Company: DVAX
Filing Date: 2025-03-10
Form Type: DFAN14A
Source: 0001193125-25-050430
Chunk: 3

Company: DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORP
Filing Date: 2025-03-10
Form: DFAN14A
Chunk 3
---
 holders as well as those who have conveyed to us that they are building larger positions, their motivation for owning DVAX shares at these levels is clearly for the potential focus and clarity that Deep Track has articulated that its nominees would bring to the Company. (See Figure 1)

Figure 1

We Urge the Board to Stop Engaging in Petty “Activist Defense 101” Tactics Our public actions followed months of attempts to engage with the Board regarding your corporate governance and business strategy. We conveyed on multiple occasions our desire to work constructively with you in the interest of all shareholders. Despite these attempts at reasonable engagement, as well as the fact that we are the second largest shareholder in Dynavax and long-term investors in the Company, the Board and its advisors have resorted to tactics typically employed against short-term activists. These maneuvers seem aimed at obstructing shareholders’ rights to even participate in a fair vote. Specifically, you have:

| • |     | Raised ludicrous issues with our valid nominations – In your February 19th press release, the Company referred to our “purported nominations” – seemingly in an attempt to cast doubt on their validity. Then, in private correspondence to us and our counsel, 
 the Board’s representatives cited “issues” with our nomination notice that demonstrated an obvious desire to nitpick for nitpicking’s sake. For example, they noted that we did not include a business address for Donald Santel.                               
 Given that Mr. Santel is retired, we had indicated that his home address would serve as his business address – hardly an attempt to hide information from the Company or shareholders.                                                                          |

| • |     | Sought to weaponize the calendar against a shareholder exercising their rights – The                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
 “issues” with our nominations were not raised by the Company until the afternoon of February 21st, three days after we had submitted our nomination notice on February 18th (in which we asked the Company to promptly notify us of any alleged deficiencies) and one day before the February 22nd deadline for 
 nominations. Notwithstanding the trivial nature of what the Company called “deficiencies” in our nomination notice, we willingly supplemented our notice to satisfy demands for further information.                                                                                                            |

| • |     | Restricted us from engagement with the Board beyond Chairman Scott Myers – We have had extremely                                                                                           
 limited access to the non-executive members of the Board beyond Mr. Myers in the four months since we first offered to share our ideas and work constructively with you for the benefit of |

| all