Fact Checking Matt Czajkowski's Web Site

The plain language meaning of the Order and Opinion does not seem difficult to discern.  

The extent of plaintiffs’ allegations of insider trading is that four of Pozen’s officers owned and sold stock during a three-year period and that because of their positions in the company they must have known some adverse non-public information at some unstated time during the same period. 

For those looking for the short explanation, you can stop there.  Matt C. sold some stock options during a three period as CFO for Pozen and two of Pozen's drugs were not granted FDA approval.  No need to provide any more facts than that to file a lawsuit.   Dismissal with prejudice is what happens when you make such frivolous claims, as explained in footnote 4.  

If you wanted to know what the $425,000 was from, it is also not difficult to find:

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Czajkowski was granted 187,500 options to purchase Pozen stock during the relevant period and that he sold 25,000 shares for proceeds of $425,000. (Consol. Derivative Compl. ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs give no indication of what percentage of Czajkowski’s total ownership of Pozen stock the 25,000 shares constituted. The Amended Complaint does not specifically state what adverse non-public information Czajkowski possessed at the time of sale. Plaintiffs simply claim that “[b]ecause of his position” in the company, Czajkowski knew of adverse non-public information about the business of Pozen, as well as finances, markets and present and future business prospects, via access to internal corporate documents, conversations and connections with other corporate officers and employees, attendance at management meetings and via reports and other information provided to him in connection therewith.

Here is what the judge has to say about investors in drug companies and the NDA (new drug application) process: 

Investors in pharmaceutical companies, especially those engaged in research and development, should know that FDA approval is not easy to obtain and that there are often setbacks and rejections in the application process as well as clinical failures. Only by going through the NDA process can a drug company know specifically the concerns the FDA has concerning a particular drug application.

It seems plainly obvious that there already is a public explanation of Matt C's (non) role in the matter.  If more details are needed, go to Hillsborough and read the complaint and reply, which are also public documents. 

By the way, the link on ncbusinesscourt.net does not indicate who the judge was.  Anyone know?  

Oh, and Carrboro too.  I don't live there, but since people in Carrboro don't hesitate to comment about Chapel Hill, I figure fair is fair. And while we're on the topic, why are Chapel Hill and Carrboro still separate entities again, other than that people with political power never give it up willingly and always use it to benefit themselves to the detriment of others?