Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00392/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00392-11/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

IN RE SIPEX CORP.

Securities Litigation.

 /

No. C 05-00392 WHA

SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR

INFORMATION

By Wednesday, October 19, 2005, at noon, each side should file a single six-page

supplemental brief on all the following questions, combined (double-spaced and no footnotes). 

All defendants shall jointly submit one six-page brief. Please provide quotes with law cites, not

argument. If there is no law on point, please say so. Please flag any adverse authority against

your position with at least a “But see,” giving the page cite. Please re-state each question before

answering it. Here are the questions:

1. Quote from SEC, GAAP and caselaw authority whether a restatement of a

financial statement necessarily means the prior financial statement was

materially in error.

2. Quote from caselaw whether remedial/ethics/termination actions imposed by a

board can be considered on the materiality/scienter issues.

3. Quote from SEC, GAAP and caselaw whether the $350,000 sham sale was

material as to amount, assuming the facts as alleged were true.

4. Quote from SEC, GAAP and caselaw whether, apart from the amount, the

company was obligated to report as a material event the fact of the sham

Case 3:05-cv-00392-WHA Document 97 Filed 10/13/05 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

G:\WHAALL\2005Civ\05-00392 Sipex\SupplementalRequestInfo.wpd2

transaction by reason of the role of the CEO in the transaction, assuming the

facts as alleged were true.

5. Quote from caselaw whether we can infer from the timing of CEO Maghribi’s 

resignation that it was a forced resignation. 

6. What are the ground rules on how long a public company may take to issue 

restated financials? Can a public company “go slow” in completing the work for

a restated financial in order to postpone public disclosure of the restated 

financials? 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00392-WHA Document 97 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2