Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03248/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03248-28/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND, L.P.,

BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND II,

L.P., INVESTMENT 10, L.L.C., BVF

INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.; BVF INC., and

BVF X, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CELERA CORPORATION, CREDIT

SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC,

KATHY ORDOÑEZ, RICHARD H.

AYERS, WILLIAM G. GREEN, PETER

BARTON HUTT, GAIL M. NAUGHTON,

WAYNE I. ROE, and BENNETT M.

SHAPIRO,

Defendants. /

No. C 13-03248 WHA

FURTHER REQUEST FOR

BRIEFING

BY TWO P.M. TODAY, each side shall please answer the following in five pages or less

(no attachments, please).

(1) Mills seems to hold that materiality is alone enough to prove causation in a Section

14(a) case. 396 U.S. at 385. Has the United States Supreme Court ever limited or overturned

this holding in a Section 14(a) or 14(e) decision? Has our court of appeals? (Be clear on

whether any such action expressly modified Mills).

(2) Plaine quotes the “materiality equals causation” passage from Mills (797 F.2d at

721), evidently with approval, and extends Mills to a Section 14(e) case. Has any decision by

our court of appeals ever expressly modified this equation in a Section 14(a) or 14(e) case?

Case 3:13-cv-03248-WHA Document 268 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

(3) Mills also holds that “retrospective relief” is available but via a court “of equity,”

meaning presumably that damages should be determined by the judge under Section 14(a) (and

presumably Section 14(e)). Is this correct? If not, cite binding authority on point.

(4) Each side may respond to the other side’s submission filed earlier today (but still

within the overall five-page limit).

Dated: January 13, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-03248-WHA Document 268 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 2