Lawrence J. KONCELIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, Richard Sagall, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Christopher G. Clement, Philip K. Yachmetz, Zebulun D. Horowitz, Brian J. Hayden, Paul Hamelin, Robert Lamm, Defendants-Appellees, 448 F. App'x 154

SUMMARY ORDER Lawrence J. Koncelik appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts of the case and the issues raised on appeal. “We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002).

Koncelik has not alleged facts that raise “a strong inference that the defendants] acted with the required state of mind,” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 314, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007) (internal quotation mark omitted) — that is, “conscious misbehavior or recklessness,” ECA, Local 134 IBEW Joint Pension Trust of Chi. v. JP Morgan Chase Co., 553 F.3d 187, 198 (2d Cir.2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, Koncelik need not allege that defendants knew of statistically significant evidence that peglo-ticase caused cardiac-related adverse events.

See Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, - U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1309, 1324, 179 L.Ed.2d 398 (2011). Rather, the complaint must raise an inference — “cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraud-ulent intent” — that defendants recklessly or intentionally disregarded the risk that a causal connection might exist between pe-gloticase and cardiac-related adverse events. Tellabs, 551 U.S. at 314, 127 S.Ct. 2499. Koncelik has not alleged facts sufficient to raise such an inference. Cf.

Matrixx, 131 S.Ct. at 1324-25 & n. 15 (concluding that the complaint’s allegations — including that “Matrixx was sufficiently concerned about the information it received that it ... hired a consultant to review the product,” “convened a panel of physicians and scientists,” and even issued a “misleading ... press release” denying a causal connection in the face of inconclusive evidence — “g[a]ve rise to a ‘cogent and compelling’ inference that Matrixx elected not to disclose the reports of adverse events not because it believed they were meaningless but because it understood their likely effect on the market”).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.