Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02457/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02457-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS

NINA F. LOCKER, State Bar No. 123838

Email: nlocker@wsgr.com

JEROME F. BIRN, JR., State Bar No. 128561

Email: jbirn@wsgr.com

JONI OSTLER, State Bar No. 230009

Email: jostler@wsgr.com

NICHOLAS R. MILLER, State Bar No. 274243

Email: nmiller@wsgr.com

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

Professional Corporation

650 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050

Telephone: (650) 493-9300

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100

Attorneys for Defendants Intrexon Corporation,

Randal J. Kirk, and Rick L. Sterling

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

PATRICK M. and DEBORAH P. GIBRALL,

Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly

Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INTREXON CORPORATION, RANDAL J.

KIRK, and RICK L. STERLING,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Case 3:16-cv-02457-RS Document 19 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME -1-

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2016, Plaintiffs Patrick M. and Deborah P. Gibrall, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint for Violations of the

Federal Securities Laws (“Complaint”) against Intrexon Corporation (“Intrexon”) and certain

of its current executives, Randal J. Kirk and Rick L. Sterling (collectively, “Defendants”);

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2016, a substantively similar complaint with the caption Ryan

Hoffman v. Intrexon Corp. et al. (Case No. 3:16-cv-02398-RS) (the “Hoffman Action”) was filed

with the Court;

WHEREAS, Defendants signed and returned waivers of service and Defendants’ initial

response to the Complaint is currently due on July 11, 2016;

WHEREAS, this action is governed by the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation

Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4 et seq., and the parties anticipate that the

Court will consolidate the Gibrall and Hoffman actions and will appoint a lead plaintiff, and that

the court-appointed lead plaintiff will file a consolidated complaint superseding previously filed

complaints, including the Complaint; and

WHEREAS, the parties agree that efficiency for the courts and the parties in proceeding

under the PSLRA dictates that responding to any complaint should be deferred in light of the

foregoing.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the

respective parties hereto, that:

1. Defendants shall not be required to, and shall not waive any rights, arguments, or

defenses by waiting to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this action.

2. After the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B),

lead plaintiff and Defendants shall promptly meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing

of a consolidated complaint or designation of an operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for

Defendants’ anticipated motion(s) to dismiss. The parties shall submit a joint stipulation with a

proposed schedule no later than ten (10) business days following the appointment of lead

plaintiff.

Case 3:16-cv-02457-RS Document 19 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME -2-

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS

3. This Stipulation is entered into without prejudice to any party seeking any interim

relief.

4. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as a waiver of any of Defendants’

rights or positions in law or in equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that Defendants would

otherwise have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: June 29, 2016 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

/s/ Joni Ostler

JONI OSTLER

650 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Telephone (650) 493-9300

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100

Email: nlocker@wsgr.com

jbirn@wsgr.com

jostler@wsgr.com

nmiller@wsgr.com

Attorneys for Defendants Intrexon Corporation,

Randal J. Kirk, and Rick L. Sterling

DATED: June 29, 2016 POMERANTZ LLP

/s/ Jennifer Pafiti

JENNIFER PAFITI

468 North Camden Drive

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Telephone: (818) 532-6499

Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

POMERANTZ LLP

Jeremy A. Lieberman

J. Alexander Hood II

600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor

New York, New York 10016

Telephone: (212) 661-1100

Facsimile (212) 661-8665

Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Email: ahood@pomlaw.com

Case 3:16-cv-02457-RS Document 19 Filed 06/29/16 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME -3-

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS

POMERANTZ LLP

Patrick V. Dahlstrom

Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Telephone: (312) 377-1181

Facsimile: (312) 377-1184

Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN

Peretz Bronstein, Esq.

60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600

New York, NY 10165

Telephone: (212) 697-6484

Facsimile: (212) 697-7296

Email: peretz@bgandg.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:16-cv-02457-RS Document 19 Filed 06/29/16 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME -4-

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02457-RS

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, it is hereby ordered that:

1. Defendants shall not be required to, and shall not waive any rights, arguments, or

defenses by waiting to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this action.

2. After the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B),

lead plaintiff and Defendants shall promptly meet and confer regarding a schedule for the filing

of a consolidated complaint or designation of an operative complaint, and a briefing schedule for

Defendants’ anticipated motion(s) to dismiss. The parties shall submit a joint stipulation with a

proposed schedule no later than ten (10) business days following the appointment of lead

plaintiff.

3. This Order is entered into without prejudice to any party seeking any interim

relief.

4. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as a waiver of any of Defendants’ rights

or positions in law or in equity, or as a waiver of any defenses that Defendants would otherwise

have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6/29/16

Case 3:16-cv-02457-RS Document 19 Filed 06/29/16 Page 5 of 5