Form 424B3 (the “Prospectus”), which it filed with the Commission on September 18, did not omit any material information. The offering closed on September 23, 2015.
4. In its Registration Statement and Prospectus, Sientra stated that “there are inherent risks in contracting with manufacturers located outside of the United States such as in Brazil” and that “any negative publicity concerning our products could harm our business reputation and negatively impact our financial results.”
5. Sientra’s Registration Statement and Prospectus also expressly incorporated by reference the “Risk Factors” sections in Sientra’s annual report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, and in its quarterly reports on Forms10-Q for the quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2015. There, Sientra warned that its future profitability depended on its breast implant products, and that it relied on Silimed as its “sole source” manufacturer of all of its products. Sientra further stated in its 2014 annual report: “In addition, our reliance on Silimed involves a number of other risks, including among other things that… our products may not be manufactured in accordance with agreed upon specifications or in compliance with regulatory requirements, or its manufacturing facilities may not be able to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements, which could negatively affect the safety or efficacy of our products or cause delays in shipments of our products.”
6. On September 20, 2015, three days before the close of Sientra’sfollow-on offering, Sientra’sthen-CEO, Hani Zeini, learned that the CE certificate for the Silimed brand of breast implants had been suspended following an audit of Silimed’s manufacturing facility.
7. From September 20, 2015, through the close of thefollow-on offering on September 23, 2015, Sientra’sthen-CEO, Zeini, concealed the fact that Silimed’s CE certificate had been suspended from other individuals at Sientra working on the offering, including Sientra’s then-general counsel, and from the outside professionals working on the offering, including Sientra’s outside counsel and the underwriters.
8. On September 22, 2015, Zeini signed the officer’s closing certificate on behalf of Sientra. Through the certificate, Sientra represented that “the representations and warranties of [Sientra] in the Purchase Agreement are true and correct as if made at and as of the Closing Date, and [Sientra] has complied with all the agreements and satisfied all the conditions on its part to be performed or satisfied at or prior to the Closing Date.”
9. On September 22, 2015, Zeini directed Sientra’s then-general counsel to close thefollow-on offering, but did not tell the general counsel that Silimed’s CE certificate had been suspended.
10. On September 23, 2015, Sientra’s then-general counsel participated in a final due diligence call on behalf of Sientra. During the due diligence call, counsel for the underwriters asked eleven questions directed to Sientra’s management about “any material updates or changes” since the last due diligence call. In response to at least two of these questions asking about “[a]ny material developments with your relationships with contractual parties and particularly, Silimed,” or “[a]ny other information that has not been made known to us that may be deemed material to an
3