Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/12/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 10, 2001

According to the docket posted, on April 10, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an assented motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. On April 12, 2002, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock dismissing both cases, 1:01-cv-11185 and related case 1:01-cv-11243, with prejudice. The Plaintiff could not find a lead plaintiff to represent the class. The case was closed.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between July 20, 2000 and January 11, 2001. Specifically, as alleged in the complaint, the Company improperly recognized revenues during its second and third quarters of 2000 in order to meet revenue and earnings expectations during the Class Period, on products which were shipped to distributors months ahead of schedule and product-orders which had been canceled by distributors. On January 11, 2001, Sipex issued a press release announcing that its revenues for the fourth quarter of 2000 would be much worse than prior guidance, due to order cancellations and returns of products it already shipped and an inability to meet supposedly high-demand for products that it was unable to deliver to customers because of production problems. In response to this announcement, Sipex's stock price dropped by 46.3% in one day, from $24.2344 per share on January 11, 2001, to $13 per share by the close of trading on January 12, 2001. Prior to the disclosure of the true facts about Sipex's business, Sipex insiders sold a total of over $35 million of their personally-held Sipex stock.


Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: SIPX
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data

"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 01-CV-11185
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 07/10/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/11/2001
  1. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  3. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
No Document Title Filing Date