuing and, therefore, Parsley was not interested in continuing discussions. 44. From October 4 through October 9, 2019, Jagged Peak continued to work with Company A and Company E on their respective due diligence reviews. 9

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 25 45. On October 9, 2019, Company A formally declined to pursue a transaction with Jagged Peak and Company E requested additional time to consider a transaction with Jagged Peak. 46. Between October 9th and October 11th, executives at Parsley communicated to Jagged Peak that the Parsley board would be willing to re-engage in discussions with Jagged Peak if the proposed transaction were to include an exchange ratio that would result in Parsley’s stockholders owning approximately 77% of the combined company and if Jagged Peak were willing to negotiate a merger agreement expeditiously. 47. On October 11, 2019, Company E formally declined to further pursue a transaction with Jagged Peak. 48. With only Parsley remaining as a potential merger partner, the two entities moved quickly to try and finalize a transaction. On October 13, 2019, the Parsley and Jagged Peak management teams, together with Vinson & Elkins and Kirkland and representatives of Quantum, met in-person at Vinson & Elkins’s offices. After extensive discussion, the parties agreed to the following resolution of the key open points: (i) the exchange ratio would be 0.447 of a share of Parsley Class A common stock for each outstanding share of Jagged Peak common stock; (ii) Jagged Peak’s board would have the right to change its recommendation, but not the right to terminate the merger agreement for a superior proposal; and (iii) Parsley would not be permitted to entertain alternative proposals. 49. The following day, the Jagged Peak board held a meeting attended by Jagged Peak’s management and representatives of each of Vinson & Elkins and Jagged Peak’s financial advisors. At this meeting, Citi rendered an opinion to the Jagged Peak board to the effect that the exchange ratio provided for pursuant to the merger agreement was fair, from a financial point of view, to holders of Jagged Peak common stock. In addition, RBCCM rendered an opinion to the 10

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 25 Jagged Peak board to the effect that, the exchange ratio was fair, from a financial point of view, to holders of eligible shares of Jagged Peak common stock. Prior to the end of the meeting, the Jagged Peak board unanimously (i) determined that the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger of merger sub with and into Jagged Peak, was fair to, and in the best interests of, Jagged Peak and the holders of Jagged Peak common stock, (ii) approved and declared advisable the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger, and (iii) resolved to recommend that the holders of Jagged Peak common stock approve and adopt the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger. 50. Immediately following the Jagged Peak board meeting, the respective parties to the merger agreement, the Quantum Support Agreement, the Sheffield Support Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement executed such agreements and, prior to the opening of the U.S. stock markets on October 14, 2019, Parsley and Jagged Peak issued a joint press release announcing the proposed merger. 51. The press release states in pertinent part: AUSTIN, Texas and DENVER, Oct. 14, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Parsley Energy, Inc. (NYSE: PE) ("Parsley," or "Parsley Energy") and Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (NYSE: JAG) ("Jagged Peak") today announced they have entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Parsley will acquire Jagged Peak in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $2.27 billion, including Jagged Peak's net debt of approximately $625 million as of June 30, 2019. Under the terms of the agreement, Jagged Peak shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.447 shares of Parsley Class A common stock for each share of Jagged Peak common stock they own. This represents $7.59 per Jagged Peak share based on Parsley's closing price on October 11, 2019, and a premium of 1.5% compared to Jagged Peak's 30-day volume weighted average price and 11.2% compared to Jagged Peak's closing price on October 11, 2019. The transaction, which is expected to close in the first quarter of 2020, has been unanimously approved by each company's board of directors. Following the close of the transaction, Parsley shareholders will own approximately 77% of the 11

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 25 combined company, and Jagged Peak shareholders will own approximately 23% of the combined company, in each case on a fully diluted basis. The all-stock transaction is intended to be tax-free to Jagged Peak shareholders. Key Transaction Highlights • Complementary, High-Margin Delaware Basin Footprint: Parsley possesses an institutional familiarity with Jagged Peak's Delaware Basin assets, with the majority of the acreage directly offsetting Parsley's legacy position. Furthermore, Jagged Peak's high-margin, oil-weighted asset base will integrate smoothly into Parsley's near-term development program. On a pro forma basis, Parsley will have approximately 267,000 net acres in the Permian, comprised of 147,000 net acres in the Midland Basin and a highly contiguous 120,000 net acre footprint in the Delaware Basin. • Accretive on Key Metrics: Parsley expects the low-premium transaction to be immediately accretive to key metrics in 2020, including: cash flow per share, free cash flow per share, cash return on capital invested, and net asset value. • Corporate Cost Optimization Accrues to Shareholders: The combination is expected to generate cash general and administrative ("G&A") savings of approximately $25 million in the first year and $40-50 million of annual savings thereafter, translating to a net present value of $250-300 million. Parsley expects this synergy to facilitate margin expansion and enhance corporate free cash flow.(1) • Additional Synergies Clearly Identified: In addition to G&A savings, Parsley has identified further synergies that are anticipated to be realized over time: o Capital Efficiency Gains: Parsley and Jagged Peak have seen material improvements in recent Delaware Basin well costs. Sustained drilling and completion efficiency improvements coupled with the supply chain advantages of optimized scale have facilitated a material reduction in Parsley's Delaware Basin well costs during 2019. Parsley estimates its current average drilling, completion and equipment cost in the Delaware Basin are $1,100-$1,150 per lateral foot. Parsley believes applying its scale advantages and employing collaborative best practices can translate to well cost savings of at least $100 per lateral foot across Jagged Peak's remaining inventory in the Delaware Basin. o Overlapping Acreage: The combination of Parsley's and Jagged Peak's acreage positions will create a highly contiguous, interlocking footprint in the Delaware Basin that allows for a more optimized lease geometry with additional extended lateral wells. Additionally, the close proximity of Jagged Peak's acreage supports additional operational efficiencies. 12

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 25 o Expansive Company-Owned Water Infrastructure Network: Jagged Peak has invested nearly $90 million developing significant fresh and produced water infrastructure across its acreage position, which is located nearby Parsley's existing water assets. Integration of Jagged Peak's water infrastructure network increases corporate flexibility and operational scale. o Cost of Capital Advantages: Parsley believes this transaction can accelerate progress toward an investment grade credit profile, which could help facilitate opportunistic debt refinancing in the future. • Maintains Strong Balance Sheet: An all-stock transaction ensures the combined company will retain a strong balance sheet with a pro forma net leverage ratio of 1.6x LTM adjusted earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization, and exploration expense. Parsley expects to maintain its dividend per share at current levels in the near term, with the anticipated free cash flow enhancements from this transaction expected to support increased return of capital in the future. Finally, both Parsley and Jagged Peak recently added to their respective 2020 hedge positions, and a majority of the combined company's expected 2020 oil production is subject to hedge protection. For details on Parsley and Jagged Peak's respective hedge positions, please see the presentation posted to each company's website that supplements the information in this release. Management Commentary "The combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak is a natural fit," said Matt Gallagher, Parsley's President and CEO. "Jagged Peak's oily, high-margin asset base slots in nicely to our returns-focused development approach, its acreage footprint and water infrastructure dovetails into our legacy Delaware Basin position, and its corporate culture aligns with our core values. In short, we now have a premier Delaware Basin business that rivals our foundational Midland Basin business. This transaction also creates tangible synergies that will enhance our corporate free cash flow profile and will be shared by the combined shareholder base. Ultimately, I am proud of the high level of execution Parsley has delivered throughout 2019, and I am excited by the prospects of what the combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak can deliver for shareholders in 2020." Jim Kleckner, President and Chief Executive Officer of Jagged Peak, commented, "The combined assets of Jagged Peak and Parsley Energy are a great fit that create a stronger combined Permian company. The pro-forma company provides our shareholders with premier acreage in both the Midland and Delaware sub-basins, while providing additional scale, significant operational synergies, and free cash flow in this competitive environment. Our team has made tremendous progress to increase efficiencies as we evolved to pad development on our acreage position. We look forward to working closely with Parsley to ensure that we provide an efficient changeover of asset-level institutional knowledge, so our shareholders and 13

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 25 the shareholders of Parsley Energy can reap the maximized benefits of this transaction." S. Wil VanLoh, Jr., a Jagged Peak director and the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Quantum Energy Partners, Jagged Peak's controlling shareholder, commented, "The inevitable consolidation in the Permian has started and Jagged Peak made a decisive move to team up with the right partner. Quantum has known Bryan, Matt and the Parsley team for many years and has tremendous respect for the industry-leading execution capabilities and top-tier rock they possess. The combination of the two companies will create a unique platform that will benefit from scale, capital allocation optionality, and peer-leading economics (IRRs, oil- weighting and netback margins) that we believe will represent one of the most compelling investment vehicles in the Permian. We look forward to partnering with the Parsley team as they mature into a Permian pure-play large cap. I would also like to thank every current and former employee of Jagged Peak for creating a great private equity success story and for positioning Jagged Peak's shareholders for continued value creation in a very tough macro energy environment. It's been an honor being your partner." Third Quarter Operational Update Activity Overview For the third quarter of 2019, Parsley expects net oil production of 91.2-91.7 MBo per day, translating to 5-6% quarter-over-quarter growth. During 3Q19, Parsley placed on production 35 gross operated horizontal wells with an average working interest of approximately 95% and an average completed lateral length of approximately 10,000 feet. Parsley expects to report third quarter capital expenditures of approximately $315-325 million. Third quarter development spending decreased relative to second quarter spending, driven by lower well costs, fewer net completions, and quarter-over-quarter decreases in facilities and infrastructure spending. Preliminary Pro Forma 2020 Outlook • Parsley remains committed to a growing free cash flow profile that returns capital to shareholders. Parsley continues to use a $50 WTI oil price assumption for its baseline capital budget in 2020. • Parsley estimates that capital expenditures of $1.6-$1.9 billion will translate to oil production of 126-134 MBo per day in 2020, representing healthy year-over-year production growth. Both production and capital expenditure range estimates assume a full-year of contribution from Jagged Peak. • Parsley plans to deploy 15 development rigs and four-to-five frac spreads on average in 2020. Parsley anticipates five of its development rigs will operate in 14

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 25 the Delaware Basin, where Parsley has seen a material reduction in well costs in 2019. Governance and Leadership The boards of directors at both Parsley and Jagged Peak have unanimously approved the transaction, and recommended that their respective shareholder groups approve the transaction. Upon closing, Parsley's board of directors will be expanded to eleven directors to include two members from the current Jagged Peak board of directors. The combined company will be led by Parsley's executive management team and will remain headquartered in Austin, Texas. Timing and Approvals The transaction, which is expected to close during the first quarter of 2020, is subject to customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals, including the approval of Parsley and Jagged Peak shareholders. Jagged Peak's controlling shareholder, Quantum Energy Partners, which owns approximately 68 percent of the outstanding voting shares of Jagged Peak, has committed to vote its shares in favor of the transaction. Advisors Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co is serving as exclusive financial advisor to Parsley Energy, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP is serving as Parsley's legal counsel. Citi and RBC Capital Markets, LLC are serving as financial advisors to Jagged Peak and Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. is serving as Jagged Peak's legal counsel. The Registration Statement Omits Material Information 52. On November 5, 2018, Jagged Peak caused to be filed a Registration Statement with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Merger. As alleged below and elsewhere herein, the Registration Statement contains material misrepresentations and omissions of fact that must be cured to allow Jagged Peak stockholders to render an informed decision with respect to the Proposed Transaction. As discussed below, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding: (i) the analyses performed by the Company’s financial advisors; (ii) potential conflicts of interest involving the financial advisors; and (iii) the terms of the confidentiality agreements Company A and Company E executed. This material information directly impacts the Company’s 15

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 25 expected future value as a standalone entity, and its omission renders the statements made materially misleading and, if disclosed, would significantly alter the total mix of information available to Jagged Peak stockholders. Accordingly, Jagged Peak stockholders are being asked to vote for the Proposed Transaction without all material information at their disposal. Material Omissions Concerning the Potential Conflicts of Interest of RBC: 53. The Registration fails to disclose the potential conflicts of interest faced by RBC in preparing its fairness opinion. 54. The Registration Statement discloses that RBC may be paid an “additional fee” of $1 million, but omits any factors that will underlie the decision to pay this fee, when the fee will become payable, and whether Jagged Peak currently intends to pay this fee. This information is plainly material because it would clearly alter the total mix of information for the stockholders to understand under what circumstances Jagged Peak would voluntarily choose to pay RBC $1 million that it is not obligated to pay for a transaction that will have already been accomplished. 55. The full disclosure of investment banker compensation and all potential conflicts is required due to the central role played by investment banks in the evaluation, exploration, selection, and implementation of strategic alternatives. Here, the Registration Statement omits material information concerning RBC’s potential motivations for recommending that the Merger Consideration is fair to Jagged Peak stockholders. This omission renders the Registration Statement not only materially incomplete, but materially misleading. Material Omissions Concerning the Confidentiality Agreements: 56. Compounding these issues is the absence of material information relating to the sale process leading up to the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement indicates that the Company entered into confidentiality agreements with a number of potentially interested parties, 16

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 25 specifically Company A and Company E. However, the terms of these confidentiality agreements, including whether they contain standstill and/or “don’t ask, don’t waive” (“DADW”) provisions, are completely undisclosed. 57. The Registration Statement explicitly states that “On September 3, 2019, Parsley and Jagged Peak entered into a mutual confidentiality agreement on customary terms, including reciprocal standstill obligations, and began exchanging due diligence information.” See Registration Statement at 63. Clearly, this indicates that standstill agreements were a regular part of the confidentiality agreements that Jagged Peak executed. However, the descriptions of the confidentiality agreements entered into by Company E and Company A omits any reference to the nature and terms of these agreements. Without further information regarding the terms of these agreements, and whether they contained standstill and/or DADW provisions, including whether those provisions have fallen away up or are still in effect, Company stockholders are unable to properly evaluate the ability of these parties that earlier expressed interest in acquiring the Company to offer them a better deal. If the confidentiality agreements contained standstill provisions – and especially if they contained DADW provisions – then those counterparties have been and will be hindered or even completely precluded from making a superior proposal. The extent of such hindrances is material information of which the stockholders must be informed before voting on the Proposed Transaction. 58. Thus, the omission of this information renders the descriptions of the confidentiality agreements the Company entered into materially incomplete and misleading, as the failure to disclose the existence of standstill and/or DADW provisions creates the false impression that any of the parties who signed non-disclosure agreements could make a superior proposal. Clearly, any reasonable Jagged Peak shareholder would deem the fact that the most likely potential 17

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 25 topping bidder in the marketplace may be precluded from making a superior offer as significant information. 59. Accordingly, without further information regarding the terms of the non-disclosure agreements, the Company’s stockholders are being misled into assuming that these other entities, which were actively interested in acquiring the Company, and had already elected to submit a bid to acquire the Company, could make an offer to acquire the Company if they so choose – when they may be contractually precluded from doing so. It is therefore vital that Jagged Peak stockholders are provided material information regarding the respective indications of interest that Jagged Peak received, and the terms of any non-disclosure agreement that might presently be operating to prevent these interested parties from stepping forward with a superior proposal. Material Omissions Concerning the Financial Analyses: 60. The Registration Statement describes the Financial Advisors’ fairness opinions and the various valuation analyses the financial advisor performed in support of its respective opinions. However, the description of the Financial Advisors’ fairness opinions and the underlying analyses omits key inputs and assumptions of Jagged Peak underlying these analyses. Without this information, as described below, Jagged Peak public stockholders are being misled as to what weight, if any, to place on the Financial Advisors’ fairness opinion in determining whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. This omitted information, if disclosed, would significantly alter the total mix of information available to Jagged Peak stockholders. 61. With respect to Citi’s Selected Public Companies Analyses, the Registration Statement fails to disclose the individual multiples and metrics for the companies observed by Citi in the analyses. 18

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 25 62. With respect to Citi’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for the Company, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) all underlying line items for the standalone unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Jagged Peak was forecasted to generate during the second half of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 through the full fiscal year ending December 31, 2023; (ii) the net operating loss carryforwards expected by Jagged Peak’s management during the forecast period; (iii) the terminal values for the Company; (iv) Citi’s basis for applying a selected range of EBITDA multiples of 4.5x to 5.5x; and (v) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the range of discount rates of 9.0% to 10.3%. 63. With respect to Citi’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis for Parsley, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the standalone unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Parsley was forecasted to generate during the second half of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 through the full fiscal year ending December 31, 2023 and underlying line items; (ii) the net operating loss carryforwards expected by Jagged Peak’s management during the forecast period; (iii) the terminal values for Parsley; (iv) Citi’s basis for applying a selected range of EBITDA multiples of 4.5x to 5.5x; and (v) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the range of discount rates of 8.2% to 9.5%. 64. With respect to Citi’s Net Present Value Analysis of the Company, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the net operating loss carryforwards expected by Jagged Peak’s management during the forecast period; (ii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the range of discount rates of 9.0% to 10.3%; (iii) the unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Jagged Peak was projected to generate from the Company’s proved developed producing reserves and currently undeveloped resources and all underlying line items; (iv) Jagged Peak’s estimated non- drilling and completion capital expenditures, corporate expenses, and net hedge and pricing 19

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 25 contract gains and losses; and (v) Jagged Peak’s net debt and estimated non-operated acreage value. 65. With respect to Citi’s Net Present Value Analysis of Parsley, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the net operating loss carryforwards expected by Jagged Peak’s management during the forecast period; (ii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the range of discount rates of 8.2% to 9.5%; (iii) the unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Parsley was projected to generate from Parsley’s proved developed producing reserves and currently undeveloped resources and all underlying line items; (iv) Parsley’s estimated non-drilling and completion capital expenditures, corporate expenses, and net hedge gains and losses; and (v) Parsley’s net debt and estimated non-operated and non-drilling spacing units acreage value. 66. With respect to Citi’s analyses of price targets, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the price targets observed by Citi in the analyses; and (ii) the sources thereof. 67. With respect to RBC’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis of the Company, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) all underlying line items for the after-tax free cash flows of Jagged Peak and; (ii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from 9.0% to 11.0%; (iii) the terminal values of the Company; (iv) RBC’s basis for using terminal multiples ranging from 3.0x to 4.0x; and (v) the net debt and diluted share information used by RBC. 68. With respect to RBC’s Discounted Cash Flow Analysis of Parsley, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the after-tax free cash flows of Parsley and all underlying line items; (ii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from 8.5% to 10.5%; (iii) the terminal values of Parsley; (iv) RBC’s basis for using terminal multiples ranging from 3.50x to 4.50x; and (v) the net debt and diluted share information used by RBC. 20

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 25 69. With respect to RBC’s analyses of price targets, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the price targets observed by RBC in the analyses; and (ii) the sources thereof. 70. Finally, With respect to RBC’s Selected Precedent Transactions Analysis, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) the transactions observed by RBC in the analysis; and (ii) the individual multiples and metrics for the transactions. 71. When a bankers’ endorsement of the fairness of a transaction is touted to shareholders, the valuation methods used to arrive at that opinion as well as the key inputs and range of ultimate values generated by those analyses are crucial to a fair presentation of the material facts. Furthermore, the disclosure of projected financial information provides stockholders with the best basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to understand the financial analyses performed by the company’s financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion. This information is therefore material, and must be disclosed if Jagged Peak stockholders are to make a fully informed decision. The omission of this information renders the statements made concerning the financial advisor’s analyses and opinions materially misleading. 72. Without such undisclosed information, Jagged Peak stockholders cannot evaluate for themselves whether the financial analyses performed by the Financial Advisors were based on reliable inputs and assumptions or whether they were prepared with an eye toward ensuring that a positive fairness opinion could be rendered in connection with the Proposed Transaction. In other words, full disclosure of the omissions identified above is required in order to ensure that stockholders can evaluate the extent to which Financial Advisors’ opinion and analyses should factor into their decision whether to vote in favor of or against the Proposed Transaction. 21

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 25 73. Based on the foregoing, the Registration Statement violates Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and applicable SEC regulations by materially misleading Jagged Peak stockholders. Jagged Peak public shareholders lack critical information necessary to evaluate the Proposed Transaction. Moreover, without the key financial information and related disclosures, Jagged Peak’s public shareholders cannot gauge the accuracy and reliability of the financial analyses performed by the Financial Advisors, and whether they can reasonably rely on the financial advisor’s fairness opinion. 74. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks, among other things, the following relief: (i) enjoinment of the Proposed Transaction; or (ii) rescission of the Proposed Transaction in the event that it is consummated and to recover damages resulting from Defendants’ misconduct. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I Against All Defendants for Violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 Promulgated Thereunder 75. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each allegation set forth herein. 76. As detailed herein, Defendants disseminated the materially incomplete and misleading Registration Statement specified above, which contained statements and omissions which, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, were false and misleading with respect to material facts and which omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rules promulgated thereunder, including SEC Rule 14a-9. 77. By the use of the mails and by means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the facility of a national securities exchange, Defendants solicited and permitted the use of their names to solicit proxies or consents or authorizations in respect of the common stock of Jagged Peak. 22

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 25 78. By virtue of their positions within the Company, the Individual Defendants were aware of this information and of their duty to disclose this information in the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement was prepared, reviewed, and/or disseminated by Defendants. The Registration Statement misrepresented and omitted material facts, including material information about the sale process for the Company, the consideration offered in the Proposed Transaction, and the actual intrinsic value of the Company’s assets. Defendants were at least negligent in filing and disseminating the Registration Statement with these materially incomplete and misleading statements and omissions. Defendants have also failed to correct the Registration Statement and the failure to update and correct false statements is also a violation of Section 14 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rules promulgated thereunder. 79. The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder would consider them important in deciding whether to vote in favor of and tender their shares in the Proposed Transaction. A reasonable investor would view a full and accurate disclosure as significantly altering the “total mix” of information made available in the Registration Statement and in other information reasonably available to stockholders. 80. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Only through the exercise of this Court’s equitable powers can Plaintiff be fully protected from immediate and irreparable injury, which defendants’ actions threaten to inflict. COUNT II Against the Individual Defendants for Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act 81. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein. 82. The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of Jagged Peak within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as 23

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 25 officers and directors of Jagged Peak and their participation in and awareness of the Company’s business and operations and their intimate knowledge of the materially false statements and omissions contained in the Registration Statement filed with the SEC, they had the power to influence and control and did influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision-making of the Company, including the content and dissemination of the various statements that Plaintiff contends are false and misleading. 83. Each of the Individual Defendants was provided with or had unlimited access to copies of the Registration Statement and other statements alleged by Plaintiff to be false and misleading prior to or shortly after these statements were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of the statements or to cause the statements to be corrected. 84. In particular, each of the Individual Defendants had direct and supervisory involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Company, and, therefore, is presumed to have had the power to control or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the securities violations as alleged herein, and exercised the same. Among other things, the Registration Statement at issue contains the unanimous recommendation of the Individual Defendants to approve the Proposed Transaction. Thus, they were directly involved in the making of that document. 85. In addition, as the Registration Statement sets forth at length, and as described herein, the Individual Defendants were each involved in negotiating, reviewing, and approving the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement purports to describe the various issues and information that they reviewed and considered – descriptions which had input from the Individual Defendants. 86. By virtue of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. 24

Case 1:19-cv-03281 Document 1 Filed 11/20/19 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 25 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly and severally, as follows: a) declaring that the Registration Statement is materially misleading and contains omissions of material fact in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder; b) preliminarily and permanently, enjoining Defendants and their counsel, agents, employees and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them, from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction, unless and until Defendants disclose the material information identified above which has been omitted from the Registration Statement; c) to the extent the Proposed Transaction is consummated prior to the Court’s entry of a final judgment, awarding Plaintiff rescissory damages against the Individual Defendants, including, but not limited to, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; d) awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of Plaintiff’s attorneys and experts; and e) granting Plaintiff such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. Dated: November 20, 2019 s/ Donald J. Enright Donald J. Enright LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 333-2121 Email: denright@zlk.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 25

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARK PRINZEL, Case No.: 19-10886 Plaintiff, v. COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS JAGGED PEAK ENERGY INC., CHARLES D. DAVIDSON, ROGER L. JARVIS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED JANEEN S. JUDAH, MICHAEL C. LINN, ADRIANNA C. MA, JOHN R. SULT, S. WIL VANLOH, JR., DHEERAJ VERMA, BLAKE A. WEBSTER, and JAMES J. KLECKNER, Defendants. Plaintiff Mark Prinzel (“Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, alleges upon personal knowledge with respect to himself, and upon information and belief based upon, inter alia, the investigation of counsel as to all other allegations herein, as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action brought by Plaintiff against Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (“Jagged Peak” or the “Company”), the Company’s Chief Executive Office (“CEO”), and the members of the Company’s Board of Directors (referred to as the “Board,” together with the CEO, the “Individual Defendants,” and, together with Jagged Peak, the “Defendants”) for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78n(a), 78t(a) respectively, and United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9, in connection with the proposed merger (“Proposed Transaction”) under which Jagged Peak will be acquired by Parsley Energy, Inc. (“Parsley”).

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 2 of 22 2. On October 14, 2019, Jagged Peak, Parsley, and Jackal Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (“Merger Agreement”). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary of Parsley, shall be merged into Jagged Peak, with Jagged Peak surviving. Jagged Peak will then be merged into another wholly owned subsidiary of Parsley (“LLC Sub”) with LLC Sub surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parsley. 3. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, each issued and outstanding share of Jagged Peak common stock will convert into the right to receive 0.447 shares of Parsley common stock (the “Merger Consideration”). Although the number of shares of Parsley common stock that Jagged Peak shareholders will receive is fixed, the market value of the merger consideration will fluctuate with the market price of Parsley common stock and will not be known at the time Jagged Peak shareholders vote to approve the merger agreement. Based on the closing price of Parsley common stock on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) on October 11, 2019, the last trading day before the public announcement of the parties entering into the Merger Agreement, the Merger Consideration represented approximately $7.59 in value for each share of Jagged Peak common stock. 4. On November 5, 2019, in order to convince Jagged Peaks’s public common stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, Defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading S-4 Registration Statement (the “Registration Statement” or “RS”) with the SEC in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. 5. The Registration Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning (a) financial projections for the Company and Parsley; (b) the valuation analyses prepared by Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citi”) and RBC Capital Markets, LLC 2

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 3 of 22 (“RBC”), in support of their fairness opinions; (c) potential conflicts of interest faced by RBC; and (d) confidentiality agreements entered into by the Company. 6. In addition, a special meeting of Jagged Peaks’s stockholders will be held on January 9, 2020 to vote on the Proposed Transaction (the “Stockholder Vote”). It is therefore imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Registration Statement is disclosed prior to the Stockholder Vote so Jagged Peak stockholders can properly exercise their corporate voting rights and make an informed decision on whether to vote in favor of the merger. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. 8. Personal jurisdiction exists over each Defendant either because each Defendant conducts business in or maintains operations in this District or is an individual who is either present in this District for jurisdictional purposes or has sufficient minimum contacts with this District as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over each Defendant by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 9. Venue is proper in this District under Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, as well as under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because, among other things: (a) the conduct at issue will have an effect in this District; (b) a substantial portion of the transactions and wrongs complained of herein, occurred in this District; and (c) certain Defendants have received substantial compensation in this District by doing business here and engaging in numerous activities that had an effect in this District. Additionally, the Company’s common stock trades on the NYSE, which is headquartered in this District. 3

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 4 of 22 THE PARTIES 10. Plaintiff is, and has been, at all times relevant times, a Jagged Peak stockholder. 11. Defendant Jagged Peak is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 1800, Denver, Colorado 80202. Jagged Peak’s common stock is traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “JAG.” 12. Defendant Charles D. Davidson is Chairman of the Board of Jagged Peak. 13. Defendant Roger L. Jarvis is a director of the Jagged Peak. 14. Defendant Janeen S. Judah is a director of Jagged Peak. 15. Defendant Michael C. Linn is a director of Jagged Peak. 16. Defendant Adrianna C. Ma is a director of Jagged Peak. 17. Defendant John R. Sult is a director of Jagged Peak. 18. Defendant S. Wil VanLoh, Jr. is a director of Jagged Peak. 19. Defendant Dheeraj Verna is a director of Jagged Peak. 20. Defendant Blake A. Webster is a director of Jagged Peak. 21. Defendant James J. Kleckner is CEO and President of Jagged Peak. 22. The defendants identified in paragraphs 12 through 21 are collectively referred to herein as the “Individual Defendants,” and together with the Company, the “Defendants.” SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 23. Jagged Peak is an independent oil and natural gas company focused on the acquisition and development of unconventional oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the southern Delaware Basin, a sub-basin of the Permian Basin of West Texas. Prior to Jagged Peak’s incorporation in the state of Delaware in September 2016 and subsequent initial public offering in January 2017, Jagged Peak was originally formed as a limited liability 4

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 5 of 22 company in April 2013 by an affiliate of Quantum Energy Investment Partners (“Quantum”) and former members of its management team at the time. 24. Parsley is an independent oil and natural gas company focused on the acquisition, development, exploration, and production of unconventional oil and natural gas properties in the Permian Basin. The Permian Basin is located in west Texas and southeastern New Mexico and is characterized by high oil and liquids-rich natural gas content, multiple vertical and horizontal target horizons, extensive production histories, long-lived reserves and historically high drilling success rates. Parsley’s properties are located in two sub areas of the Permian Basin, the Midland and Delaware Basins, where, given the associated returns, it focuses predominantly on horizontal development drilling. Shares of Parsley common stock are traded on the NYSE under the symbol “PE.” The principal executive offices of Parsley are located at 303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000, Austin, Texas 78701. The Proposed Transaction 25. On October 14, 2019, Parsley and Jagged Peak issued a joint-press release announcing the Proposed Transaction. The press releases stated in relevant part: PARSLEY ENERGY ANNOUNCES ACQUISITION OF JAGGED PEAK ENERGY IN ALL-STOCK TRANSACTION; MODEST PREMIUM ACQUISITION ENHANCES 2020 FREE CASH FLOW Austin, Texas, and Denver, Colorado, October 14, 2019 — Parsley Energy, Inc. (NYSE: PE) (“Parsley,” or “Parsley Energy”) and Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (NYSE: JAG) (“Jagged Peak”) today announced they have entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Parsley will acquire Jagged Peak in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $2.27 billion, including Jagged Peak’s net debt of approximately $625 million as of June 30, 2019. Under the terms of the agreement, Jagged Peak shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.447 shares of Parsley Class A common stock for each share of Jagged Peak common stock they own. This represents $7.59 per Jagged Peak share based on Parsley’s closing price on October 11, 2019, and a premium of 1.5% compared to Jagged Peak’s 30-day volume weighted average price and 11.2% compared to Jagged Peak’s closing price on October 11, 2019. 5

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 6 of 22 The transaction, which is expected to close in the first quarter of 2020, has been unanimously approved by each company’s board of directors. Following the close of the transaction, Parsley shareholders will own approximately 77% of the combined company, and Jagged Peak shareholders will own approximately 23% of the combined company, in each case on a fully diluted basis. The all-stock transaction is intended to be tax-free to Jagged Peak shareholders. Key Transaction Highlights · Complementary, High-Margin Delaware Basin Footprint: Parsley possesses an institutional familiarity with Jagged Peak’s Delaware Basin assets, with the majority of the acreage directly offsetting Parsley’s legacy position. Furthermore, Jagged Peak’s high-margin, oil-weighted asset base will integrate smoothly into Parsley’s near-term development program. On a pro forma basis, Parsley will have approximately 267,000 net acres in the Permian, comprised of 147,000 net acres in the Midland Basin and a highly contiguous 120,000 net acre footprint in the Delaware Basin. · Accretive on Key Metrics: Parsley expects the low-premium transaction to be immediately accretive to key metrics in 2020, including: cash flow per share, free cash flow per share, cash return on capital invested, and net asset value. · Corporate Cost Optimization Accrues to Shareholders: The combination is expected to generate cash general and administrative (“G&A”) savings of approximately $25 million in the first year and $40-50 million of annual savings thereafter, translating to a net present value of $250-300 million. Parsley expects this synergy to facilitate margin expansion and enhance corporate free cash flow.(1) · Additional Synergies Clearly Identified: In addition to G&A savings, Parsley has identified further synergies that are anticipated to be realized over time: · Capital Efficiency Gains: Parsley and Jagged Peak have seen material improvements in recent Delaware Basin well costs. Sustained drilling and completion efficiency improvements coupled with the supply chain advantages of optimized scale have facilitated a material reduction in Parsley’s Delaware Basin well costs during 2019. Parsley estimates its current average drilling, completion and equipment cost in the Delaware Basin are $1,100-$1,150 per lateral foot. Parsley believes applying its scale advantages and employing collaborative best practices can translate to well cost savings of at least $100 per lateral foot across Jagged Peak’s remaining inventory in the Delaware Basin. · Overlapping Acreage: The combination of Parsley’s and Jagged Peak’s acreage positions will create a highly contiguous, interlocking footprint in the Delaware Basin that allows for a more optimized lease geometry with additional 6

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 7 of 22 extended lateral wells. Additionally, the close proximity of Jagged Peak’s acreage supports additional operational efficiencies. · Expansive Company-Owned Water Infrastructure Network: Jagged Peak has invested nearly $90 million developing significant fresh and produced water infrastructure across its acreage position, which is located nearby Parsley’s existing water assets. Integration of Jagged Peak’s water infrastructure network increases corporate flexibility and operational scale. · Cost of Capital Advantages: Parsley believes this transaction can accelerate progress toward an investment grade credit profile, which could help facilitate opportunistic debt refinancing in the future. · Maintains Strong Balance Sheet: An all-stock transaction ensures the combined company will retain a strong balance sheet with a pro forma net leverage ratio of 1.6x LTM adjusted earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization, and exploration expense. Parsley expects to maintain its dividend per share at current levels in the near term, with the anticipated free cash flow enhancements from this transaction expected to support increased return of capital in the future. Finally, both Parsley and Jagged Peak recently added to their respective 2020 hedge positions, and a majority of the combined company’s expected 2020 oil production is subject to hedge protection. For details on Parsley and Jagged Peak’s respective hedge positions, please see the presentation posted to each company’s website that supplements the information in this release. Management Commentary “The combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak is a natural fit,” said Matt Gallagher, Parsley’s President and CEO. “Jagged Peak’s oily, high-margin asset base slots in nicely to our returns-focused development approach, its acreage footprint and water infrastructure dovetails into our legacy Delaware Basin position, and its corporate culture aligns with our core values. In short, we now have a premier Delaware Basin business that rivals our foundational Midland Basin business. This transaction also creates tangible synergies that will enhance our corporate free cash flow profile and will be shared by the combined shareholder base. Ultimately, I am proud of the high level of execution Parsley has delivered throughout 2019, and I am excited by the prospects of what the combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak can deliver for shareholders in 2020.” Jim Kleckner, President and Chief Executive Officer of Jagged Peak, commented, “The combined assets of Jagged Peak and Parsley Energy are a great fit that create a stronger combined Permian company. The pro-forma company provides our shareholders with premier acreage in both the Midland and Delaware sub-basins, while providing additional scale, significant operational synergies, and free cash flow in this competitive environment. Our team has made tremendous progress to increase efficiencies as we evolved to pad development on our acreage position. 7

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 8 of 22 We look forward to working closely with Parsley to ensure that we provide an efficient changeover of asset-level institutional knowledge, so our shareholders and the shareholders of Parsley Energy can reap the maximized benefits of this transaction.” S. Wil VanLoh, Jr., a Jagged Peak director and the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Quantum Energy Partners, Jagged Peak’s controlling shareholder, commented, “The inevitable consolidation in the Permian has started and Jagged Peak made a decisive move to team up with the right partner. Quantum has known Bryan, Matt and the Parsley team for many years and has tremendous respect for the industry-leading execution capabilities and top-tier rock they possess. The combination of the two companies will create a unique platform that will benefit from scale, capital allocation optionality, and peer-leading economics (IRRs, oil-weighting and netback margins) that we believe will represent one of the most compelling investment vehicles in the Permian. We look forward to partnering with the Parsley team as they mature into a Permian pure-play large cap. I would also like to thank every current and former employee of Jagged Peak for creating a great private equity success story and for positioning Jagged Peak’s shareholders for continued value creation in a very tough macro energy environment. It’s been an honor being your partner.” Third Quarter Operational Update Activity Overview For the third quarter of 2019, Parsley expects net oil production of 91.2-91.7 MBo per day, translating to 5-6% quarter-over-quarter growth. During 3Q19, Parsley placed on production 35 gross operated horizontal wells with an average working interest of approximately 95% and an average completed lateral length of approximately 10,000 feet. Parsley expects to report third quarter capital expenditures of approximately $315-325 million. Third quarter development spending decreased relative to second quarter spending, driven by lower well costs, fewer net completions, and quarter-over-quarter decreases in facilities and infrastructure spending. Preliminary Pro Forma 2020 Outlook Parsley remains committed to a growing free cash flow profile that returns capital to shareholders. Parsley continues to use a $50 WTI oil price assumption for its baseline capital budget in 2020. Parsley estimates that capital expenditures of $1.6-$1.9 billion will translate to oil production of 126-134 MBo per day in 2020, representing healthy year-over-year production growth. Both production and capital expenditure range estimates assume a full-year of contribution from Jagged Peak. 8

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 9 of 22 Parsley plans to deploy 15 development rigs and four-to-five frac spreads on average in 2020. Parsley anticipates five of its development rigs will operate in the Delaware Basin, where Parsley has seen a material reduction in well costs in 2019. Governance and Leadership The boards of directors at both Parsley and Jagged Peak have unanimously approved the transaction, and recommended that their respective shareholder groups approve the transaction. Upon closing, Parsley’s board of directors will be expanded to eleven directors to include two members from the current Jagged Peak board of directors. The combined company will be led by Parsley’s executive management team and will remain headquartered in Austin, Texas. Timing and Approvals The transaction, which is expected to close during the first quarter of 2020, is subject to customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals, including the approval of Parsley and Jagged Peak shareholders. Jagged Peak’s controlling shareholder, Quantum Energy Partners, which owns approximately 68 percent of the outstanding voting shares of Jagged Peak, has committed to vote its shares in favor of the transaction. Advisors Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co is serving as exclusive financial advisor to Parsley Energy, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP is serving as Parsley’s legal counsel. Citi and RBC Capital Markets, LLC are serving as financial advisors to Jagged Peak and Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. is serving as Jagged Peak’s legal counsel. 26. The Merger Consideration is unfair because, among other things, the intrinsic value of the Company is in excess of the amount the Company’s stockholders will receive in connection with the Proposed Transaction. 27. It is therefore imperative that the Company common stockholders receive the material information that Defendants have omitted from the Registration Statement so that they can meaningfully assess whether the Proposed Transaction is in their best interests prior to the vote. The Merger Agreement 9

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 10 of 22 28. Section 6.3 of the Merger Agreement provides for a “no solicitation” clause that prevents Jagged Peak from soliciting alternative proposals and constraints its ability to negotiate with potential buyers: 6.3 No Solicitation by the Company. (a) From and after the date of this Agreement, the Company and its officers and directors will, will cause the Company’s Subsidiaries and their respective officers and directors to, and will use their reasonable best efforts to cause the other Representatives of the Company and its Subsidiaries to, immediately cease, and cause to be terminated, any discussion or negotiations with any Person conducted heretofore by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or Representatives with respect to any inquiry, proposal or offer that constitutes, or would reasonably be expected to lead to, a Company Competing Proposal. Within one Business Day of the date of this Agreement the Company shall deliver a written notice to each Person that has received non-public information regarding the Company within the six months prior to the date of this Agreement pursuant to a confidentiality agreement with the Company for purposes of evaluating any transaction that could be a Company Competing Proposal and for whom no similar notice has been delivered prior to the date of this Agreement requesting the prompt return or destruction of all confidential information concerning the Company and any of its Subsidiaries heretofore furnished to such Person. The Company will immediately terminate any physical and electronic data access related to any such potential Company Competing Proposal previously granted to such Persons. (b) From and after the date of this Agreement, the Company and its officers and directors will not, will cause the Company’s Subsidiaries and their respective officers and directors not to, and will use their reasonable best efforts to cause the other Representatives of the Company and its Subsidiaries not to, directly or indirectly: (i) initiate, solicit, propose, knowingly encourage, or knowingly facilitate any inquiry or the making of any proposal or offer that constitutes, or would reasonably be expected to result in, a Company Competing Proposal; (ii) engage in, continue or otherwise participate in any discussions with any Person with respect to or negotiations with any Person with respect to, relating to, or in furtherance of a Company Competing Proposal or any inquiry, proposal or offer that would reasonably be expected to lead to a Company Competing Proposal; (iii) furnish any non-public information regarding the Company or its Subsidiaries, or access to the properties, assets or employees of the Company or its Subsidiaries, to any Person in connection with or in response to any Company 10

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 11 of 22 Competing Proposal or any inquiry, proposal or offer that would reasonably be expected to lead to a Company Competing Proposal; (iv) enter into any letter of intent or agreement in principle, or other agreement providing for a Company Competing Proposal (other than a confidentiality agreement entered into in compliance with Section 6.3(e)(ii)); or (v) submit any Company Competing Proposal to the approval of the stockholders of the Company; provided, that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the Company or any of its Representatives may, (A) in response to an unsolicited inquiry or proposal, seek to clarify the terms and conditions of such inquiry or proposal to determine whether such inquiry or proposal constitutes a Company Superior Proposal and (B) in response to an inquiry or proposal from a third party, inform a third party or its Representative of the restrictions imposed by the provisions of this Section 6.3 (without conveying, requesting or attempting to gather any other information except as otherwise specifically permitted hereunder). (c) From and after the date of this Agreement, the Company shall promptly (and in any event within the shorter of one Business Day and 48 hours) notify Parent of the receipt by the Company (directly or indirectly) of any Company Competing Proposal or any expression of interest, inquiry, proposal or offer with respect to a Company Competing Proposal made on or after the date of this Agreement, any request for information or data relating to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries made by any Person in connection with a Company Competing Proposal or any request for discussions or negotiations with the Company or a Representative of the Company relating to a Company Competing Proposal (including the identity of such Person), and the Company shall provide to Parent promptly (and in any event within the shorter of one Business Day and 48 hours) (i) an unredacted copy of any such expression of interest, inquiry, proposal or offer with respect to a Company Competing Proposal made in writing provided to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or (ii) any such expression of interest, inquiry, proposal or offer with respect to a Company Competing Proposal is not (or any portion thereof is not) made in writing, a written summary of the material financial and other terms thereof. Thereafter the Company shall (A) keep Parent reasonably informed, on a prompt basis (and in any event within the shorter of one Business Day and 48 hours), of any material development regarding the status or terms of any such expressions of interest, proposals or offers (including any amendments thereto) or material requests and shall promptly (and in any event within the shorter of one Business Day and 48 hours) apprise Parent of the status of any such discussions or negotiations and (B) provide to Parent as soon as practicable after receipt or delivery thereof (and in any event within the shorter of one Business Day and 48 hours) copies of all material written correspondence and other material written materials provided to the Company or its Representatives from any Person. Without limiting the foregoing, the Company shall notify Parent if the Company determines to begin providing information or to engage in discussions or 11

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 12 of 22 negotiations concerning a Company Competing Proposal, prior to providing any such information or engaging in any such discussions or negotiations. (d) Except as permitted by Section 6.3(e), the Company and its officers and directors will not, will cause the Company’s Subsidiaries and their respective officers and directors not to, and will use their reasonable best efforts to cause the other Representatives of the Company and its Subsidiaries not to, directly or indirectly: (i) withhold, withdraw, qualify or modify, or publicly propose or announce any intention to withhold, withdraw, qualify or modify, in a manner adverse to Parent or Merger Sub, the Company Board Recommendation; (ii) fail to include the Company Board Recommendation in the Joint Proxy Statement; (iii) approve, endorse or recommend, or publicly propose or announce any intention to approve, endorse or recommend, any Company Competing Proposal; (iv) publicly declare advisable or publicly propose to enter into, any letter of intent, memorandum of understanding, agreement in principle, acquisition agreement, merger agreement, option agreement, joint venture agreement, partnership agreement or other agreement (other than a confidentiality agreement entered into in compliance with Section 6.3(e)(ii)) relating to a Company Competing Proposal (a “Company Alternative Acquisition Agreement”); (v) in the case of a Company Competing Proposal that is structured as a tender offer or exchange offer pursuant to Rule 14d-2 under the Exchange Act for outstanding shares of Company Common Stock (other than by Parent or an Affiliate of Parent), fail to recommend, in a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9, against acceptance of such tender offer or exchange offer by its stockholders on or prior to the earlier of (A) three Business Days prior to the date of the Company Stockholders Meeting (or promptly after commencement of such tender offer or exchange offer if commenced on or after the third Business Day prior to the date of the Parent Stockholders Meeting) or (B) ten Business Days (as such term is used in Rule 14d-9 of the Exchange Act) after commencement of such tender offer or exchange offer; or (vi) if a Company Competing Proposal shall have been publicly announced or disclosed (other than pursuant to the foregoing clause (v)), fail to publicly reaffirm the Company Board Recommendation on or prior to the earlier of (A) five Business Days after the Company so requests in writing or (B) three Business Days prior to the date of the Company Stockholders Meeting (or promptly after announcement or disclosure of such Company Competing Proposal if announced or disclosed on or after the third Business Day prior to the date of the Company Stockholders Meeting); or 12

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 13 of 22 (vii) cause or permit the Company to enter into a Company Alternative Acquisition Agreement (together with any of the actions set forth in the foregoing clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi), a “Company Change of Recommendation”). *** 29. In addition, Section 8.3 of the Merger Agreement requires Jagged Peak to pay a $57,435,000 “termination fee” to Parsley in the event this agreement is terminated by Jagged Peak and improperly constrains the Company from obtaining a superior offer. The Materially Incomplete and Misleading Registration Statement and Additional Disclosure Issues in Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4 30. On November 5, 2019, Defendants filed an incomplete and misleading Registration Statement with the SEC and disseminated it to the Company’s stockholders. The Registration Statement solicits the Company’s stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for January 9, 2020. 31. Defendants were obligated to carefully review the Registration Statement before it was filed with the SEC and disseminated to the Company’s stockholders to ensure that it did not contain any material misrepresentations or omissions. 32. The Registration Statement describes the fairness opinion of the Company’s financial advisors, Citi and RBC, and the various valuation analyses each performed in support of its opinion. However, the descriptions of Citi’s and RBC’s fairness opinions and analyses fail to include key inputs and assumptions underlying these analyses. Without this information, the Company’s stockholders are unable to fully understand these analyses and, thus, are unable to determine what weight, if any, to place on Citi’s and RBC’s fairness opinions in determining whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. This omitted information, if 13

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 14 of 22 disclosed, would significantly alter the total mix of information available to the Company’s common stockholders. 33. The Registration Statement says that on September 26, 2019, Craig R. Walters updated the board regarding JP’s “long-range forecast.” The Registration Statement fails to specify if this resulted in a new set of projections for JP and whether the projections Citi and RBC relied upon reflect this “update.” 34. Per the Registration Statement, the JP board, with the assistance of Citi, reviewed Alternative Combination Transactions, and concluded it was unlikely another bidder would provide more valuable consideration to its shareholders than the present transaction; however, nowhere do they discuss (1) the substance of the Alternative Combination Transactions, (2) which potential bidders were assessed, or (3) the results of such analyses. Further, Citi does not mention such an analysis in supporting its financial opinion. This information should be disclosed so as not to make the RS materially misleading. 35. Citi’s DCF analysis in the Registration Statement utilizes company projections of FCF for the second half of fiscal year 2019. The Registration Statement shows only a 2019 full year. No other years. In addition, there are no projections of the Net Operating Losses (NOLs) for both JP and Parsley. These may contribute materially to the valuations and should be disclosed in order to make the RS not materially misleading. 36. Citi performed a Net Asset Value Analysis for both JP and Parsley that relies on several projections not disclosed in the Registration Statement. First, unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that JP projected to generate from its proved developed producing reserves and currently undeveloped resources. Second, estimated non-drilling and completion capital expenditures, corporate expenses and net hedge and pricing contract gains and losses. Third, 14

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 15 of 22 estimated non-operated acreage value. The projections provided do not include estimated hedging gains and losses, non-operated acreage value estimates, nor specific cap-ex and corporate expense projections. This information should be disclosed so as not to make the RS materially misleading. 37. RBC also performed a Net Asset Value Analysis that relies on estimates and projections provided by JP management that are not disclosed in the Registration Statement. This analysis calculates the Net Present Value of estimated “crude oil, natural gas and NGLs Resources in the Proved Development Producing reserve category as well as Undeveloped Resources.” RBC refers to JP “Resource Information.” It then applies a “reserve adjustment factor” provided by management. Per management, RBC discounted the ranges to the JP Resource Information of a) 95%-100% for Proved Developed Producing Reserves and b) 88%- 100% for Undeveloped Resources. It then adjusted the reserve value reference ranges for a) capital costs; b) estimated taxes (after accounting for NOLs); c) general and administrative expenses; and d) balance sheet adjustments related to hedges and costs associated with transportation pricing contracts. All of this was provided to RBC by JP management; however, none of these material items are disclosed. This information should be disclosed so as not to make the RS materially misleading. 38. RBC performed the same analysis for Parsley, using similar projections of FCF from developed and undeveloped reserves, adjustments, hedging and tax attributes. None of the JP management projections for Parsley used in this analysis are in the Registration Statement. This information should be disclosed so as not to make the RS materially misleading. 15

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 16 of 22 39. RBC’s DCF analysis relies on projections through 2025. The Registration Statement includes projections through 2024. Similarly, on P118, RBC’s DCF for Parsley includes projections through 2025. 40. RBC discusses Analysts’ Price Targets for JP and shows a high of $12.35 and a low of $6.17 for 21 “recently” published analyst estimates, excluding RBC. In fact, there are at least 24 recently published analyst estimates (including RBC), with the highest one being $14.00 per share (Wells Fargo). The RBC analyst estimated a price target of $10.00 per share, which is relevant as, upon information and belief, it shows a “sell side” analyst had a higher target price than the deal price. Also, TPH, Parsley’s financial advisor, was projecting a $12.00 per share target price. Finally, the median target price was $10.00 per share. RBC failed to show a median price which makes the RS materially misleading. 41. With respect to the Jagged Peals financial projections, the Registration Statement fails to disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate (a) EBITDAX, (b) EBITDA, (c) Adjusted EBITDA, and (d) free cash flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non GAAP to GAAP metrics. This information should be disclosed so as not to make the RS materially misleading. 42. With respect to Parsley’s financial projections, the Registration Statement fails to disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate (a) EBITDAX, (b) EBITDA, (c) Adjusted EBITDA, and (d) free cash flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non GAAP to GAAP metrics. This information should be disclosed so as not to make the RS materially misleading. 43. The disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company and allows 16

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 17 of 22 stockholders to better understand the financial analyses performed by the Company’s financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion. 44. The omission of the above-referenced material information renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. 45. The above-referenced omitted information, if disclosed, would significantly alter the total mix of information available to the Company’s stockholders. COUNT I (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 14(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 14a-9 PROMULGATED THEREUNDER 46. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 47. Section 14(a)(1) of the Exchange Act makes it “unlawful for any person, by the use of the mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of any facility of a national securities exchange or otherwise, in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors, to solicit or to permit the use of his name to solicit any proxy or consent or authorization in respect of any security (other than an exempted security) registered pursuant to section 78l of this title.” 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a)(1). 48. Rule 14a-9, promulgated by the SEC pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, provides that communications with shareholders in a recommendation statement shall not contain “any statement which, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is false or misleading with respect to any material fact, or which omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein not false or misleading.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9. 17

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 18 of 22 49. Defendants have issued the Registration Statement with the intention of soliciting support of stockholders for the Proposed Transaction. Each Defendant reviewed and authorized the dissemination of the Registration Statement, which fails to provide critical information detailed above. 50. In so doing, Defendants made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. Each Defendant, by virtue of their roles as officers and/or directors, were aware of the omitted material information but failed to disclose such information, in violation of Section 14(a). Defendants therefore had reasonable grounds to believe material facts existed that were misstated or omitted from the Registration Statement, but nonetheless failed to obtain and disclose such information to shareholders although they could have done so without extraordinary effort. 51. The Registration Statement is materially misleading and omits material facts that are necessary to render it not misleading. Defendants undoubtedly reviewed and relied upon the omitted information identified above in connection with their decision to approve and recommend the Proposed Transaction. 52. Defendants knew or should have known that the material information identified above has been omitted from the Registration Statement, rendering the sections of the Registration Statement identified above to be materially incomplete and misleading. Indeed, Defendants were required to be particularly attentive to the procedures followed in preparing the Registration Statement and review it carefully before it was disseminated, to corroborate that there are no material misstatements or omissions. 53. Defendants violated securities laws in preparing and reviewing the Registration Statement. Defendants chose to omit material information from the Registration Statement or 18

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 19 of 22 failed to notice the material omissions in the Registration Statement upon reviewing it, which they were required to do carefully. 54. The misrepresentations and omissions in the Registration Statement are material to Plaintiff and the Company’s other stockholders, each of whom will be deprived of their right to cast an informed vote if such misrepresentations and omissions are not corrected prior to the vote on the Proposed Transaction. 55. Plaintiff and the Company’s other shareholders have no adequate remedy at law. Only through the exercise of this Court’s equitable powers can Plaintiff and the Company’s other shareholders be fully protected from the immediate and irreparable injury that Defendants’ actions threaten to inflict. COUNT II (AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 20(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT) 56. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 57. The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of the Company within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as officers and/or directors of the Company, and participation in and/or awareness of the Company’s operations and/or intimate knowledge of the incomplete and misleading statements contained in the Registration Statement filed with the SEC, they had the power to influence and control and did influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision making of the Company, including the content and dissemination of the various statements that Plaintiff contends are materially incomplete and misleading. 58. Each of the Individual Defendants was provided with, or had unlimited access to, 19

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 20 of 22 copies of the Registration Statement and other statements alleged by Plaintiff to be misleading prior to and/or shortly after these statements were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of the statements or cause the statements to be corrected. 59. In particular, each of the Individual Defendants had direct and supervisory involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Company, and, therefore, is presumed to have had the power to control or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the Exchange Act violations alleged herein and exercised the same. The Registration Statement at issue contains the unanimous recommendation of each of the Individual Defendants to approve the Proposed Transaction. They were thus directly involved in preparing this document. 60. In addition, as set forth in the Registration Statement sets forth at length and described herein, the Individual Defendants were involved in negotiating, reviewing, and approving the Merger Agreement. The Registration Statement purports to describe the various issues and information that the Individual Defendants reviewed and considered. The Individual Defendants participated in drafting and/or gave their input on the content of those descriptions. 61. By virtue of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. 62. As set forth above, the Individual Defendants had the ability to exercise control over and did control a person or persons who have each violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 by their acts and omissions as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as controlling persons, these Defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As a direct and proximate result of Individual Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed. 63. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Only through the exercise of this Court’s equitable powers can Plaintiff and the Company’s other shareholder be fully protected from the 20

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 21 of 22 immediate and irreparable injury that Defendants’ actions threaten to inflict. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows: (A) declaring that the Registration Statement is materially false and/or misleading; (B) enjoining, preliminarily and permanently, the Proposed Transaction until the Registration Statement is cured; (C) in the event that the transaction is consummated before the entry of this Court’s final judgment, rescinding it or awarding Plaintiff rescissory damages; (D) directing that Defendants account to Plaintiff for all damages caused by them and account for all profits and any special benefits obtained as a result of their breaches of their fiduciary duties. (E) awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of Plaintiff’s attorneys and experts; and (F) granting Plaintiff such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands trial by jury. Dated: November 25, 2019 GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON /s/ Thomas J. McKenna Thomas J. McKenna Gregory M. Egleston 440 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com Email: gegleston@gme-law.com 21

Case 1:19-cv-10886 Document 1 Filed 11/25/19 Page 22 of 22 MOORE KUEHN, PLLC Justin A. Kuehn Fletcher W. Moore 30 Wall Street, 8th floor New York, New York 10005 Tel: (212) 709-8245 jkuehn@moorekuehn.com fmoore@moorekuehn.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 22

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, Plaintiff, v. JAGGED PEAK ENERGY INC., JAMES J. KLECKNER, CHARLES D. DAVIDSON, ROGER L. JARVIS, JANEEN S. JUDAH MICHAEL C. LINN, ADRIANNA C. MA, JOHN R. SULT, S. WIL VANLOH, JR., DHEERAJ VERMA, and BLAKE A. WEBSTER, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Stephen Bushansky (“Plaintiff”), by and through his undersigned counsel, for his complaint against defendants, alleges upon personal knowledge with respect to himself, and upon information and belief based upon, inter alia, the investigation of counsel as to all other allegations herein, as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Plaintiff brings this action against Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (“Jagged Peak” or the “Company”) and the members of its Board of Directors (the “Board” or the “Individual Defendants”) for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78n(a), 78t(a), and U.S. Securities and Exchange

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 22 Commission (“SEC”) Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which the Company will be acquired by Parsley Energy, Inc. (“Parsley”) through its wholly owned subsidiary Jackal Merger Sub, Inc. (“Merger Sub”) (the “Proposed Transaction”). 2. On October 14, 2019, Jagged Peak and Parsley issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) to sell Jagged Peak to Parsley. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Jagged Peak stockholder will be entitled to receive 0.447 shares of Parsley Class A common stock for each Jagged Peak share they own (the “Merger Consideration”). Based on the closing price of Parsley Class A common stock on October 11, 2019, the Merger Consideration is valued at approximately $7.59 per share. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $2.27 billion, including Jagged Peak’s net debt of approximately $625 million. 3. On November 26, 2019, Jagged Peak filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement (the “Proxy Statement”) with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Jagged Peak stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Jagged Peak and Parsley management’s financial projections for Jagged Peak, Parsley and the pro forma company; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by the Company’s financial advisors, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citi”) and RBC Capital Markets, LLC (“RBCCM”); (iii) the background of the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) potential conflicts of interest faced by RBCCM. Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. 4. In short, unless remedied, Jagged Peak’s public stockholders will be irreparably 2

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 22 harmed because the Proxy Statement’s material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, and 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question jurisdiction). 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the defendants because each defendant is either a corporation that conducts business in and maintains operations within this District, or is an individual with sufficient minimum contacts with this District so as to make the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Plaintiff’s claims arose in this District, where a substantial portion of the actionable conduct took place, where most of the documents are electronically stored, and where the evidence exists. Jagged Peak is headquartered in this District. Moreover, each of the Individual Defendants, as Company officers or directors, either resides in this District or has extensive contacts within this District. PARTIES 8. Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, the owner of Jagged Peak common stock. 9. Defendant Jagged Peak is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 1402 Lawrence Street, Suite 1800, Denver, Colorado 80202. Jagged Peak is an 3

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 22 independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company with operations in the southern Delaware Basin. The Company’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “JAG.” 10. Defendant James J. Kleckner (“Kleckner”) has been President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the Company and Jagged Peak Energy LLC (“JPE LLC”) since March 2018 and has been a director of the Company since January 2017. 11. Defendant Charles D. Davidson (“Davidson”) has been Chairman of the Board since March 2018 and a director of the Company since September 2016. Defendant Davidson previously served as a director of JPE LLC from February 2016 until the Company’s initial public offering in January 2017 (the “IPO”). Defendant Davidson is also a Venture Partner with Quantum Energy Investment Partners (“Quantum”)1 and serves on Quantum’s Investment Committee. 12. Defendant Roger L. Jarvis (“Jarvis”) has been a director of the Company since January 2017. 13. Defendant Janeen S. Judah (“Judah”) has been a director of the Company since April 2019. 14. Defendant Michael C. Linn (“Linn”) has been a director of the Company since January 2017. Defendant Linn has been a Senior Advisor to Quantum since August 2012. 15. Defendant Adrianna C. Ma (“Ma”) has been a director of the Company since July 2019. 1 An affiliate of Quantum formed Jagged Peak as a limited liability company in April 2013. As of November 20, 2019, Quantum, through its affiliate Q-Jagged Peak Energy Investment Partners (“Q-Jagged Peak”) owns approximately 68.6% of the Company’s common stock. In connection with the execution of the Merger Agreement, Quantum entered into a voting and support agreement with Parsley agreeing to vote all shares of Company common stock beneficially owned by Q-Jagged Peak in favor of the Proposed Transaction. 4

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 22 16. Defendant John R. Sult (“Sult”) has been a director of the Company since January 2017. 17. Defendant S. Wil VanLoh, Jr. (“VanLoh”) has been a director of the Company since September 2016 and previously served as a director of JPE LLC from April 2013 until the IPO. Defendant VanLoh is the Founder and CEO of Quantum, which he founded in 1998. 18. Defendant Dheeraj Verma (“Verma”) has been a director of the Company since January 2017. Defendant Verma is the President of Quantum, which he joined in 2008. 19. Defendant Blake A. Webster (“Webster”) has been a director of the Company since September 2016 and previously served as a director of JPE LLC from April 2013 in the IPO. Defendant Webster is a Managing Director of Quantum, which he joined in 2006. 20. Defendants identified in paragraphs 10 to 19 are collectively referred to herein as the “Board” or the “Individual Defendants.” OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES 21. Parsley is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000, Austin, Texas 78701. Parsley is an independent oil and natural gas company focused on the acquisition, development, exploration and production of unconventional oil and natural gas properties in the Permian Basin. Parsley’s common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “PE.” 22. Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Parsley. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS Company Background 23. Jagged Peak is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company focused on the acquisition and development of unconventional oil and associated liquids- 5

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 22 rich natural gas reserves in the southern Delaware Basin. The Delaware Basin is a sub-basin of the Permian Basin of West Texas. 24. The Company’s acreage is located on large, contiguous blocks in the adjacent West Texas counties of Winkler, Ward, Reeves and Pecos, with significant original oil-in-place within multiple stacked hydrocarbon-bearing formations. The Company divides its current area of operation within the southern Delaware Basin into three distinct project areas: Cochise, the northern portion; Whiskey River, the central portion; and Big Tex, the southernmost portion. As of December 31, 2018, Jagged Peak operated approximately 97% of its net acreage and held an average 87% working interest in approximately 91,600 gross (79,500 net) acres. 25. On May 9, 2019, the Company issued a press release announcing its first quarter 2019 financial results, including revenue of $129.6 million, compared to $129.1 in the first quarter of 2018. Defendant Kleckner commented on the quarter’s results stating: Our first quarter results are reflective of the primary focus we have put on improving our capital efficiency in 2019. We have significantly reduced our DC&E costs by capturing approximately 75% of our expected annual per lateral foot DC&E savings in the first quarter. From an inventory development standpoint, we have recently reworked our drilling and completions program for 2019 to utilize larger scale pads and have replaced several two-well pads with the six-well Coriander and eight-well Venom projects in our Whiskey River area. With this new drill schedule, we begin to transition into multi-horizon co-development projects, where we can realize increased capital and operating efficiencies. 26. On August 8, 2019, Jagged Peak announced its second quarter 2019 financial results. For the quarter, the Company reported average daily oil production of 29.1 thousand barrels of crude oil per day, at the upper end of the Company’s guidance range. Commenting on the Company’s financial results, defendant Kleckner stated: I am pleased with our Company's execution and performance through the first half of the year, with our DC&E costs down significantly from 2018. We continue to be intently focused on creating additional value through further reductions of these DC&E costs and preserving our high operating margins. Leveraging these 6

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 22 efficiency gains will remain an important part of our business as we move to development projects in 2019 and 2020. During the quarter, we started operations on the six-well Coriander pad. The wells have been drilled and the completions are progressing on schedule to deliver first production in the next few weeks. Also during the quarter, we turned online two wells in the Big Tex area and have seen encouraging initial results. While it's too early to make a full assessment of these results, we remain cautiously optimistic on the future optionality of our Big Tex area. The Proposed Transaction 27. On October 14, 2019, Jagged Peak and Parsley issued a joint press release announcing the Proposed Transaction. The press release stated, in relevant part: AUSTIN, Texas and DENVER, Oct. 14, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Parsley Energy, Inc. (NYSE: PE) (“Parsley,” or “Parsley Energy”) and Jagged Peak Energy Inc. (NYSE: JAG) (“Jagged Peak”) today announced they have entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Parsley will acquire Jagged Peak in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $2.27 billion, including Jagged Peak's net debt of approximately $625 million as of June 30, 2019. Under the terms of the agreement, Jagged Peak shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.447 shares of Parsley Class A common stock for each share of Jagged Peak common stock they own. This represents $7.59 per Jagged Peak share based on Parsley's closing price on October 11, 2019, and a premium of 1.5% compared to Jagged Peak’s 30-day volume weighted average price and 11.2% compared to Jagged Peak's closing price on October 11, 2019. The transaction, which is expected to close in the first quarter of 2020, has been unanimously approved by each company's board of directors. Following the close of the transaction, Parsley shareholders will own approximately 77% of the combined company, and Jagged Peak shareholders will own approximately 23% of the combined company, in each case on a fully diluted basis. The all-stock transaction is intended to be tax-free to Jagged Peak shareholders. Key Transaction Highlights • Complementary, High-Margin Delaware Basin Footprint: Parsley possesses an institutional familiarity with Jagged Peak's Delaware Basin assets, with the majority of the acreage directly offsetting Parsley's legacy position. Furthermore, Jagged Peak's high-margin, oil-weighted asset base will integrate smoothly into Parsley's near-term development program. On a pro forma basis, Parsley will have approximately 267,000 net acres in the Permian, comprised of 147,000 net acres in the Midland Basin and a highly contiguous 120,000 net acre footprint in the Delaware Basin. 7

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 22 • Accretive on Key Metrics: Parsley expects the low-premium transaction to be immediately accretive to key metrics in 2020, including: cash flow per share, free cash flow per share, cash return on capital invested, and net asset value. • Corporate Cost Optimization Accrues to Shareholders: The combination is expected to generate cash general and administrative ("G&A") savings of approximately $25 million in the first year and $40-50 million of annual savings thereafter, translating to a net present value of $250-300 million. Parsley expects this synergy to facilitate margin expansion and enhance corporate free cash flow.(1) • Additional Synergies Clearly Identified: In addition to G&A savings, Parsley has identified further synergies that are anticipated to be realized over time: o Capital Efficiency Gains: Parsley and Jagged Peak have seen material improvements in recent Delaware Basin well costs. Sustained drilling and completion efficiency improvements coupled with the supply chain advantages of optimized scale have facilitated a material reduction in Parsley's Delaware Basin well costs during 2019. Parsley estimates its current average drilling, completion and equipment cost in the Delaware Basin are $1,100-$1,150 per lateral foot. Parsley believes applying its scale advantages and employing collaborative best practices can translate to well cost savings of at least $100 per lateral foot across Jagged Peak's remaining inventory in the Delaware Basin. o Overlapping Acreage: The combination of Parsley's and Jagged Peak's acreage positions will create a highly contiguous, interlocking footprint in the Delaware Basin that allows for a more optimized lease geometry with additional extended lateral wells. Additionally, the close proximity of Jagged Peak's acreage supports additional operational efficiencies. o Expansive Company-Owned Water Infrastructure Network: Jagged Peak has invested nearly $90 million developing significant fresh and produced water infrastructure across its acreage position, which is located nearby Parsley's existing water assets. Integration of Jagged Peak's water infrastructure network increases corporate flexibility and operational scale. o Cost of Capital Advantages: Parsley believes this transaction can accelerate progress toward an investment grade credit profile, which could help facilitate opportunistic debt refinancing in the future. • Maintains Strong Balance Sheet: An all-stock transaction ensures the combined company will retain a strong balance sheet with a pro forma net leverage ratio of 1.6x LTM adjusted earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation, depletion, amortization, and exploration expense. Parsley expects to maintain its dividend per share at current levels in the near term, with the anticipated free 8

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 22 cash flow enhancements from this transaction expected to support increased return of capital in the future. Finally, both Parsley and Jagged Peak recently added to their respective 2020 hedge positions, and a majority of the combined company's expected 2020 oil production is subject to hedge protection. For details on Parsley and Jagged Peak's respective hedge positions, please see the presentation posted to each company's website that supplements the information in this release. Management Commentary “The combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak is a natural fit,” said Matt Gallagher, Parsley’s President and CEO. “Jagged Peak’s oily, high-margin asset base slots in nicely to our returns-focused development approach, its acreage footprint and water infrastructure dovetails into our legacy Delaware Basin position, and its corporate culture aligns with our core values. In short, we now have a premier Delaware Basin business that rivals our foundational Midland Basin business. This transaction also creates tangible synergies that will enhance our corporate free cash flow profile and will be shared by the combined shareholder base. Ultimately, I am proud of the high level of execution Parsley has delivered throughout 2019, and I am excited by the prospects of what the combination of Parsley and Jagged Peak can deliver for shareholders in 2020.” Jim Kleckner, President and Chief Executive Officer of Jagged Peak, commented, “The combined assets of Jagged Peak and Parsley Energy are a great fit that create a stronger combined Permian company. The pro-forma company provides our shareholders with premier acreage in both the Midland and Delaware sub-basins, while providing additional scale, significant operational synergies, and free cash flow in this competitive environment. Our team has made tremendous progress to increase efficiencies as we evolved to pad development on our acreage position. We look forward to working closely with Parsley to ensure that we provide an efficient changeover of asset-level institutional knowledge, so our shareholders and the shareholders of Parsley Energy can reap the maximized benefits of this transaction.” S. Wil VanLoh, Jr., a Jagged Peak director and the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Quantum Energy Partners, Jagged Peak’s controlling shareholder, commented, “The inevitable consolidation in the Permian has started and Jagged Peak made a decisive move to team up with the right partner. Quantum has known Bryan, Matt and the Parsley team for many years and has tremendous respect for the industry-leading execution capabilities and top-tier rock they possess. The combination of the two companies will create a unique platform that will benefit from scale, capital allocation optionality, and peer-leading economics (IRRs, oil- weighting and netback margins) that we believe will represent one of the most compelling investment vehicles in the Permian. We look forward to partnering with the Parsley team as they mature into a Permian pure-play large cap. I would also like to thank every current and former employee of Jagged Peak for creating a great 9

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 22 private equity success story and for positioning Jagged Peak's shareholders for continued value creation in a very tough macro energy environment. It’s been an honor being your partner.” The Proxy Statement Contains Material Misstatements or Omissions 28. Defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading Proxy Statement with the SEC and disseminated it to Jagged Peak’s stockholders. The Proxy Statement misrepresents or omits material information that is necessary for the Company’s stockholders to make an informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. 29. Specifically, as set forth below, the Proxy Statement fails to provide Company stockholders with material information or provides them with materially misleading information concerning: (i) Jagged Peak and Parsley management’s financial projections for Jagged Peak, Parsley and the pro forma company; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by the Company’s financial advisors, Citi and RBCCM; (iii) the background of the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) potential conflicts of interest faced by RBCCM. Material Omissions Concerning Financial Projections for Jagged Peak, Parsley and the Pro Forma Company 30. The Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Company’s financial projections for Jagged Peak, Parsley and the pro forma combined company, provided by Jagged Peak and Parsley management and relied upon by Citi and RBCCM for their analyses. 31. For example, the Proxy Statement sets forth: In arriving at its opinion, Citi: * * * • reviewed certain information and data provided to or discussed with Citi by the managements of Jagged Peak and Parsley relating to potential cost savings, strategic implications and financial and operational benefits (including the 10

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 22 amount, timing and achievability thereof) anticipated by such managements to result from the merger; [and] * * * • reviewed, for informational reference, certain potential pro forma financial effects of the merger relative to Jagged Peak and Parsley each on a standalone basis utilizing the financial forecasts and other information and data relating to Jagged Peak and Parsley and the potential cost savings, strategic implications and financial and operational benefits referred to above[.] Proxy Statement at 102. The Proxy Statement, however, fails to set forth: (i) the data relating to potential cost savings, strategic implications and financial and operational benefits Jagged Peak and Parsley management anticipated to result from the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) certain potential pro forma financial effects of the merger relative to Jagged Peak and Parsley each on a standalone basis. 32. Similarly, the Proxy Statement sets forth: For the purposes of rendering its opinion, RBCCM undertook such review, inquiries and analyses as it deemed necessary or appropriate under the circumstances, including the following: * * * • RBCCM reviewed (a) financial projections and other estimates and data relating to Jagged Peak, prepared by the management of Jagged Peak (the “Standalone Jagged Peak Projections”), as well as financial projections and other estimates and data relating to Parsley, prepared by management of Parsley, as adjusted by management of Jagged Peak (the “Standalone Parsley Projections” and, together with the Standalone Jagged Peak Projections, the “Standalone Projections”), all of which included estimates regarding certain tax attributes expected to result from the utilization of net operating loss carryforwards of Jagged Peak and Parsley (collectively, “Tax Attributes”), (b) certain crude oil, natural gas and NGLs reserve information regarding proved and unproved crude oil, natural gas and NGLs reserves and undeveloped resources of Jagged Peak, prepared by the management of Jagged Peak (the “Jagged Peak Resource Information”), and certain crude oil, natural gas and NGLs reserve information regarding proved and unproved crude oil, natural gas and NGLs reserves and undeveloped resources of Parsley, prepared by management of Parsley, as adjusted by management of Jagged Peak (the “Parsley Resource Information” and, together with the Jagged Peak Resource information, the “Resource 11

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 22 Information”), which, in each case, included the discounting of categories of crude oil, natural gas and NGLs reserves and undeveloped resources information by the management of Jagged Peak, as well as (c) certain future crude oil, natural gas and NGLs commodity price assumptions, all of which financial projections and other estimates and data and crude oil, natural gas and NGLs reserves and undeveloped resources information RBCCM was directed by management of Jagged Peak to utilize for purposes of its analyses and opinion[.] Id. at 113-114 (emphasis added). The Proxy Statement, however, fails to set forth: (i) the estimates regarding certain tax attributes expected to result from the utilization of net operating loss carryforwards of Jagged Peak and Parsley; (ii) certain crude oil, natural gas and NGLs reserve information regarding proved and unproved crude oil, natural gas and NGLs reserves and undeveloped resources of Jagged Peak, prepared by the management of Jagged Peak; (iii) certain crude oil, natural gas and NGLs reserve information regarding proved and unproved crude oil, natural gas and NGLs reserves and undeveloped resources of Parsley, prepared by management of Parsley, as adjusted by management of Jagged Peak; and (iv) certain future crude oil, natural gas and NGLs commodity price assumptions, all of which financial projections and other estimates and data and crude oil, natural gas and NGLs reserves and undeveloped resources information RBCCM was directed by management of Jagged Peak to utilize for purposes of its analyses and opinion. 33. In addition, in connection with Citi’s Discounted Cash Flow (“DCF”) Analyses of Jagged Peak and Parsley, the Proxy Statement sets forth: Citi performed a discounted cash flow analysis of Jagged Peak by calculating the estimated present value (as of June 30, 2019) of the standalone unlevered, after- tax free cash flows that Jagged Peak was forecasted to generate during the second half of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 through the full fiscal year ending December 31, 2023 based on the Jagged Peak forecasts reflecting both Strip Pricing and Wall Street Consensus Pricing. . . . Citi performed a discounted cash flow analysis of Parsley by calculating the estimated present value (as of June 30, 2019) of the standalone unlevered, after- 12

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 22 tax free cash flows that Parsley was forecasted to generate during the second half of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 through the full fiscal year ending December 31, 2023 based on the Jagged Peak-Parsley forecasts reflecting both Strip Pricing and Wall Street Consensus Pricing. . . . Id. at 108. 34. Similarly, with respect to RBCCM’s DCF Analyses of Jagged Peak and Parsley, the Proxy Statement sets forth: RBCCM performed a discounted cash flow analysis of Jagged Peak by calculating the estimated net present value of the after-tax unlevered free cash flows of Jagged Peak as of June 30, 2019, based on the Standalone Jagged Peak Projections, and using each of Strip Pricing and Consensus Pricing. * * * RBCCM performed a discounted cash flow analysis of Parsley by calculating the estimated net present value of the after-tax unlevered free cash flows of Parsley as of June 30, 2019, based on the Standalone Parsley Projections and using each of Strip Pricing and Consensus Pricing. Id. at 116, 118 (emphasis added). The Proxy Statement, however, fails to set forth the respective after-tax unlevered free cash flows for Jagged Peak and Parsley utilized by Citi and RBCCM in each of their DCF Analyses, and the underlying line items. 35. Moreover, according to the Proxy Statement, at a September 26, 2019 Board meeting, the Company’s Chief Operating Officer Craig R. Walters “updated the Jagged Peak [B]oard regarding Jagged Peak’s long-range forecast.” Id. at 67. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose the details of this update. 36. The omission of this information renders the statements in the “Certain Jagged Peak Unaudited Prospective Financial and Operating Information,” “Opinions of Jagged Peak’s Financial Advisors,” and “Background of the Merger” sections of the Proxy Statement false and/or materially misleading in contravention of the Exchange Act. Material Omissions Concerning Citi’s and RBCCM’s Financial Analyses 13

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 22 37. The Proxy Statement describes Citi’s and RBCCM’s fairness opinions and the various valuation analyses performed in support of their opinions. However, the descriptions of Citi’s and RBCCM’s fairness opinions and analyses fail to include key inputs and assumptions underlying these analyses. Without this information, as described below, Jagged Peak’s public stockholders are unable to fully understand these analyses and, thus, are unable to determine what weight, if any, to place on Citi’s and RBCCM’s fairness opinions in determining whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. 38. With respect to Citi’s Selected Public Companies Analyses of Jagged Peak and Parsley, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the individual multiples and financial metrics for each of the selected companies analyzed by Citi; and (ii) Jagged Peak’s and Parsley’s calendar year 2019 and 2020 cash flow per share utilized by Citi in its analyses. 39. With respect to Citi’s DCF Analysis of Jagged Peak, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Jagged Peak was forecasted to generate during the second half of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 through the full fiscal year ending December 31, 2023 based on the Jagged Peak forecasts reflecting both Stip Pricing and Wall Street Consensus Pricing, and the underlying line items; (ii) quantification of Jagged Peak’s stock-based compensation that Citi treated as a cash expense; (iii) the value of Jagged Peak’s net operating loss carryforwards utilized by Citi in its analysis; (iv) quantification of the inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 9.0% to 10.3%; and (v) the estimated terminal value for Jagged Peak. 40. With respect to Citi’s DCF Analysis of Parsley, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Parsley was forecasted to generate during the second half of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 through the full fiscal year ending 14

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 22 December 31, 2023 based on the Jagged Peak-Parsley forecasts reflecting both Strip Pricing and Wall Street Consensus Pricing, and the underlying line items; (ii) quantification of Parsley’s stock- based compensation that Citi treated as a cash expense; (iii) the value of Parsley’s net operating loss carryforwards utilized by Citi in its analysis; (iv) quantification of the inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 8.2% to 9.5%; and (v) the estimated terminal value for Parsley. 41. With respect to Citi’s Net Asset Value Analysis of Jagged Peak, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Jagged Peak was projected to generate from its proved developed producing reserves and currently undeveloped resources; (ii) Jagged Peak’s estimated non-drilling and completion capital expenditures, corporate expenses and net hedge and pricing contract gains and losses; (iii) Jagged Peak’s net debt as of June 30, 2019 and estimated non-operated acreage; (iv) quantification of the inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 9.0% to 10.3%; (v) quantification of Jagged Peak’s stock-based compensation that Citi treated as a cash expense; and (vi) the value of Jagged Peak’s net operating loss carryforwards utilized by Citi in its analysis. 42. With respect to Citi’s Net Asset Value Analysis of Parsley, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the unlevered, after-tax free cash flows that Parsley was projected to generate from its proved developed producing reserves and currently undeveloped resources; (ii) Parsley’s estimated non-drilling and completion capital expenditures, corporate expenses and net hedge gains and losses; (iii) Parsley’s net debt as of June 30, 2019 and estimated non-operated and non- drilling spacing units acreage value; (iv) quantification of the inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 8.2% to 9.5%; (v) quantification of Parsley’s stock-based compensation 15

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 22 that Citi treated as a cash expense; and (vi) the value of Parsley’s net operating loss carryforwards utilized by Citi in its analysis. 43. With respect to Citi’s Relative Contribution Analysis, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the combined company’s estimated adjusted EBITDA and operating cash flow for calendar years 2019 and 2020. 44. With respect to Citi’s analysis of Wall Street research analysts’ price targets for Jagged Peak common stock and Parsley Class A common stock, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the individual price targets for the Company and Parsley. 45. With respect to RBCCM’s DCF Analysis of Jagged Peak, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the after-tax unlevered free cash flow for Jagged Peak over the projection period, and the underlying line items; (ii) Jagged Peak’s estimated calendar year 2025 EBITDA, utilized to derive the terminal value; (iii) quantification of the inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 9.0% to 11.0%; (iv) Jagged Peak’s net debt; (v) the number of diluted outstanding Jagged Peak shares; and (vi) the estimated terminal value for Jagged Peak. 46. With respect to RBCCM’s DCF Analysis of Parsley, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the after-tax unlevered free cash flow for Parsley over the projection period, and the underlying line items; (ii) Parsley’s estimated calendar year 2025 EBITDA, utilized to derive the terminal value; (iii) quantification of the inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rate range of 8.5% to 10.5%; (iv) Parsley’s net debt; (v) the number of diluted outstanding Parsley shares; and (vi) the estimated terminal value for Parsley. 47. With respect to RBCCM’s Price Targets for Jagged Peak and Price Targets for Parsley analyses, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the individual price targets for the Company and Parsley. 16

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 22 48. With respect to RBCCM’s Selected Precedent Transactions Analysis, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose: (i) the specific transactions analyzed by RBCCM; and (ii) individual multiples and financial metrics for each of the selected transactions analyzed by RBCCM. 49. When a banker’s endorsement of the fairness of a transaction is touted to stockholders, the valuation methods used to arrive at that opinion as well as the key inputs and range of ultimate values generated by those analyses must also be fairly disclosed. 50. The omission of this information renders the statements in the “Opinions of Jagged Peak’s Financial Advisors” and “Certain Jagged Peak Unaudited Prospective Financial and Operating Information” sections of the Proxy Statement false and/or materially misleading in contravention of the Exchange Act. Material Omissions Concerning the Background of the Proposed Transaction 51. The Proxy Statement is materially deficient because it fails to disclose material information relating to the background of the process leading to the Proposed Transaction. 52. Specifically, in connection with the sale process, Jagged Peak executed confidentiality agreements with certain potential bidders. For example, Jagged Peak entered into a mutual confidentiality agreement with a party identified as “Company E” on September 17, 2019 and with a party identified as “Company A” on September 30, 2019. See id. at 66, 68. The Proxy Statement fails, however, to disclose whether the confidentiality agreements Jagged Peak entered into with any potential bidders, including Company E and Company A, are still in effect and/or contain a “don’t ask, don’t waive” (“DADW”) standstill provision that is presently precluding each of these counterparties from making a topping bid for the Company. 53. The disclosure of the terms of any standstill provisions in the confidentiality agreements Jagged Peak entered into with potential merger partners is crucial to Jagged Peak 17

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 22 stockholders being fully informed of whether their fiduciaries have put in place restrictive devices to foreclose a topping bid for the Company. 54. The omission of this information renders the statements in the “Background of the Merger” section of the Proxy Statement false and/or materially misleading in contravention of the Exchange Act. Material Omissions Concerning RBCCM’s Potential Conflicts of Interest 55. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose material information concerning potential conflicts of interest faced by one of the Company’s financial advisors, RBCCM. 56. The Proxy Statement sets forth in connection with the Proposed Transaction “if the merger is consummated, RBCCM may be entitled to an additional fee of $1,000,000 payable, at Jagged Peak’s sole discretion.” Id. at 122. The Proxy Statement, however, fails to disclose the agreed parameters for such additional discretionary fee, the criteria RBCCM needs to satisfy to receive the additional fee, and whether the Company anticipates paying RBCCM the additional fee. 57. Full disclosure of investment banker compensation and all potential conflicts is required due to the central role played by investment banks in the evaluation, exploration, selection, and implementation of strategic alternatives. 58. The omission of this information renders the statements in the “Opinions of Jagged Peak’s Financial Advisors” section of the Proxy Statement false and/or materially misleading in contravention of the Exchange Act. 59. The Individual Defendants were aware of their duty to disclose this information and acted negligently (if not deliberately) in failing to include this information in the Proxy Statement. Absent disclosure of the foregoing material information prior to the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction, Plaintiff and the other stockholders of Jagged Peak will be unable to 18

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 22 make a sufficiently informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction and are thus threatened with irreparable harm warranting the injunctive relief sought herein. COUNT I Claims Against All Defendants for Violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 Promulgated Thereunder 60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above, as though fully set forth herein. 61. During the relevant period, defendants disseminated the false and misleading Proxy Statement specified above, which failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. 62. By virtue of their positions within the Company, the defendants were aware of this information and of their duty to disclose this information in the Proxy Statement. The Proxy Statement was prepared, reviewed, and/or disseminated by the defendants. It misrepresented and/or omitted material facts, including material information about Jagged Peak and Parsley management’s financial projections for Jagged Peak, Parsley and the pro forma company, the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by the Company’s financial advisors, Citi and RBCCM, the background of the Proposed Transaction, and potential conflicts of interest faced by RBCCM. The defendants were at least negligent in filing the Proxy Statement with these materially false and misleading statements. 63. The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder would consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. 64. By reason of the foregoing, the defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the 19

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 22 Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9(a) promulgated thereunder. 65. Because of the false and misleading statements in the Proxy Statement, Plaintiff is threatened with irreparable harm, rendering money damages inadequate. Therefore, injunctive relief is appropriate to ensure defendants’ misconduct is corrected. COUNT II Claims Against the Individual Defendants for Violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act 66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation contained above, as though fully set forth herein. 67. The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of Jagged Peak within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as officers and/or directors of Jagged Peak and participation in and/or awareness of the Company’s operations and/or intimate knowledge of the false statements contained in the Proxy Statement filed with the SEC, they had the power to influence and control and did influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision-making of the Company, including the content and dissemination of the various statements which Plaintiff contends are false and misleading. 68. Each of the Individual Defendants was provided with or had unlimited access to copies of the Proxy Statement and other statements alleged by Plaintiff to be misleading prior to and/or shortly after these statements were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of the statements or cause the statements to be corrected. 69. In particular, each of the Individual Defendants had direct and supervisory involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Company, and, therefore, is presumed to have had the power to control or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the securities violations as alleged herein, and exercised the same. The Proxy Statement at issue contains the unanimous 20

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 22 recommendation of each of the Individual Defendants to approve the Proposed Transaction. They were, thus, directly involved in the making of this document. 70. In addition, as the Proxy Statement sets forth at length, and as described herein, the Individual Defendants were each involved in negotiating, reviewing, and approving the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement purports to describe the various issues and information that they reviewed and considered—descriptions which had input from the directors. 71. By virtue of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. 72. As set forth above, the Individual Defendants had the ability to exercise control over and did control a person or persons who have each violated Section 14(a) and SEC Rule 14a- 9, promulgated thereunder, by their acts and omissions as alleged herein. By virtue of their positions as controlling persons, these defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct, Jagged Peak’s stockholders will be irreparably harmed. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands injunctive relief, in his favor and against defendants as follows: A. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction and any vote on the Proposed Transaction; B. In the event defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages to Plaintiff; 21

Case 1:19-cv-03433 Document 1 Filed 12/05/19 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 22 C. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ and experts’ fees; and D. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable. Dated: December 5, 2019 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Richard A. Acocelli Richard A. Acocelli WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 22