UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

Transcription

1 1 1 1 GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP Lionel Z. Glancy Michael Goldberg Robert V. Prongay Casey E. Sadler Century Park East, Suite 00 Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: () 1-0 Facsimile: () 1-0 LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH Howard G. Smith 00 Bristol Pike, Suite Bensalem, PA 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - Attorneys for Plaintiff PLAINTIFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, DINO DINA and JENNIFER LEW, Defendants. No. DRAFT CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2 1 1 1 Plaintiff ( Plaintiff ), by and through his attorneys, alleges the following upon information and belief, except as to those allegations concerning Plaintiff, which are alleged upon personal knowledge. Plaintiff s information and belief is based upon, among other things, his counsel s investigation, which includes without limitation: (a) review and analysis of regulatory filings made by Dynavax Technologies Corporation ( Dynavax or the Company ), with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ); (b) review and analysis of press releases and media reports issued by and disseminated by Dynavax; and (c) review of other publicly available information concerning Dynavax. NATURE OF THE ACTION AND OVERVIEW 1. This is a class action on behalf of purchasers of Dynavax s securities between July, and June, 1, inclusive (the Class Period ), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of (the Exchange Act ).. Dynavax, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, discovers and develops novel products to prevent and treat infectious and inflammatory diseases. Hepislav is an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine for which US and European licensure applications have been accepted for review by the FDA and the EMA. Dynavax has worldwide commercial rights to Hepislav. Hepislav combines hepatitis B surface antigen with a proprietary Toll-like Receptor agonist to enhance the immune response.. On November, 1, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the FDA ) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (the Committee ) voted eight to five with one abstention that there was insufficient data to adequately support the safety of Heplisav.. On this news, shares of Dynavax declined $. per share, or.0%, to close on November, 1, at $. per share, on unusually heavy volume.. On February, 1, the Company disclosed that it had received a Complete Response Letter ( CRL ) from the FDA regarding its Biologic License Application ( BLA ) for Heplisav, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine, in which the FDA specified that the indication in adults -0 years of age cannot be approved without further evaluation of safety in this broad age group.

3 On this news, shares of Dynavax declined $0. per share, or.%, to close on February, 1, at $.01 per share, on unusually heavy volume.. On June, 1, the Company disclosed that in a meeting with the FDA over its biologic license application for hepatitis-b vaccine Heplisav, the FDA expressed that it wanted additional safety data from more patients before approving the drug. The FDA further expressed that analyzing Heplisav for smaller groups of patients did not fully address its concerns and that it would like to see additional safety trials. Moreover, as previously noted by the FDA, the Company disclosed that there were ongoing concerns regarding Dynavax s manufacturing and testing of Heplisav.. On this news, shares of Dynavax declined $1.0 per share, or.%, to close on June, 1, at $1.0 per share, on unusually heavy volume.. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company s Heplisav drug trials lacked a sufficient sample size; () that the Company lacked a reasonable basis to for its claims regarding the non-inferiority, superiority and the safety of Heplisav; () that the Company lacked a reasonable basis for its statements regarding the lack of cases of ANCA-associated vasculitis in its studies; () that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.. As a result of Defendants wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. The claims asserted herein arise under Sections (b) and (a) of the Exchange Act ( U.S.C. j(b) and t(a)) and Rule b- promulgated thereunder by the SEC ( C.F.R. 0.b-). 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to U.S.C. and Section of the Exchange Act ( U.S.C. aa).

4 Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to U.S.C. 11(b) and Section of the Exchange Act ( U.S.C. aa(c)). Substantial acts in furtherance of the alleged fraud or the effects of the fraud have occurred in this Judicial District. Many of the acts charged herein, including the preparation and dissemination of materially false and/or misleading information, occurred in substantial part in this Judicial District. Additionally, Defendant s principal executive offices are located within this Judicial District. 1. In connection with the acts, transactions, and conduct alleged herein, Defendants directly and indirectly used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including the United States mail, interstate telephone communications, and the facilities of a national securities exchange. PARTIES. Plaintiff, as set forth in the accompanying certification, incorporated by reference herein, purchased Dynavax common stock during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions alleged herein.. Defendant Dynavax is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at Seventh Street, Suite 0, Berkeley, CA -.. Defendant Dino Dina ( Dina ) was, at all relevant times, Chief Executive Officer ( CEO ) and a director of the Company until May 1.. Defendant Jennifer Lew ( Lew ) was, at all relevant times, Vice President - Finance of the Company.. Defendants Dina and Lew are collectively referred to hereinafter as the Individual Defendants. The Individual Defendants, because of their positions with the Company, possessed the power and authority to control the contents of Dynavax s reports to the SEC, press releases and presentations to securities analysts, money and portfolio managers and institutional investors, i.e., the market. Each defendant was provided with copies of the Company s reports and press releases alleged herein to be misleading prior to, or shortly after, their issuance and had the ability and opportunity to prevent their issuance or cause them to be corrected. Because of their positions and

5 1 1 1 access to material non-public information available to them, each of these defendants knew that the adverse facts specified herein had not been disclosed to, and were being concealed from, the public, and that the positive representations which were being made were then materially false and/or misleading. The Individual Defendants are liable for the false statements pleaded herein, as those statements were each group-published information, the result of the collective actions of the Individual Defendants. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS Background. Dynavax, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, discovers and develops novel products to prevent and treat infectious and inflammatory diseases. Dynavax, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, discovers and develops novel products to prevent and treat infectious and inflammatory diseases. Hepislav is an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine for which US and European licensure applications have been accepted for review by the FDA and the EMA. Dynavax has worldwide commercial rights to Hepislav. Hepislav combines hepatitis B surface antigen with a proprietary Toll-like Receptor agonist to enhance the immune response. Materially False and Misleading Statements Issued During the Class Period. The Class Period begins on July,. On this day, the Company issued a press release entitled, Dynavax Phase Demonstrates Superiority and Safety of HEPLISAV vs. Engerix-B. Therein, the Company, in relevant part, stated: Dynavax Technologies Corporation (NASDAQ: DVAX) today said that top-line data from its Phase trial comparing HEPLISAV, an investigational hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine, to a currently marketed HBV vaccine, Engerix-B, demonstrated non-inferiority, superiority and the safety of HEPLISAV. The study evaluated a two-dose regimen of HEPLISAV administered at 0 and 1 month compared to a three-dose regimen of Engerix-B administered at 0, 1 and months. The trial studied, healthy adults 0 to 0 years of age, randomized to HEPLISAV or Engerix-B in a :1 ratio. Data supporting the consistency of three consecutively manufactured lots of HEPLISAV have been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Dynavax expects confirmation of its analysis shortly. Immunogenicity data demonstrated:! At the primary endpoint, weeks post the last dose of vaccine, 1 weeks for HEPLISAV and weeks for Engerix-B, the seroprotection rate (SPR) was 0% for HEPLISAV and 0% for Engerix-B, demonstrating the

6 1 1 1 non-inferiority and superiority of HEPLISAV to Engerix-B.! The peak SPR for HEPLISAV occurred at weeks and was %. The peak SPR for Engerix-B occurred at weeks and was %.! At the final visit, week, weeks after the last dose of HEPLISAV and weeks after the last dose of Engerix-B, the SPRs were % for HEPLISAV and % for Engerix-B. Dynavax also reported that the trial's safety data showed HEPLISAV to be safe and well tolerated, and similar to Engerix-B. Careful safety evaluation over the 1 month duration of trial demonstrated:! 0% of HEPLISAV subjects and % of Engerix-B subjects experienced an adverse event.! % of HEPLISAV subjects and % of Engerix-B subjects experienced possibly related adverse events.! % of HEPLISAV subjects and % of Engerix-B subjects experienced a serious adverse event.! new onset autoimmune adverse events were confirmed by the Safety Evaluation and Adjudication Committee (SEAC), none of which were serious adverse events. All three occurred in the HEPLISAV group, consistent with the :1 randomization.! There were no cases of ANCA-associated vasculitis or Wegener's Granulomatosis. With respect to the consistency analysis of three consecutively manufactured lots of HEPLISAV, Dynavax concluded that the study had demonstrated consistency based on the complete immunogenicity data demonstrated by the three vaccine lots over the six months following second immunization.! By Geometric Mean Antibody Concentration (GMC), the results met the pre-specified consistency criteria at 1,, and weeks, but not at weeks, the pre-specified primary endpoint. The GMC of one HEPLISAV lot was slightly higher than the other two lots, which resulted in not meeting the consistency criteria at week.! By SPR, the results met the pre-specified consistency criteria at 1,, and weeks, but not at weeks.! At all of these timepoints, each lot of HEPLISAV was superior to Engerix-B. Dynavax said it had submitted these data and its analysis supporting lot-to-lot consistency to the FDA and expects confirmation from the agency in the near future. "These results confirm and expand the superiority of HEPLISAV vs. Engerix-B in this hyporesponsive population of persons age 0 and above. HEPLISAV again demonstrated the rapid onset of seroprotection and superior peak protection compared to Engerix-B. A new finding in this trial is the superior duration of HEPLISAV to Engerix-B. Based on the results of intensive safety monitoring over 1 months, we have again demonstrated that HEPLISAV has a similar safety profile to Engerix-B, generally considered to be a very safe vaccine. Finally, we believe the consistency of the peak immune response of three lots of HEPLISAV was clearly demonstrated in this trial," commented Tyler Martin, M.D., President and Chief Medical Officer.. On September,, the Company issued a press release entitled, Dynavax Reports Complete Results From the HEPLISAV(TM) Phase Trial in Healthy Adults Over Age

7 Therein, the Company, in relevant part, stated: Dynavax Technologies Corporation (NASDAQ: DVAX) today at the 1st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) in Chicago, IL presented complete results for the entire study population of its Phase trial (HBV-). The Phase study, HBV-, was a multi-center, observer-blinded study to determine if the immunogenicity of two doses of HEPLISAV was non-inferior/superior to three doses of Engerix-B by comparing seroprotection rates (SPRs) at eight weeks post last dose. The data reported at ICAAC demonstrate HEPLISAV's ability to generate a faster, higher, and longer-lasting response as compared to Engerix-B, as follows:! HEPLISAV induced a superior immune response to Engerix-B throughout the study. The SPRs and Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs) in the HEPLISAV group were significantly higher than the SPRs and GMCs in the Engerix-B group at every visit from Week through Week.! HEPLISAV provided earlier seroprotection than Engerix-B. At the primary endpoint visit, Week 1 for HEPLISAV and Week for Engerix-B, the SPR in the HEPLISAV group was 0% compared to 1% in the Engerix-B group. In fact, at Week, the SPR in the HEPLISAV group was higher (%) than the peak SPR in the Engerix-B group. The GMC results also showed an earlier response from HEPLISAV; at Week 1, for HEPLISAV, GMCs were miu/ml compared to Engerix-B at Week when GMCs were 1 miu/ml.! HEPLISAV provided higher rates of seroprotection than Engerix-B. The peak SPR for the HEPLISAV group was % at Week. The peak SPR for Engerix-B was % at Week. The peak GMC for HEPLISAV was miu/ml at Week, and was miu/ml for Engerix-B at Week.! HEPLISAV provided longer-lasting antibody than Engerix-B. The immune response to HEPLISAV was longer-lasting than the immune response to Engerix-B. The SPR in the HEPLISAV group decreased from a peak of % at Week to % at Week while the SPR in the Engerix-B group decreased from a peak of % at Week to % at Week. The GMC in the HEPLISAV group decreased from a peak of miu/ml at Week to 1 miu/ml at Week. In contrast, the GMC in the Engerix-B group decreased from a peak of miu/ml at Week to miu/ml at Week.! The safety of HEPLISAV was similar to Engerix-B. The rates of local and systemic post-immunization reactions, adverse events, serious adverse events, and autoimmune adverse events were similar in both groups. According to Tyler Martin, M.D., President and Chief Medical Officer who made the oral presentation in a session entitled "New Trends in Vaccines" (#0), "The data clearly indicate that HEPLISAV induces an immune response that is faster, higher, and more durable than that produced by Engerix-B, with similar safety. These results, demonstrating the superiority of HEPLISAV to Engerix-B in a hyporesponsive population, will be the basis of our BLA filing that we intend to submit by the end of this year.". On October,, the Company issued a press release entitled, Dynavax Phase

8 1 1 1 Data in Chronic Kidney Disease Demonstrates Superiority of HEPLISAV(TM) vs Engerix-B ). Therein, the Company, in relevant part, stated: Dynavax Technologies Corporation (NASDAQ: DVAX) today announced that the company has unblinded its Phase primary endpoint immunogenicity data in subjects with chronic kidney disease and that the data achieved statistical significance demonstrating both the superiority and non-inferiority of HEPLISAV as compared to Engerix-B. A partial safety analysis also showed a similar safety profile for the two vaccines, with the incidence of post-injection reactions and adverse events similar in both groups. This Phase multi-center trial evaluated 0 subjects with chronic kidney disease, as defined by a modified intent-to-treat analysis, and compared three doses of HEPLISAV given at months 0, 1 and with eight doses of Engerix-B given as double-doses at months 0, 1, and. Detailed results of the trial will be presented in November at the American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week meeting in Philadelphia. Dynavax President and Chief Medical Officer, Tyler Martin, M.D., said, "The demonstrated superiority of HEPLISAV in chronic kidney disease patients who are at high risk of HBV infection and hypo-responsive to hepatitis B vaccine adds to the growing body of evidence of HEPLISAV's advantages in a well known hypo-responsive patient population already being vaccinated against hepatitis B infection. These results, with three doses of HEPLISAV compared to eight doses of Engerix-B, provide the data necessary to support an indication and specific treatment regimen for HEPLISAV in persons with chronic kidney disease." The observer-blinded trial was conducted among 0 patients - years of age with chronic kidney disease (GFR? ml/min/1. m). Subjects were recruited at sites in the U.S., Canada, and Germany and were randomized 1:1 to receive HEPLISAV or Engerix-B. The primary objective was to determine if HEPLISAV is non-inferior to Engerix-B by comparing seroprotection rates (anti-hbs? miu/ml) one month after the last dose of vaccine (Month ) and if non-inferior, to determine if HEPLISAV was superior to Engerix-B.. On March, 1, the Company issued a press release entitled, Dynavax Reports Final Phase Data for HEPLISAV(TM) in CKD Patients and New Data From Booster Trial in Hemodialysis Patients. Therein, the Company, in relevant part, stated: Dynavax Technologies Corporation (NASDAQ: DVAX) today announced final data from a pivotal Phase trial in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) demonstrating early seroprotection and the durability of the immune response to HEPLISAV compared to Engerix-B. In October, Dynavax reported that the superiority endpoint had been met in this trial. The trial included patients - years of age with CKD (stage b or higher) in the U.S., Canada and Germany who received doses of HEPLISAV at 0, 1 and months or double doses of Engerix-B at 0, 1, and months ( doses total). Analysis of the final data demonstrated that:! HEPLISAV provided seroprotection to 0% of patients compared to % for Engerix-B (P=0.01) at the primary endpoint ( months), 1 month after the rd dose of HEPLISAV and the th dose of Engerix-B. This result demonstrated the previously reported superiority of HEPLISAV seroprotection over

9 1 1 1 Engerix-B.! HEPLISAV provided seroprotection to more than twice as many patients (HEPLISAV: %; Engerix-B: %) at months, 1 month after the nd dose of HEPLISAV and the th dose of Engerix-B. This result confirmed the earlier seroprotection of HEPLISAV in this population.! The geometric mean concentration (GMC) of antibody, which is commonly used to predict the duration of protection in patients with CKD, was approximately four-fold higher in the HEPLISAV group compared to the Engerix-B group. At Week, the GMC for HEPLISAV was miu/ml compared to the Engerix-B GMC of miu/ml. At one year, six months after completing the -dose regimen of HEPLISAV, the GMC was 1 miu/ml compared to a GMC of miu/ml six months after completing the -dose regimen of Engerix-B. In a separate trial, in CKD non-responder patients on hemodialysis who had failed to develop seroprotection after two or more previous vaccination series with the licensed vaccines, new data showed a higher seroprotection rate for HEPLISAV compared to each of Fendrix and Engerix-B. HEPLISAV is a trademark of Dynavax, and Fendrix and Engerix-B are registered trademarks of GlaxoSmithKline. In this study of 1 patients in Germany, the immune responses were compared weeks after a single booster dose of HEPLISAV or Fendrix or two booster doses of Engerix-B. Data from this booster study showed that HEPLISAV provided seroprotection to % of patients (/) compared to 1% (1/) for Fendrix and % (/) for Engerix-B. Dynavax President and Chief Medical Officer, Tyler Martin, M.D., said, "These results add to the growing body of evidence of HEPLISAV's advantages. Patients with CKD are difficult to protect with current HBV vaccines, requiring doses of Engerix rather than doses for healthy adults. The pivotal CKD trial demonstrated the same profile as our healthy adult trials: earlier onset of seroprotection, higher peak seroprotection and improved duration. In addition, the results from the booster trial suggest HEPLISAV should be the preferred vaccine in this very difficult to protect population, which represents a substantial proportion of patients on hemodialysis.". The statements contained in, were materially false and/or misleading when made because defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company s Heplisav drug trials lacked a sufficient sample size; () that the Company lacked a reasonable basis to for its claims regarding the non-inferiority, superiority and the safety of Heplisav; () that the Company lacked a reasonable basis for its statements regarding the lack of cases of ANCA-associated vasculitis in its studies; () that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Disclosures at the End of the Class Period. On November, 1, the Company issued a press release entitled, Dynavax

10 1 1 1 Announces FDA Advisory Committee Meeting Outcome for HEPLISAV(TM). Therein, the Company, in relevant part, stated: Dynavax Technologies Corporation (NASDAQ: DVAX) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (Committee) voted 1 to one that HEPLISAV data adequately demonstrated immunogenicity. Additionally, the Committee voted eight to five with one abstention that there was insufficient data to adequately support the safety of HEPLISAV. Now that Dynavax has received the Committee's input and vote, the Company will continue working with the FDA as it completes its review of the HEPLISAV application. The scheduled Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) date for HEPLISAV is February, 1.. On this news, shares of Dynavax declined $. per share, or.0%, to close on November, 1, at $. per share, on unusually heavy volume.. On February, 1, the Company issued a press release entitled, Dynavax Receives FDA Complete Response Letter on HEPLISAV(TM) Biologic License Application. Therein, the Company, in relevant part, stated: Dynavax Technologies Corporation (NASDAQ: DVAX) announced today that it received a Complete Response Letter (CRL) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) regarding its Biologic License Application (BLA) for HEPLISAV, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. In the CRL, the FDA specified that the indication in adults -0 years of age cannot be approved without further evaluation of safety in this broad age group. The FDA also continues to express concern that novel adjuvants may cause rare autoimmune events. However, the Agency indicated its willingness to continue discussions regarding a more restricted use of HEPLISAV. Dynavax plans to discuss the CRL with the FDA to identify the most expeditious path to approval for HEPLISAV, particularly in adults who may receive the greatest benefit from HEPLISAV. Furthermore, the FDA requested additional data from Dynavax's process validation program and clarifying information on the manufacturing controls and facilities related to the assurance of the quality of the commercial product. Dynavax believes it can provide the information but the exact timeframe for its response cannot be determined until it has met with the Agency. Dynavax plans to meet with the FDA to discuss the steps necessary for potential approval of HEPLISAV and currently believes the meeting can take place within weeks. Following its meeting with the FDA, Dynavax will provide updates as appropriate. Dynavax's BLA was accepted for review by the FDA in June 1. On November, 1, the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (Committee) voted to with 1 abstention that there was insufficient data to adequately support the safety of HEPLISAV, although the Committee voted 1 to

11 that HEPLISAV data adequately demonstrated immunogenicity.. On this news, shares of Dynavax declined $0. per share, or.%, to close on February, 1, at $.01 per share, on unusually heavy volume. 0. On June, 1, the Company issued a press release entitled, Dynavax Reports Feedback From FDA Meeting Regarding HEPLISAV(TM) Biologic License Application. Therein, the Company, in relevant part, stated: Dynavax Technologies Corporation (NASDAQ: DVAX) today reported that it recently concluded a meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) regarding its Biologic License Application (BLA) for HEPLISAV, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The meeting followed recommendations expressed in November 1 by the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) regarding the size of Dynavax's safety database. The meeting with FDA resulted in the following messages:! The safety database does indeed need additional subjects;! VRBPAC's strong endorsement of HEPLISAV's demonstrated immunogenicity was acknowledged;! Analyzing the benefit/risk of HEPLISAV's use in discrete patient populations did not fundamentally address the shortfall in the safety database. It was concluded that to do so would unnecessarily restrict the patient population that could benefit from HEPLISAV's approval;! The additional safety data collected would facilitate review for an indication in adults -0 years of age. "We are encouraged by the supportive feedback received from the FDA and appreciate the informative interactions and clarity provided regarding HEPLISAV's path toward approval in the broader indication," commented Eddie Gray, Dynavax's Chief Executive Officer. "We understand the rationale for the Agency's recommendations and will give full consideration to their feasibility and timing as we advance HEPLISAV's development." Dynavax will meet with the FDA shortly to discuss the protocol for collecting the additional safety data, which is expected to be incorporated into the existing BLA. The Company also continues to work on the questions raised by the FDA in the Complete Response Letter (CRL) regarding the manufacturing and testing of HEPLISAV. Dynavax will provide updates as appropriate. 1. On this news, shares of Dynavax declined $1.0 per share, or.%, to close on June, 1, at $1.0 per share, on unusually heavy volume. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (a) and (b)() on behalf of a class, consisting of all those who purchased Dynavax s securities between July, and June, 1, inclusive (the Class Period ) and who were damaged thereby (the Class ). Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors

12 1 1 1 of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Throughout the Class Period, Dynavax s securities were actively traded on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange (the NASDAQ ). While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds or thousands of members in the proposed Class. Millions of Dynavax shares were traded publicly during the Class Period on the NASDAQ. As of October, 1,, the Company had,0,00 shares of common stock outstanding. Record owners and other members of the Class may be identified from records maintained by Dynavax or its transfer agent and may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, using the form of notice similar to that customarily used in securities class actions.. Plaintiff s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as all members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants wrongful conduct in violation of federal law that is complained of herein.. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation.. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are: (a) Whether the federal securities laws were violated by Defendants acts as alleged herein; (b) Whether statements made by Defendants to the investing public during the Class Period omitted and/or misrepresented material facts about the business, operations, and prospects of Dynavax; and (c) To what extent the members of the Class have sustained damages and the proper measure of damages.

13 A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore, as the damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it impossible for members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action. UNDISCLOSED ADVERSE FACTS. The market for Dynavax s securities was open, well-developed and efficient at all relevant times. As a result of these materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failures to disclose, Dynavax s securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased or otherwise acquired Dynavax s securities relying upon the integrity of the market price of the Company s securities and market information relating to Dynavax, and have been damaged thereby.. During the Class Period, Defendants materially misled the investing public, thereby inflating the price of Dynavax s securities, by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make Defendants statements, as set forth herein, not false and/or misleading. Said statements and omissions were materially false and/or misleading in that they failed to disclose material adverse information and/or misrepresented the truth about Dynavax s business, operations, and prospects as alleged herein. 0. At all relevant times, the material misrepresentations and omissions particularized in this Complaint directly or proximately caused or were a substantial contribdynavaxng cause of the damages sustained by Plaintiff and other members of the Class. As described herein, during the Class Period, Defendants made or caused to be made a series of materially false and/or misleading statements about Dynavax s financial well-being and prospects. These material misstatements and/or omissions had the cause and effect of creating in the market an unrealistically positive assessment of the Company and its financial well-being and prospects, thus causing the Company s securities to be overvalued and artificially inflated at all relevant times. Defendants materially false and/or misleading statements during the Class Period resulted in Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchasing the Company s securities at artificially inflated prices, thus causing the damages

14 1 1 1 complained of herein. LOSS CAUSATION 1. Defendants wrongful conduct, as alleged herein, directly and proximately caused the economic loss suffered by Plaintiff and the Class.. During the Class Period, Plaintiff and the Class purchased Dynavax s securities at artificially inflated prices and were damaged thereby. The price of the Company s securities significantly declined when the misrepresentations made to the market, and/or the information alleged herein to have been concealed from the market, and/or the effects thereof, were revealed, causing investors s losses. SCIENTER ALLEGATIONS. As alleged herein, Defendants acted with scienter in that Defendants knew that the public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were materially false and/or misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued or disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated or acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements or documents as primary violations of the federal securities laws. As set forth elsewhere herein in detail, Defendants, by virtue of their receipt of information reflecting the true facts regarding Dynavax, his/her control over, and/or receipt and/or modification of Dynavax s allegedly materially misleading misstatements and/or their associations with the Company which made them privy to confidential proprietary information concerning Dynavax, participated in the fraudulent scheme alleged herein. APPLICABILITY OF PRESUMPTION OF RELIANCE (FRAUD-ON-THE-MARKET DOCTRINE). The market for Dynavax s securities was open, well-developed and efficient at all relevant times. As a result of the materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose, Dynavax s securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On May, 1, the Company s stock closed at a Class Period high of $. per share. Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased or otherwise acquired the Company s securities relying upon the integrity of the market price of Dynavax s securities and market information relating to Dynavax, and have been damaged thereby.

15 During the Class Period, the artificial inflation of Dynavax s stock was caused by the material misrepresentations and/or omissions particularized in this Complaint causing the damages sustained by Plaintiff and other members of the Class. As described herein, during the Class Period, Defendants made or caused to be made a series of materially false and/or misleading statements about Dynavax s business, prospects, and operations. These material misstatements and/or omissions created an unrealistically positive assessment of Dynavax and its business, operations, and prospects, thus causing the price of the Company s securities to be artificially inflated at all relevant times, and when disclosed, negatively affected the value of the Company stock. Defendants materially false and/or misleading statements during the Class Period resulted in Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchasing the Company s securities at such artificially inflated prices, and each of them has been damaged as a result.. At all relevant times, the market for Dynavax s securities was an efficient market for the following reasons, among others: (a) Dynavax stock met the requirements for listing, and was listed and actively traded on the NASDAQ, a highly efficient and automated market; (b) As a regulated issuer, Dynavax filed periodic public reports with the SEC and/or the NASDAQ; (c) Dynavax regularly communicated with public investors via established market communication mechanisms, including through regular dissemination of press releases on the national circuits of major newswire services and through other wide-ranging public disclosures, such as communications with the financial press and other similar reporting services; and/or (d) Dynavax was followed by securities analysts employed by brokerage firms who wrote reports about the Company, and these reports were distributed to the sales force and certain customers of their respective brokerage firms. Each of these reports was publicly available and entered the public marketplace.. As a result of the foregoing, the market for Dynavax s securities promptly digested current information regarding Dynavax from all publicly available sources and reflected such information in Dynavax s stock price. Under these circumstances, all purchasers of Dynavax s

16 1 1 1 securities during the Class Period suffered similar injury through their purchase of Dynavax s securities at artificially inflated prices and a presumption of reliance applies. NO SAFE HARBOR. The statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements under certain circumstances does not apply to any of the allegedly false statements pleaded in this Complaint. The statements alleged to be false and misleading herein all relate to then-existing facts and conditions. In addition, to the extent certain of the statements alleged to be false may be characterized as forward looking, they were not identified as forward-looking statements when made and there were no meaningful cadynavaxonary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the purportedly forward-looking statements. In the alternative, to the extent that the statutory safe harbor is determined to apply to any forward-looking statements pleaded herein, Defendants are liable for those false forward-looking statements because at the time each of those forward-looking statements was made, the speaker had actual knowledge that the forward-looking statement was materially false or misleading, and/or the forward-looking statement was authorized or approved by an executive officer of Dynavax who knew that the statement was false when made. FIRST CLAIM Violation of Section (b) of The Exchange Act and Rule b- Promulgated Thereunder Against All Defendants. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above as if fully set forth herein. 0. During the Class Period, Defendants carried out a plan, scheme and course of conduct which was intended to and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members, as alleged herein; and (ii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Dynavax s securities at artificially inflated prices. In furtherance of this unlawful scheme, plan and course of conduct, defendants, and each of them, took the actions set forth herein. 1. Defendants (i) employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; (ii) made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements

17 1 1 1 not misleading; and (iii) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of the Company s securities in an effort to maintain artificially high market prices for Dynavax s securities in violation of Section (b) of the Exchange Act and Rule b-. All Defendants are sued either as primary participants in the wrongful and illegal conduct charged herein or as controlling persons as alleged below.. Defendants, individually and in concert, directly and indirectly, by the use, means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce and/or of the mails, engaged and participated in a continuous course of conduct to conceal adverse material information about Dynavax s financial well-being and prospects, as specified herein.. These defendants employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud, while in possession of material adverse non-public information and engaged in acts, practices, and a course of conduct as alleged herein in an effort to assure investors of Dynavax s value and performance and continued substantial growth, which included the making of, or the participation in the making of, untrue statements of material facts and/or omitting to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made about Dynavax and its business operations and future prospects in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, as set forth more particularly herein, and engaged in transactions, practices and a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of the Company s securities during the Class Period.. Each of the Individual Defendants primary liability, and controlling person liability, arises from the following facts: (i) the Individual Defendants were high-level executives and/or directors at the Company during the Class Period and members of the Company s management team or had control thereof; (ii) each of these defendants, by virtue of their responsibilities and activities as a senior officer and/or director of the Company, was privy to and participated in the creation, development and reporting of the Company s internal budgets, plans, projections and/or reports; (iii) each of these defendants enjoyed significant personal contact and familiarity with the other defendants and was advised of, and had access to, other members of the Company s management team, internal reports and other data and information about the Company s finances, operations, and sales at all relevant times; and (iv) each of these defendants was aware of the Company s

18 1 1 1 dissemination of information to the investing public which they knew and/or recklessly disregarded was materially false and misleading.. The defendants had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and/or omissions of material facts set forth herein, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to ascertain and to disclose such facts, even though such facts were available to them. Such defendants material misrepresentations and/or omissions were done knowingly or recklessly and for the purpose and effect of concealing Dynavax s financial well-being and prospects from the investing public and supporting the artificially inflated price of its securities. As demonstrated by Defendants overstatements and/or misstatements of the Company s business, operations, financial well-being, and prospects throughout the Class Period, Defendants, if they did not have actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and/or omissions alleged, were reckless in failing to obtain such knowledge by deliberately refraining from taking those steps necessary to discover whether those statements were false or misleading.. As a result of the dissemination of the materially false and/or misleading information and/or failure to disclose material facts, as set forth above, the market price of Dynavax s securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the fact that market prices of the Company s securities were artificially inflated, and relying directly or indirectly on the false and misleading statements made by Defendants, or upon the integrity of the market in which the securities trades, and/or in the absence of material adverse information that was known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants, but not disclosed in public statements by Defendants during the Class Period, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class acquired Dynavax s securities during the Class Period at artificially high prices and were damaged thereby.. At the time of said misrepresentations and/or omissions, Plaintiff and other members of the Class were ignorant of their falsity, and believed them to be true. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class and the marketplace known the truth regarding the problems that Dynavax was experiencing, which were not disclosed by Defendants, Plaintiff and other members of the Class would not have purchased or otherwise acquired their Dynavax securities, or, if they had acquired such securities during the Class Period, they would not have done so at the artificially inflated prices

19 1 1 1 which they paid.. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants have violated Section (b) of the Exchange Act and Rule b- promulgated thereunder.. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their respective purchases and sales of the Company s securities during the Class Period. SECOND CLAIM Violation of Section (a) of The Exchange Act Against the Individual Defendants 0. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above as if fully set forth herein. 1. The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of Dynavax within the meaning of Section (a) of the Exchange Act as alleged herein. By virtue of their high-level positions, and their ownership and contractual rights, participation in and/or awareness of the Company s operations and/or intimate knowledge of the false financial statements filed by the Company with the SEC and disseminated to the investing public, the Individual Defendants 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. The Individual Defendants were provided with or had unlimited access to copies of the Company s reports, press releases, public filings 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.. In particular, each of these 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.. As set forth above, Dynavax and the Individual Defendants each violated Section (b) and Rule b- by their acts and/or omissions as alleged in this Complaint. By virtue of their

20 1 1 1 positions as controlling persons, the Individual Defendants are liable pursuant to Section (a) of the Exchange Act. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their purchases of the Company s securities during the Class Period. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment, as follows: (a) Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) Determining that this action is a proper class action under Rule of the Federal Awarding compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and the other Class members against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; (c) Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; and (d) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DATED: June, 1 GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP DRAFT Lionel Z. Glancy Michael Goldberg Robert V. Prongay Casey E. Sadler Century Park East, Suite 00 Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: () 1-0 Facsimile: () 1-0 LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH Howard G. Smith 00 Bristol Pike, Suite Bensalem, PA 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - Attorneys for Plaintiff