Robert S. Green (State Bar No. 136183) James Robert Noblin (State Bar No. 114442) Lesley E. Weaver (State Bar No. 191305) GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 700 E. Larkspur Landing Circle, Ste. 275 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415)

Robert S. Green (State Bar No. 136183)

(State Bar No. 114442)

Lesley E. Weaver (State Bar No. 191305)

GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.

700 E. Larkspur Landing

Facsimile: (415) 477-6710

Attorneys for Plaintiff Carol Truglio

COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND

If you bought common stock of Dynavax Technologies Corporation ( Dynavax or the

Company ) as of May 19, 2017, your rights may be affected.

The California Superior Court for the County of Alameda authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

SUMMARY OF YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND

The lawsuit was brought by Plaintiffs solely on behalf of

and for the benefit of Dynavax and against the Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs generally allege, among other things, that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate assets, and were unjustly enriched in connection

with allegedly improper statements between April 2012 and June 2013 regarding HEPLISAV-B.

The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or

Defendants. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement in order to avoid the cost and risk of continued litigation. Counsel for the Settling Parties believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of the Plaintiffs, Individual Defendants,

Dynavax and its shareholders.

The lawsuit was brought by Plaintiffs solely on behalf

of and for the benefit of Dynavax and against the Individual Defendants.

As a direct result of the filing, prosecution, and

settlement of the Derivative Actions, Dynavax has agreed to adopt and implement the Corporate Governance Reforms set forth in Exhibit A to the Stipulation. These Corporate Governance Reforms constitute the consideration for the Settlement, and the

Dynavax Board acknowledges and agrees that Plaintiffs prosecution of the

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND

Derivative Actions was the primary factor in Dynavax s decision to adopt, implement, and/or maintain the Reforms. Dynavax also acknowledges and agrees that the Settlement confers a

substantial benefit upon Dynavax and its shareholders. The Corporate Governance Reforms shall be maintained for a minimum of three years from the date they are implemented, respectively, unless abrogated by law. For a complete description of all of

the Corporate Governance Reforms, please see Exhibit A to the Stipulation.

Counsel for the Settling Parties believe that the Settlement

is in the best interests of the Plaintiffs, Individual Defendants, Dynavax and its shareholders.

Plaintiffs believe that the Derivative Actions

have substantial merit, and Plaintiffs entry into the Stipulation and this Settlement is not intended to be and shall not be construed as an admission or concession concerning the relative strength or merit of the claims alleged in the

Derivative Actions. Plaintiffs and their counsel also acknowledge the significant risk, expense, and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the Derivative Actions against the Defendants through trial and through possible appeals.

Plaintiffs Counsel have also taken into account the substantial risks, costs, and delays involved in complex shareholder derivative litigation, generally, as well as the unique challenges presented by the Derivative Actions, including

establishing that demand on the Board would be futile and the exculpation and indemnification rights afforded the director Defendants pursuant to Delaware General Corporate Law 102(b)(7).

Based on Plaintiffs Counsel s thorough review and analysis of the relevant facts and the circumstances, allegations, defenses, and

controlling legal principles, Plaintiffs Counsel have determined that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and confers substantial benefits upon Dynavax and its shareholders. Based on their evaluation,

Plaintiffs and their counsel believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of Dynavax and its shareholders and have agreed to settle the Derivative Actions upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND

Defendants have denied and continue to deny

each and all of the claims, contentions, and allegations made against them or that could have been made against them in the Derivative Actions, and believe the Derivative Actions have no merit. The Individual Defendants expressly assert that they

have satisfied their fiduciary duties and have acted in good faith and in the best interest of Dynavax and its shareholders at all relevant times. Defendants have entered into the Stipulation to avoid continuing expense, inconvenience, and

distraction of the Derivative Actions, as well as the risks and uncertainties inherent in the lawsuits. Nevertheless, Defendants have determined that it is desirable and beneficial that the Derivative Actions be settled in the manner and upon the

terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation because, among other things, it will allow the Company to conclude this litigation on terms that are just and reasonable, including the adoption and maintenance of the Corporate Governance Reforms.

Further, Dynavax, through its Board, acknowledges that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of Dynavax and its shareholders.

Plaintiffs Counsel represents the named

plaintiffs and brings this case on behalf of and for the benefit of Dynavax. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.

After negotiating the Corporate Governance Reforms,

Plaintiffs Counsel and counsel for Defendants separately negotiated the attorneys fees and expenses to be paid to Plaintiffs Counsel. As a result of these negotiations, and in light of the substantial benefits conferred upon

Dynavax and its shareholders by the Settlement, Dynavax s Board has agreed and shall instruct Dynavax s and the

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND

Individual Defendants insurers to pay $925,000 for Plaintiffs attorneys fees and expenses, subject to court approval. Plaintiffs Counsel shall request approval by the

Court of the fees and expenses at the Settlement Hearing. To date, Plaintiffs Counsel have neither received any payment for their services in conducting the Derivative Actions, nor have Plaintiffs Counsel been reimbursed for their

out-of-pocket litigation expenses incurred. Plaintiffs Counsel believe that the agreed-upon fees and expenses is within the range of fees and expenses awarded to plaintiffs counsel under similar circumstances in litigation of this type.

Plaintiffs may also apply for Court approval of

service awards in the amount of $1,500 for the Federal and State Plaintiffs (the Service Awards ), in light of the benefits they have helped to create for Dynavax and Current Dynavax Shareholders.

You can tell the Court you do not agree with the Settlement

You may object to the

proposed Settlement in writing. You may also appear at the Settlement Hearing, in person or through an attorney at your own expense, provided you notify the Court of your intent to do so. All written objections, supporting papers and/or notices of

intent to appear at the Settlement Hearing must:

(a) clearly identify the case name and number (Truglio v. Oronsky, Case

(b) include your name, address, and telephone number;

(c) include an account statement evidencing that you held shares of Dynavax common stock as of May 19, 2017;

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND

(d) contain a statement of objections to any matters before the Court, the grounds therefore, or

the reasons for such Person desiring to appear and be heard, as well as all documents or writings such Person desires the Court to consider

(e) the identities of any witnesses you plan on calling at the Settlement Hearing, along with a summary description of their likely

(f) be submitted to the Court either by mailing the objection to: Clerk of Court, Superior Court of California, County of

Alameda, Rene C. Davidson Alameda County Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, California 94612, or by filing in person at any location of the Superior Court, County of Alameda that includes a facility for civil filings;

(g) be mailed to both law firms identified:

Counsel for Plaintiffs

William B. Federman,

10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.

Oklahoma City, OK 73120

Counsel for Defendants:

(h) be filed or postmarked on or before October 3, 2017.

Any Person or entity who fails to object or otherwise request to be heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have waived the

right to object to any aspect of the Settlement or otherwise request to be heard (including the right to appeal) and will be forever barred from raising such objection or request to be heard in this or any other action or proceeding.

October 17, 2017, at 3:00 p.m., the Court will hold the Settlement Hearing before the Honorable Brad Seligman, in Department 30 of the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND

County, located at U.S. Post Office Building, 201 Thirteenth Street, Oakland, CA 94613. The Settlement Hearing may be continued by the Court without further notice. At the Settlement Hearing, the

Court will consider: (i) whether the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) whether a final judgment should be entered; (iii) whether the Court should award the

agreed-to attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses for Plaintiffs Counsel and a service award to Plaintiffs; and (iv) such other matters as may be necessary or proper under the circumstances.

You have the right, but are not required, to appear

in person or through counsel at the Settlement Hearing to object to the terms of the proposed Settlement or otherwise present evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant.

You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the

Settlement Hearing. To do so, you must send a letter stating that it is your notice of intention to appear in Truglio v. Oronsky, Case Number RG13686266. Your notice of intention to appear must be postmarked no later than October 3,

2017, and be sent to the Clerk of Court, Plaintiff s Counsel and Defense Counsel at the three addresses in question 10.

If you do nothing, you will not be able to start,

continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit on behalf of Dynavax about the legal issues in this case, ever again. Upon the Effective Date, Plaintiffs, all other Current Dynavax Shareholders, Plaintiffs Counsel, and Dynavax shall

be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged the Released Claims (including Unknown Claims of Plaintiffs and Dynavax) against

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND

Dynavax, the Individual Defendants, and their Related Persons. Further, upon the Effective Date, Dynavax, the Individual Defendants, and their Related Persons shall be deemed to have, and by

operation of the Judgment shall have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs Counsel, and Dynavax from all claims (including Unknown Claims of Plaintiffs and Dynavax), arising out of, relating

to, or in connection with the institution, prosecution, assertion, settlement, or resolution of the Derivative Actions or the Released Claims.

This Notice summarizes the Stipulation. It

is not a complete statement of the events of the Derivative Actions or the Stipulation. There is additional information concerning the Settlement available in the Stipulation.