A company's failure to disclose nonstatistically adverse clinical data does not constitute fraud argues BayBio, the San Francisco–based biotech company association, in an amicus brief submitted to the US Supreme Court. In Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al. v. James Siracusano et al., which will be heard by the Court this term, Siracusano alleges that senior executives at Scottsdale, Arizona–based Matrixx misled investors about allegations that its cold remedy Zicam had caused a loss of smell in some patients and that the company's failure to disclose the complaints led to investment losses. Matrixx claimed that because the adverse-event reports were not statistically significant, the company had no duty to disclose. BayBio COO Jeremy Leffler notes, “Laws requiring disclosure of anecdotal evidence can result in erroneous conclusions about a treatment's safety and effectiveness,” he says. “As the voice for Northern California's life science companies, we believe that the laws should require disclosure of significant data collected by organizations.” Matrixx had received several complaints about Zicam from 1999 to 2003, with two doctors compiling data on ten affected patients. But Matrixx officials did not publicly mention the allegations and resulting lawsuits. The US District Court of Arizona granted Matrixx's motion to dismiss the lawsuit in March 2006. In October 2009, however, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed that decision rejecting, among other things, the statistically insignificant argument.