Abaxis Lawsuit

Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR
Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page1 of 15
1 KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
2 Ramzi Abadou (222567)
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 400-3000
4 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 rabadou@ktmc.com
5 epeterson@ktmc.com
6 -and-
7 Eric L. Zagar (250519) James H. Miller
8 Matthew A. Goldstein
280 King of Prussia Road
9 Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: (610) 667-7706
10 Facsimile: (267) 948-2512
ezagar@ktmc.com
11 jmiller@ktmc.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Thad A. Davis (220503) Enrique A. Monagas (239087) 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 Facsimile: (415) 393-8306 tadavis@gibsondunn.com emonagas@gibsondunn.com
-and-
George H. Brown (138590) 1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 849-5300 Facsimile: (650) 849-5333 gbrown@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Defendants and Nominal Defendant Abaxis, Inc.
mgoldstein@ktmc.com
12
13
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15 ST. LOUIS POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
On Behalf Of Itself and All Others Similarly
16 Situated and Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal
CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT
DATE: MARCH 25, 2013
TIME: 2:00 P.M.
PLACE: COURTROOM 5, SECOND FLOOR JUDGE: YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17 18 19
Defendant ABAXIS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CLINTON H. SEVERSON, ALBERTO R.
20 SANTA INES, KENNETH P. ARON,
VLADIMIR E. OSTOICH, DONALD P.
21 WOOD, MARTIN V. MULROY, RICHARD J.
BASTIANI, MICHAEL D. CASEY, HENK J.
22 EVENHUIS, PRITHIPAL SINGH, VERNON
E. ALTMAN, AND ERNEST S. TUCKER,
23
24
and
25
ABAXIS, INC.
26 27 28
Defendants,
Nominal Defendant.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR
9 10
Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page2 of 15
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Civil Local Rule 16-9 and the Standing
2 Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California, Plaintiff St. Louis Police Retirement
3 System (“Plaintiff”), Defendants Clinton H. Severson, Alberto R. Santa Ines, Kenneth P. Aron,
4 Vladimir E. Ostoich, Donald P. Wood, Martin V. Mulroy, Richard J. Bastiani, Michael D. Casey,
5 Henk J. Evenhuis, Prithipal Singh, Vernon E. Altman, and Ernest S. Tucker (collectively, the
6 “Individual Defendants”) and Nominal Defendant Abaxis, Inc. (“Abaxis” or the “Company” and
7 collectively with the Individual Defendants, the “Defendants”) hereby submit this Joint Case
8 Management Statement and Rule 26(f) Report.
I. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE
Plaintiff asserts that: (1) this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
11 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that the Verified Shareholder Class Action and Derivative
12 Complaint (the “Complaint”) states a federal question; (2) this Court also has jurisdiction over this
13 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) in that Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different
14 states and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs; and (3)
15 this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
16 1367(a). Service of process has been completed as to all parties.
17 18 19
20 alleged in the Complaint, the Grantor Defendants (Severson, Bastiani, Casey, Evenhuis, Singh and
21 Tucker) wrongfully caused and allowed the Company to issue excessive and improper shares of
22 Company common stock in settlement of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) granted to Company
23 employees, including the Officer Defendants (Severson, Santa Ines, Aron, Ostoich, Wood and
24 Mulroy) in violation of the Company’s 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan provides
25 that “in no event shall more than five hundred thousand (500,000) shares in the aggregate be issued
26 under the Plan pursuant to the exercise or settlement of...Restricted Stock Units” (the “Restricted
27 Stock Limit”). In its August 28, 2012 8-K (the “8-K”) filed with the Securities and Exchange
28 Commission (“SEC”), the Company admitted that the Abaxis Board of Directors (the “Board”)
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT - 1 - CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR
II. FACTS
A. Plaintiff’s Position
Plaintiff commenced this stockholder class and derivative action on October 1, 2012. As

Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page3 of 15
1 violated the Restricted Stock Limit by issuing 870,179 shares of Common Stock upon settlement of
2 RSUs granted under the Plan since October 2005, i.e., 370,179 shares in excess of the Restricted
3 Stock Limit. In total, since FY 2007, the Board granted a total of 2,045,000 RSUs pursuant to the
4 Plan, some 1,545,000 more than could be settled in accordance with the Restricted Stock Limit.
5 On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the
6 Annual Meeting of shareholders scheduled for October 24, 2012 based on the Company’s
7 materially false and misleading September 27, 2012 Form DEF 14A proxy statement (the “2012
8 Proxy”). On October 23, 2012, the Court granted, in part, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
9 injunction, enjoining the shareholder vote on a proposed amendment to the Plan to eliminate the
10 Restricted Stock Limit and ordering the Company to file and issue a supplement to the 2012 Proxy
11 (the “Supplemental Proxy”) to make additional disclosures required by the Court. On October 24,
12 2012, the Company filed the Supplemental Proxy with the SEC.
13
B. Defendants’ Position
14 Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations of any wrongdoing, or harm to the Company or its
15 shareholders. The Company maintains the Plan, originally approved by shareholders in October
16 2005 and subsequently amended by the Company and approved by shareholders in October 2008
17 and October 2010, under which it may make awards of RSUs and other equity-based awards. The
18 Plan contains a provision that no more than 500,000 shares may be granted under the plan upon
19 exercise or settlement of “full value awards,” which include RSUs. In connection with the
20 preparation of the 2012 Proxy, the Company determined that it issued more shares in settlement of
21 RSUs than are currently permitted under the full value award limit. As of August 28, 2012, the
22 Company had issued 870,179 shares of Common Stock upon settlement of RSUs granted under the
23 Plan since October 2005. The Company inadvertently exceeded the full value award limit because
24 it believed that such limit applied to each 500,000-share increase to the overall share reserve
25 increase approved by stockholders in 2005, 2008 and 2010. The Company has not issued RSUs
26 and other equity awards or shares issuable upon exercise or settlement thereof in excess of the
27 overall share reserve for the Plan approved by shareholders.
28 The Company promptly reported its advertent error to the Listing Qualifications Office of
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT - 2 - CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR

Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page4 of 15
1 the Nasdaq Stock Market, along with its proposed plan to regain compliance. The same day the
2 Company received Nasdaq’s response, August 28, 2012, it disclosed the issue to its shareholders in
3 an 8-K filed with the SEC.
4 On September 17, 2012—less than three weeks later—the Company filed with the SEC and
5 distributed to shareholders the 2012 Proxy, which included a proposal to amend the Plan to, among
6 other things, remove the Full Value Award Limit and increase the total number of shares available
7 under the Plan by 900,000 shares.
8 In connection with the partial granting of Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the
9 Court ordered the Company to file and issue the Supplemental Proxy and required that the Annual
10 Meeting reconvene no fewer than seven days after mailing. The next day, on October 24, 2012, the
11 Company filed with the SEC and distributed to its shareholders the Supplemental Proxy. On
12 November 8, 2012, the Company reconvened the Annual Meeting in order for shareholders to vote
13 on the 2012 Proposed Amendment. Shareholders overwhelmingly approved the 2012 Proposed
14 Amendment to the Plan, thereby eliminating the Full Value Award Limit. Additionally, on October
15 24, 2012, the Board and the Compensation Committee ratified the past RSU issuance.
16 17 18
19 fiduciary duties by granting, and subsequently issuing shares of common stock in settlement of,
20 RSUs in excess of the Restricted Stock Limit, thereby violating the Plan; (ii) Grantor Defendants
21 Bastiani, Casey, Singh, Evenhuis and Tucker, as members of the Compensation Committee,
22 breached their fiduciary duties by approving and recommending to the Board that it grant RSUs in
23 excess of those that could be settled in accordance with the Restricted Stock Limit; (iii) Grantor
24 Defendants Severson, Bastiani, Evenhuis, Singh and Tucker breached their fiduciary duties by
25 seeking shareholder approval of a 2010 amendment to the Plan, which sought to increase the
26 aggregate number of shares of common stock reserved for issuance under the Plan by 500,000
27 shares to 5,886,000, without disclosing to shareholders that they had already granted, and
28 subsequently issued shares of common stock in settlement of, RSUs well in excess of the Restricted
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT - 3 - CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR
III. LEGAL ISSUES
A. Plaintiff’s Position
Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint, inter alia, that: (i) the Grantor Defendants breached their

Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page5 of 15
1 Stock Limit; (iv) Grantor Defendants Severson, Bastiani, Evenhuis, Singh and Tucker violated
2 Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by issuing a materially false and misleading proxy
3 statement in connection with the shareholder vote on the 2010 amendment; and (v) the Officer
4 Defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of their receipt of excessive and unwarranted grants
5 of RSUs and Abaxis stock in excess of the Restricted Stock Limit and in violation of the Plan.
6
7 Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations that any of the Defendants’ breached any fiduciary
8 duty or duties, committed any violations of the Securities Exchange Act, or any other applicable
9 law or regulation, or that any of the Officer Defendants were unjustly enriched.
10 Defendants assert the following legal questions are at issue and should be resolved in
11 Defendants’ favor: (1) whether Plaintiff has standing to bring its derivative causes of action in light
12 of its failure to make a demand upon the Board and failure to plead demand futility with
13 particularity because it cannot; (2) whether Defendants can be liable for any inadvertent
14 noncompliance with the Full Value Award Limit under the Plan in light of the exculpatory
15 provision in the Company’s articles of incorporation; (3) whether the Company must indemnify
16 Defendants for any inadvertent noncompliance with the Full Value Award Limit under the Plan
17 where the Plan requires indemnification; (4) whether there is any harm to the Company or the
18 shareholders with respect to any violation of the Full Value Award Limit in the Plan in light of the
19 subsequent shareholder vote and Board ratification approving an amendment to the Plan that
20 increased the Full Value Award Limit; (5) whether the Company may claw back shares issued in
21 settlement of RSUs issued as compensation to the Officer Defendants where the Officer Defendants
22 are not alleged to have committed any wrongdoing; (6) whether the Company may claw back shares
23 issued in settlement of RSUs issued as compensation to the Officer Defendants in light of the
24 subsequent shareholder vote and Board ratification approving an amendment to the Plan that
25 increased the Full Value Award Limit; and (7) whether Plaintiff’s claims are moot in light of the
26 subsequent shareholder vote and Board ratification approving an amendment to the Plan that
27 increased the Full Value Award Limit.
28
B. Defendants’ Position
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT - 4 - CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR
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
IV. MOTIONS
As discussed supra, Plaintiff filed its motion for preliminary injunction on October 1, 2012, which was granted in part on October 23, 2012. On December 28, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on grounds that: (i) Plaintiff failed to adequately plead demand futility; (ii) Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief as to any count; and, (iii) Plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the 2012 Proxy and for unjust enrichment are moot (the “Motions to Dismiss”). The Motions to Dismiss are currently set for hearing on April 9, 2013. At this time, it is too early in the proceedings for the parties to identify any anticipated additional motions that will be filed.
V. AMENDMENT OF THE PLEADINGS
The parties presently do not anticipate that any additional parties will be joined or that further amendments to the pleadings will be necessary, but reserve the right to make any such amendments after the parties have developed a litigation schedule.
VI. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
The parties have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information and met and conferred on March 4, 2013 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding reasonable and appropriate steps taken to preserve evidence. Each party represents that it has instituted reasonable document retention procedures so as to maintain relevant documents, electronic or otherwise, until this dispute is resolved.
VII. DISCLOSURES
A. Plaintiff’s Position
Plaintiff believes that initial disclosures should be made promptly within 14 days of the March 4, 2013 Rule 26(f) conference pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(C). Plaintiff served its initial disclosures on Defendants on March 18, 2013.
B. Defendants’ Position
Defendants object to making any initial disclosures prior to a ruling on their pending motions to dismiss. Defendants have taken the position that Plaintiff’s cause of action for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act was improperly brought as a derivative claim in order to
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT - 5 - CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR
Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page6 of 15

Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page7 of 15
1 circumvent an automatic stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
2 1995. As such, Defendants take the position that discovery is currently stayed pursuant to 15
3 U.S.C. §77z-1(b).
4
VIII. DISCOVERY
A. Rule 26(f) Conference
5
6 On March 4, 2013, via teleconference, the parties met and conferred as required by Fed. R.
7 Civ. P. 26(f). The parties anticipate engaging in both written discovery and depositions. Below is
8 the parties’ proposed discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3).
9
B. Initial Disclosures - Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(A)
10 See responses to Section VII, supra.
11 12
13 Plaintiff believes that discovery will be needed with respect to the claims in the Complaint,
14 including, but not limited to, the legal issues set forth in Section III.A, supra, and the damages
15 associated with such claims. Plaintiff does not believe that discovery should be conducted in
16 phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues. Plaintiff believes that discovery should
17 commence immediately.
18
19 As stated above, Defendants’ position is that discovery in this action is stayed under the
20 PSLRA until the Court rules on the Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss. Defendants propose
21 the following schedule, which would begin after the denial in whole or part of Defendants’ Motions
22 to Dismiss (and is without prejudice of Defendants’ ability to move to stay the proceedings
23 including for any necessary investigations and decisions by any independent committees of the
24 Board that may be convened pending outcome on the Motions to Dismiss): (1) Within fourteen days
25 after either (a) the service of all answers or (b) the entry of an order denying in whole or in part any
26 motion to dismiss, whichever date occurs first, the parties shall meet and confer concerning initial
27 disclosures, early settlement and a discovery plan; and (2) Within thirty days after either (a) the
28 service of all answers or (b) the entry of an order denying in whole or in part any motion to dismiss,
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT - 6 - CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR
C. Scope of Discovery - Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(B) 1. Plaintiff’s Position
2. Defendants’ Position

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
whichever date occurs first, the parties shall complete and serve initial disclosures.
D. Electronically Stored Information - Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(C) 1. Plaintiff’s Position
Plaintiff does not believe it possesses much, if any, electronically stored information but is expected to scan and produce requested, non-privileged documents in PDF, Adobe readable format.
2. Defendants’ Position
As stated above, Defendants’ position is that discovery in this action is stayed under the PSLRA until the Court rules on the Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss. Defendants propose that, in accordance with the discovery schedule proposed above, that the Parties meet and confer on proposed search terms for any electronically stored information sought from Defendants.
E. Claims of Privilege – Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(D)
The parties agree that a stipulated confidentiality agreement for the entry of a protective order is necessary to protect from public disclosure proprietary or other commercially sensitive information that may be produced by the parties in this litigation. The parties anticipate submitting an agreed-up proposed order to the Court for review and approval.
F. Limitations on Discovery – Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(E)
The parties agree that some of the standard discovery limitations should be increased to account for the complexity of the issues and claims. The parties request that Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively) shall each be allowed up to 35 interrogatories pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. The parties also request that Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively) shall each be allowed up to 15 depositions on oral examination pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Otherwise, the parties do not currently anticipate any changes to the limitations on discovery.
IX.
G. Other Orders – Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(F)
See Section VIII.E, supra. CLASS ACTION
Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page8 of 15
Count V of the Complaint against Individual Defendants Severson, Bastiani, Casey, Evenhuis, Singh and Altman for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the 2012 Proxy was brought on behalf of Plaintiff and a purposed class of Abaxis shareholders. Defendants argued in
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT - 7 - CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR

Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page9 of 15
1 the Motions to Dismiss, and Plaintiff agrees, that the Supplemental Proxy mooted Count V of the
2 Complaint. Plaintiff believes that the Supplemental Proxy constituted a substantial benefit to
3 Abaxis shareholders. Defendants believe that the Supplemental Proxy did not constitute a
4 substantial benefit to Abaxis shareholders.
5 6 7 8 9
X. XI.
Plaintiff seeks the following relief: (i) damages sustained by the Company as a result of the
10 Grantor Defendants’ statutory violations and breaches of fiduciary duties; (ii) ordering the Officer
11 Defendants to disgorge to the Company the shares they have received in excess of the Restricted
12 Stock Limit and in violation of the Plan, as well as any proceeds they derived therefrom; (iii)
13 appropriate equitable relief to remedy the Grantor Defendants’ statutory violations and breaches of
14 fiduciary duties; and (iv) awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action, including
15 reasonable attorneys’ fees, accounts’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses. Plaintiff respectfully
16 submits that it is premature to calculate the amount of damages as discovery has yet to commence.
17
18 Plaintiff seeks damages that are not recoverable because Defendants are exculpated from
19 liability under the Company’s articles of incorporation and indemnified under the Plan. Defendants
20 seek the following judgment and relief: (i) a determination that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this
21 suit derivatively for failure to make a pre-suit demand or to plead particularized facts that demand is
22 excused; (ii) entering judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants with respect to all
23 causes of action in the Complaint; (iii) awarding Defendants their reasonable costs and expenses
24 incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; and (iv) such other and further relief
25 as the Court may deem just and proper.
26
27
28 unable to come to an agreement at that time. On February 19, 2013, the parties jointly filed a
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT - 8 - CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR
RELATED CASES
There are no related cases or proceedings currently pending.
RELIEF
A. Plaintiff’s Position
B. Defendants’ Position
XII. SETTLEMENT AND ADR
On February 8, 2013, via teleconference, the parties discussed private mediation but were

XVI.
EXPEDITED TRIAL PROCEDURE A. Plaintiff’s Position
Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page10 of 15
1 Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference in accordance with ADR L.R. 3-5 and L.R. 16-8, which
2 has been scheduled for March 19, 2013.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11
12
13
14
15
16 because of their pending Motions to Dismiss. 17
18
19
20
21
22 may be appropriate for an expedited trial schedule. 23
XIII. XIV.
CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES
The parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings.
OTHER REFERENCES A. Plaintiff’s Position
Plaintiff believes this case is suitable for reference to private mediation.
B. Defendants’ Position
Defendants do not believe this matter is suitable for private mediation at this time, in light of 10 the issues raised in the Motions to dismiss, and the demands discussed with Plaintiff’s counsel.
XV.
NARROWING OF THE ISSUES A. Plaintiff’s Position
Plaintiff asserts that there is no narrowing of the issues at this time.
B. Defendants’ Position
Defendants do not believe that, at this time, the issues can be narrowed by the parties
Plaintiff does not believe that this case is appropriate for an expedited trial schedule.
B. Defendants’ Position
Defendants believe that, depending on the outcome of their Motions to Dismiss, this case
XVII. SCHEDULING
A. Plaintiff’s Position
24 25
26 exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) is appropriate. Otherwise, Plaintiff
27 believes that it is premature to set further scheduling deadlines at this time.
28
As set forth above, Plaintiff believes a deadline of March 18, 2013 for the parties to
B. Defendants’ Position
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT - 9 - CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR
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
Defendants believe that setting any deadlines prior to ruling on their Motions to Dismiss is premature at this time.
XVIII. TRIAL
The Complaint contains a jury trial demand. The parties believe that it is premature to estimate the length of trial until the Motions to Dismiss are decided and discovery is completed.
XIX. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS A. Plaintiff’s Certification of Interested Entities or Persons
On March 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Certification of Interested Entities or Persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 and L.R. 3-16, which states “Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that as of this date, other than the named parties, there is no such interest to report.”
B. Defendants’ Certification of Interested Entities or Persons
On October 16, 2012, Defendants filed a Certification of Interested Entities or Persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 and L.R. 3-16, which is reproduced below:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that the following listed persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) or other entities (i) have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or (ii) have a non- financial interest in that subject matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding: Clinton H. Severson, Alberto R. Santa Ines, Kenneth P. Aron, Vladimir E. Ostoich, Donald P. Wood, Martin V. Mulroy who are executives of Abaxis, Inc.; Richard J. Bastiani, Michael D. Casey, Henk J. Evenhuis, Prithipal Singh, and Vernon E. Altman, who are directors of Abaxis, Inc.; and Ernest S. Tucker, III, who is a former director of Abaxis, Inc. In addition to the individuals listed above, Abaxis, Inc. has a subsidiary, Abaxis Europe GmbH, incorporated in Germany.
To Abaxis, Inc.’s knowledge based on public securities filings made by such holders, as of August 31, 2012, the following entities have 5% or more beneficial ownership of Abaxis, Inc.’s common stock: Brown Capital Management, LLC and The Brown Capital Management Small Company Fund, Kayne Anderson Rudnick Investment Management, LLC; Neuberger Berman Group LLC, Neuberger Berman LLC, Neuberger Berman Management LLC and Neuberger Berman Equity Funds; BlackRock, Inc.; The Vanguard Group, Inc.; Riverbridge Partners, LLC.
Abaxis, Inc. is a publicly owned company with a large number of outstanding shares, and as such, it would be impracticable to list each individual shareholder.
XX. OTHER MATTERS
At the present time, the parties are unaware of any other matters that may facilitate the
Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page11 of 15
just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of this matter. 28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT - 10 - CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR

5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: March 18, 2013
Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR
Document82
Filed03/18/13 Page12 of 15
1 Dated: March 18 2013 2
3
4
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
/s/ Eric L. Zagar
Eric L. Zagar (250519) James H. Miller
Matthew A. Goldstein 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (267) 948-2512
-and-
Ramzi Abadou (222567)
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 400-3000
Fax: (415) 400-3001
SAXENA WHITE, P.A.
Joseph E. White, III
Jonathan M. Stein
Lester R. Hooker
2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 394-3399
Attorneys for Plaintiff
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
/s/ Thad A. Davis
Thad A. Davis (220503) Enrique A. Monagas (239087) 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 Facsimile: (415) 393-8306 tadavis@gibsondunn.com emonagas@gibsondunn.com
-and-
George H. Brown (138590) 1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 849-5300 Facsimile: (650) 849-5333 gbrown@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Defendants and Nominal Defendant Abaxis, Inc.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR
- 11 -
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
ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45
I, Eric L. Zagar, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that each of the signatories above has concurred in this filing.
Dated: March 18, 2013
Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page13 of 15
/s/ Eric L. Zagar
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR

Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR Document82 Filed03/18/13 Page14 of 15
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 18, 2013 I authorized the electronic filing of the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List.
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 18, 2013.
/s/ Eric L. Zagar
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR

Case4:12-cv-05086-YGR
Document82
Filed03/18/13
Page15 of 15
1 Electronic Mail Notice List
2
3
Ramzi Abadou
rabadou@ktmc.com ezagar@ktmc.com
4 Eric L. Zagar
5
6
7
8 jmiller@ktmc.com 9
Robin Winchester
rwinchester@ktmc.com
James Hunter Miller, Jr. Matthew Alec Goldstein
mgoldstein@ktmc.com
Lester Rene Hooker
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
11
Jonathan Matthew Stein
jstein@saxenawhite.com
Joseph Edward White, III
jwhite@saxenawhite.com GBrown@gibsondunn.com
16 George H. Brown
Thad Alan Davis
TADavis@gibsondunn.com
Enrique Antonio Monagas
emonagas@gibsondunn.com
Manual Notice List
The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require manual noticing).
• (No manual recipients)
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(F) REPORT CASE NO. 12-CV-05086-YGR