NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Smokey21]

Yonemura v. Powers et al
Has there been any word on the content of the filing in the report from yesterday?

CHRISTINE YONEMURA, Plaintiff, v. LINDA POWERS, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 8:15-cv-03526-PX

JOINT STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff and the Defendants (collectively, the “Parties”) respectfully submit this joint status report under this Court’s March 18, 2016 Order [ECF No. 31]. In support hereof, the Parties jointly state as follows:

1. On November 16, 2016, the Court issued an Order continuing the stay, directing the Parties to file a Joint Status Report on January 16, 2017, and stating that the “Case will not be STAYED beyond January 16, 2017 absent extraordinary circumstances.” [ECF No. 38]

2. The Parties continue to engage in good faith negotiations in an effort to resolve the litigation. The Parties’ negotiations have been time-consuming due to their complexity. The negotiations involve numerous parties, many of whom are represented by separate counsel. In addition, the negotiations concern multiple cases brought by different plaintiffs in different jurisdictions.

While the Parties to this case have negotiated, defense counsel have also negotiated with counsel to plaintiffs who filed overlapping claims in the Delaware Court of Chancery. See Tharp v. Cognate, C.A. No. 11179-VCG (Del. Ch.).

More recently, defense counsel have also conferred with counsel who filed a third suit with overlapping claims in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County Maryland on November 28, 2016. See Wells v. Powers, Case 8:15-cv-03526-PX Case No. 427353-V (Md. Cir. Ct., Mont. Cnty.). Although it is not clear at this time that all three lawsuits can be settled simultaneously, Defendants have made efforts toward a global resolution, and the filing of this third lawsuit has added to the complexity of the negotiations.

3. The Parties continue to negotiate in good faith, and they have now exchanged a written draft of an agreement to settle this litigation. The Parties believe that the negotiations
have been constructive and that they have made considerable progress toward reaching a settlement agreement.

4. The Parties acknowledge that the stay has been in place for an extended period of time (for reasons unrelated to settlement for much of that time), but they believe that they are
making progress toward an acceptable resolution that would obviate the need for litigation. The Parties also believe that diverting resources away from their ongoing negotiation efforts and
toward litigation at this time would disserve the interests of judicial economy and conserving the resources of the Parties. For those reasons, the Parties jointly support a continuation of the stay for an additional 60 days, until March 17, 2017.

5. Should the Court conclude to lift the stay at this time, the Parties jointly request the following schedule for briefing a response to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Verified
Stockholder Derivative Complaint (the “Complaint”):

a. Defendants shall move, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint on or before March 17, 2017;

b. If Defendants file a motion to dismiss some or all of the claims in the Complaint, Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss shall be due on or
before May 16, 2017; and

c. Defendants’ Replies in Support of their Motions to Dismiss shall be due on or before June 30, 2017.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 16, 2017