|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free Newsletters
Archive
My Subscriptions
News by Subject
News by Disease
News by Date
PLoS
Search News
Post Your News
JoVE
Job Seeker Login
Most Recent Jobs
Browse Biotech Jobs
Search Jobs
Post Resume
Career Fairs
Career Resources
For Employers
Regional News
US & Canada
Biotech Bay
Biotech Beach
Genetown
Pharm Country
BioCapital
BioMidwest
Bio NC
BioForest
Southern Pharm
BioCanada East
US Device
Europe
Asia
Market Summary
News
IPOs
Company Profiles
Companies
Events
Research Store
Biotech Events
Post an Event
Real Estate
Business Opportunities
|
|
|
|
|
News | News By Subject | News by Disease |
News By Date | Search News
|
|
|
11/21/2012 8:11:29 AM
In yet another case of insider trading to unnerve the pharmaceutical industry, federal prosecutors have cited a leading Alzheimer’s expert, who chaired the safety monitoring committee for the 2008 trial of the ‘bapi’ drug that was developed by Wyeth and Elan, as a tipster in what is being called the “most lucrative insider trading scheme ever charged.” The feds say that University of Michigan neurology professor Sid Gilman, a prominent expert on various neurological disorders, provided inside information about the Phase II clinical trial of the Alzheimer’s drug to Mathew Martoma, a former trader at CR Intrinsic, which a division of SAC Capital, and who was charged with making about $276 million in combined profits and avoided losses. According to a complaint filed in federal court by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Gilman, 80, and Martoma were in contact from mid-2006 through mid-2008, when Gilman served not only as a consultant to the drugmakers, but also as a consultant to a so-called expert network that linked money managers with experts in different industries. Court documents indicate Martoma sought insights from Gilman during 42 separate paid consultations. Gilman, who was chosen to present Phase II trial results at the International Conference on Alzheimer’s in July 2008, first fed Martoma about upbeat data and then information that the trial failed to meet its primary endpoint, the complaint alleges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|