The legal saga over Martin Shkreli's infamous 5,000 percent price hike of a life-saving anti-parasitic drug has ended with a flat denial from the highest court in the land.
On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected Shkreli's petition to appeal an order to return $64.6 million in profits from the pricing scheme of Daraprim, a decades-old drug used to treat toxoplasmosis. The condition is caused by a single-celled parasite that can be deadly for newborns and people with compromised immune systems, such as people who have HIV, cancer, or an organ transplant.
[...]
In a lawsuit filed in 2021, the Federal Trade Commission and seven state attorneys general accused Shkreli of building a "web of anticompetitive restrictions to box out the competition." In January of 2022, US District Court Judge Denise Cote agreed, finding that Shkreli's conduct was "egregious, deliberate, repetitive, long-running, and ultimately dangerous."Cotes banned Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry for life and found him liable for $64.6 million in disgorgement. In January 2024, an appeals court upheld Cote's ruling.
[...]
Shkreli's lawyer filed a petition with the Supreme Court arguing that the ill-gotten profits from Daraprim's price hike went to corporate entities, not Shkreli personally, and that federal courts had issued conflicting rulings on disgorgement liabilities.In a list of orders today, the Supreme Court announced it denied Shkreli's petition to hear his appeal. The justices offered no explanation and no dissents were noted.
The denial is Shkreli's second rejection from the Supreme Court.
Previously on SoylentNews: SoylentNews Stories on Shkreli (Search Link)
Infamous Pharma Company Founded by Shkreli Files for Bankruptcy, Blames Shkreli - 20230514
Shkreli Released From Prison to Halfway House After Serving - 20220522
Judge Denies Shkreli's "Delusional Self-Aggrandizing" Plea to Get Out of Jail - 20200519
Sobbing Martin Shkreli Sentenced to 7 Years in Prison for Defrauding Investors - 20180310
FBI Arrests Shkreli of the Drug Price Hike Fame - 20151217 (That didn't take him long.)
Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised by Over 50 Times - 20150922
« Intel Entrance To Graphics Card Market Has Failed | Was Bruce Willis Right? Could a Nuclear Blast Save Us From Killer Asteroid? »
Related Stories
Medicine that costs $1 to make raised in price from $13.50 to $750.00
The head of a US pharmaceutical company has defended his company's decision to raise the price of a 62-year-old medication used by Aids patients by over 5,000%. Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired the rights to Daraprim in August.
CEO Martin Shkreli has said that the company will use the money it makes from sales to research new treatments. The drug is used treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic affliction that affects people with compromised immune systems.
After Turning's acquisition, a dose of Daraprim in the US increased from $13.50 (£8.70) to $750. The pill costs about $1 to produce, but Mr Shkreli, a former hedge fund manager, said that does not include other costs like marketing and distribution.
Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised By Over 50 Times
BBC is reporting on a massive price hike of an essential drug used by AIDS patients:
The head of a US pharmaceutical company has defended his company's decision to raise the price of a 62-year-old medication used by Aids patients by over 5,000%. Turing Pharmaceuticals acquired the rights to Daraprim in August. CEO Martin Shkreli has said that the company will use the money it makes from sales to research new treatments.
The drug is used treat toxoplasmosis, a parasitic affliction that affects people with compromised immune systems. After Turning's acquisition, a dose of Daraprim in the US increased from $13.50 (£8.70) to $750. The pill costs about $1 to produce, but Mr Shkreli, a former hedge fund manager, said that does not include other costs like marketing and distribution. "We needed to turn a profit on this drug," Mr Shkreli told Bloomberg TV. "The companies before us were just giving it away almost." On Twitter, Mr Shkreli mocked several users who questioned the company's decision, calling one reporter "a moron".
Why not switch to a generic pyrimethamine tablet? They don't exist right now, according to the New York Times (story includes examples of other recent price hikes):
With the price now high, other companies could conceivably make generic copies, since patents have long expired. One factor that could discourage that option is that Daraprim's distribution is now tightly controlled, making it harder for generic companies to get the samples they need for the required testing.
The switch from drugstores to controlled distribution was made in June by Impax, not by Turing. Still, controlled distribution was a strategy Mr. Shkreli talked about at his previous company as a way to thwart generics.
The drug is also used to treat malaria and appears on the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines. Toxoplasmosis infections are a feline gift to the world.
Martin Shkreli, the head of Turing Pharamaceutical who rose to fame by jacking up a 60-year-old generic drug's price by 5500%, has been reported to be arrested by the FBI for securities fraud.
At Bloomberg and a shorter version from NPR.
In the case that closely tracks that suit, federal prosecutors accused Shkreli of engaging in a complicated shell game after his defunct hedge fund, MSMB Capital Management, lost millions. He is alleged to have made secret payoffs and set up sham consulting arrangements. A New York lawyer, Evan Greebel, was also arrested early Thursday. He's accused of conspiring with Shkreli in part of the scheme.
Goes to show you, if you are gonna be evil, try to stay below the radar.
Previously: Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised by Over 50 Times
Drug Firm Offers $1 Version of $750 Turing Pharmaceuticals Pill
It's 7 Years in Prison for Martin Shkreli, Convicted of Fraud
A federal judge sentenced former pharmaceutical executive and hedge-fund manager Martin Shkreli to seven years in prison Friday following his earlier conviction on three of eight counts of securities and wire fraud charges.
According to reporters present in the Brooklyn courtroom, Shkreli gave an emotional and tearful speech prior to his sentencing, taking blame and responsibility for his actions and saying he had changed as a person since his conviction. US District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto reportedly handed him a box of tissues and took a lengthy amount of time reviewing his transgressions and history.
The sentencing caps a long, public saga for Shkreli, who is widely reviled for drastically raising the price of a cheap, decades-old drug, as well as provocative and offensive online antics, including harassing women.
Obligatory Nelson HaHa
Source: ArsTechnica
Sobbing "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli Sentenced to 7 Years in Prison for Defrauding Investors
KSWB-TV reports
He was convicted on August 5, 2017 of securities fraud and conspiracy in what prosecutors said amounted to a Ponzi scheme. Shkreli called the charges "a witch hunt of epic proportions".
During his sentencing on Friday in Brooklyn federal court, Shkreli, 34, broke into tears and pleaded with the judge for leniency.
"I look back and I'm embarrassed and ashamed", he told the court. "I am terribly sorry", he said to his investors, "I lost your trust."
At his trial last year, Shkreli often wore a smirk and was chastised by the judge for his behavior, including for an incident in which he told reporters that the prosecutors on the case were "junior varsity". He also ignored the advice of his lawyer by commenting on the trial via social media and YouTube.
More coverage from:
Judge denies Shkreli's "delusional self-aggrandizing" plea to get out of jail
A federal judge on Saturday denied Martin Shkreli's request for a "compassionate release" from prison, which was pitched as a way to protect him from contracting the new coronavirus—and to help him work on a cure for COVID-19 so he could save the rest of the world.
Lawyers for the infamous ex-pharmaceutical executive filed an emergency motion April 22 in a bid to free him from the slammer. They argued that Shkreli is at high risk of contracting the virus in the close quarters of federal prison and could possibly become severely ill or die. They also argued that he is in a unique position to work on a cure for the devastating viral illness now sweeping the globe. Shkreli himself publicly made that claim in early April via a scientific document outlining his preliminary efforts to develop an antiviral drug.
In the emergency motion, his lawyers argued that "Current conditions of confinement threaten his health and life and prevent him from doing work that would contribute to the betterment of society worldwide."
Though Shkreli is best known for ruthlessly jacking up the price of a lifesaving generic drug, he is serving an 84-month sentence following his 2017 conviction on two counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiring to commit securities fraud. The charges were in connection with an alleged Ponzi-like scheme involving two hedge funds he previously managed and his former pharmaceutical company, Retrophin. He has served 41 months of his sentence so far.
[...] [federal prosecutors] also noted that, at the time of their court filing, there were no cases of COVID-19 in staff or inmates at the facility in which Shkreli is being held, FCI Allenwood Low.
His early release reflects good behavior and completion of rehabilitation programs
Infamous ex-pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli has been released from federal prison after serving less than five years of a seven-year sentence for a securities and wire fraud conviction. He is now moving into a US Bureau of Prisons halfway house at an undisclosed location in New York until September 14, 2022.
Shkreli was convicted in August 2017 on two counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in connection to what federal prosecutors called a Ponzi-like scheme involving two hedge funds Shkreli managed. In March 2018, a federal judge sentenced him to seven years, which he was serving in minimum security federal prison in Allenwood, Pennsylvania.
His early release—slightly more than four years after his sentencing—reflects time shaved off for good behavior in prison, plus completion of education and rehabilitation programs, according to CNBC. It also includes a credit for the roughly six months he spent in jail prior to his sentencing.
Previously on SoylentNews:
United States Sells Unique Wu-Tang Clan Album Forfeited by Martin Shkreli
Judge Denies Shkreli's "Delusional Self-Aggrandizing" Plea to Get Out of Jail
Shkreli Stays in Jail; Infamous Ex-Pharma CEO Quickly Loses Appeal
Martin Shkreli Accused of Running Business From Prison With a Smuggled Smartphone
Sobbing Martin Shkreli Sentenced to 7 Years in Prison for Defrauding Investors
Britain Fines Pfizer Record £84.2m for 2600% Drug Price Hike
Daraprim Price Lowered in Response to Outrage
Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised by Over 50 Times
The pharmaceutical company behind Martin Shkreli's infamous 4,000 percent price hike—now known as Vyera Pharmaceuticals—filed for bankruptcy this week and plans to sell its assets to pay off millions in debts.
In court documents filed Wednesday, Vyera's chief restructuring officer, Lawrence Perkins, largely blamed Shkreli for dooming the company and its affiliates.
[...]
Shkreli founded Vyera in 2014 under the name Turing Pharmaceuticals. His focus was to acquire sole-source drugs that treat life-threatening conditions in small populations of patients—and then dramatically jack up the price. In August 2015, he did just that, buying the rights to the decades-old anti-parasitic drug Daraprim for $55 million and abruptly raising the price from $17.60 per tablet to $750, a more than 4,000 percent increase.
[...]
Shkreli's influence wasn't shaken until January 2020, when the Federal Trade Commission and several state attorneys general sued Shkreli and the company—then called Vyera—for allegedly violating antitrust laws. Soon after, Vyera appointed a new board and management to purge ties to Shkreli. Vyera later settled the FTC's lawsuit, while Shkreli insisted on going to trial, where he lost, was banned from the pharmaceutical industry for life, and ordered to pay roughly $65 million in disgorgement. He is appealing the ruling.Meanwhile, Vyera never reversed Shkreli's price hike.
Previously:
Cost of Daraprim Medication Raised by Over 50 Times 20150922
Stories mentioning Shkreli on Soylentnews 21+ stories (Famous/infamous, same dif, right?)
Related:
Martin Shkreli Launches Blockchain-Based Drug Discovery Platform 20220726
FTC: Shkreli May Have Violated Lifetime Pharma Ban, Should be Held in Contempt 20230125
Shkreli Tells Judge His Drug Discovery Software is Not for Discovering Drugs 20230215
(Score: 2, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 09, @08:06PM (4 children)
At least don't be evil.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday October 10, @04:45AM
...overtly
(Score: 3, Touché) by Ox0000 on Thursday October 10, @03:19PM (1 child)
People keep getting this wrong. Google's motto is
People keep not noticing the comma in there!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday October 11, @05:08PM
The koala eats, shoots, and leaves.
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday October 11, @05:05PM
Being evil hasn't hurt Vlad, Bibi, or Don one little bit.
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday October 09, @11:14PM (30 children)
So they do care about people's health after all - sometimes [slate.com]...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 09, @11:55PM (29 children)
Note that they recused, refused to write any kind of opinion...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday October 10, @12:35AM (3 children)
Was there any reason to write an opinion here? After all, prior courts have written several opinions already and these were already consistent with Supreme Court decisions of the past.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10, @01:17AM (2 children)
They could have said exactly that, instead they said nothing, leaving them more room to maneuver in the future.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday October 10, @02:11AM
What was the value to that when saying nothing said the same thing?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Thursday October 10, @06:28AM
Here, the Supreme Court is way overloaded. They get too many cases to write opinions on everything they get. So rejection without comment is common.
As I already noted, there also is no reason to write the alleged opinion - the lower courts already did the work. It's an appeal of a technical issue that wasn't at all relevant to anyone's health. The existence of an opinion would also both constrain them as you already noted. This is a bad thing since it's restricting the ability of the Supreme Court to make future decisions, and greatly increasing without benefit the body of rulings that lower courts would have to consider.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday October 10, @06:22AM (23 children)
You do realize that declining a Writ of Certiorari [wikipedia.org] is the normal response from SCOTUS right?
In fact, SCOTUS only hears ~1% of the cases that are requested [pewtrusts.org].
And the vast majority of appeals to the SCOTUS are declined in exactly the same way as this one was -- one sentence declining to take up the case, without further explanation.
The only reason anyone bothered to report on this particular appeal at all was because that Martin Shkreli, well-known for being a rapacious scumbag, was involved.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10, @12:46PM (22 children)
And, like every case appealed to the Supremes, it was an opportunity to make a statement, in this case about the acceptability of being an overt scumbag under the law.
Yes, the Supreme Court does decline to hear all but what they consider to be the most important 1% of cases.
My contention is that Skrelli is an exceptional scumbag, worthy of Supreme comment on what scumbags cannot do within the laws of our land.
I suppose, given the makeup of the current court, we should be grateful that they didn't give him a big Attaboy reversal.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Thursday October 10, @04:31PM
An opportunity better left unused. The lower courts already made the statement and there's a huge number of these demands on their time. They can't make all the statements.
Nonsense.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday October 10, @06:58PM (18 children)
Fair enough.
Although I disagree. Shkreli is just a run-of-the-mill piece of shit and doesn't deserve any special consideration. Which is what taking up his case would be. He's already been imprisoned, banned from the pharmaceutical industry for life and required to disgorge ~USD65 million.
His appeal was an attempt not to have to pay the 65 million. By declining any case, SCOTUS says, "you lose," and in this case also, "yeah right! Pay up asshole!" Which is the only reasonable result, whether or not they took up the case.
He committed crimes and was/is being punished for those crimes under existing law. Seems like we reached the appropriate outcome under existing law.
What more, from a legal standpoint needs to be done?
I ask because that's the actual role of SCOTUS: clarifying the law and/or its interpretation.
In fact, that's what all appeals courts, especially the Supreme Court do. So, what Constitutional issue needs to be addressed? How do laws need to be changed in a case specifically about whether Shkreli should have to pay up or not.
Do you believe the lower court made an error, or ruled incorrectly in requiring Shkreli to pay the USD$65 million? If not, even from your standpoint, there's nothing else to be done -- unless (perhaps you should have written an amicus curiae brief [supremecourt.gov] if you feel that the court needs to change the law and/or its interpretation in this case, moreso than other cases.
It's not the role of SCOTUS to waggle a finger at wrongdoers and say "tsk, tsk, bad boy."
That's the role of the "court of public opinion" [wikipedia.org] which has already issued its final ruling: Shkreli is a piece of shit and should never be trusted with anything ever again.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10, @08:35PM (17 children)
Specific comment from the Supreme Court would broaden and strengthen the precedent set by the lower court. Any Supreme Court decision is an opportunity to set, clarify or strengthen to legal precedent for the entire country.
I can get behind the idea that Shkrelli isn't worth their time, but his actions are far from unique or even unusual in the industry. Legal clarity about how far is too far is long overdue.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday October 10, @08:54PM
What "precedent" [merriam-webster.com] was set by the lower court?
AFAICT, they just applied the law as it exists and has been used for decades. From an article [arstechnica.com] about the case:
And while it's true that Shkreli's lawyers argued that
The Supreme Court implicitly rejected that argument. And so I ask again, what "precedent" needs to be set here?
The law appears to have worked as intended, and the miscreant must now pay. What's missing?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday October 10, @09:07PM (15 children)
I'd add that I am also outraged and disgusted by the bald avarice of Shkreli. But he got his comeuppance. As did Elizabeth Holmes [wikipedia.org], Bernie Madoff [wikipedia.org] and many others.
That said, since the laws as they exist actually work, I'm really not clear as to what, exactly, you'd expect SCOTUS to do in this case. Is there some change in the laws that you seek? A different interpretation of said laws? Or is it something else?
If it's one (or both) of the first two, SCOTUS may have a role to play. If it's the latter, SCOTUS doesn't handle anything else and, as such, isn't relevant.
I appreciate your point of view and I don't disagree that Shkreli is a huge piece of shit who deserves to be punished.
But if more severe punishment is what you desire, draft up "Martin's Law," detailing how rapacious scumbags like him should be castrated and locked in an elevated cage on the National Mall until they die of starvation, thirst and exposure (and/or whatever else you feel necessary). Then send it to your congresscritter/senator.
SCOTUS is not the appropriate place for that.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10, @11:01PM (14 children)
So, IANAL, but as a US citizen with an at least average High School Civics education..
I would expect that, were this considered one of the most important issues of the session (which, as a citizen I believe it is, though I realize that lawyers have different ideas about important) if I were SCOTUS I would have written a ruling affirming the lower court's interpretation of the law, perhaps even getting more prescriptive about how that law is appropriately applied in the current case and similar cases.
Of course real lawyers have their own reality they operate in with selective blinders all over the place making common sense judgements often far removed from what happens in court.
Personally, I want this type of enforcement expanded. The "scumbag line" has been crossed by far too many people like Shkrelli who haven't been tried, much less convicted.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11, @01:33AM (8 children)
What part of the Constitution allows the SCOTUS to ignore the First Amendment's right to petition for redress? Shkreli has a right to appeal his judgments. He doesn't have a right to require SCOTUS to justify their rejections of the appeals. Nor do we. That means that frivolous, vexatious, and deceptive appeals will occasionally reach SCOTUS no matter what. And they will routinely be rejected without comment.
Look to the laws on the books and those who enforce the laws. My take is that the bigger problem is lack of enforcement of existing law - often for good reason (such as being terrible law that would create mass protests and/or shut down industries if it were enforced). SCOTUS can't patch over that.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11, @02:42AM (7 children)
>Shkreli has a right to appeal his judgments. He doesn't have a right to require SCOTUS to justify their rejections of the appeals
No, what I am describing would be at the pleasure of the SCOTUS - to fulfill their constitutional role as interpreters of the law, illustrating how it is properly applied in real world cases.
In no way would this be for the benefit of Shkreli - he's well done, cooked through and through - whether his appeal is denied, or heard and slam dunked in his face.
>the bigger problem is lack of enforcement of existing law
Agreed. And a little grandstanding by SCOTUS could actually wake up some prosecutors around the country to get off their ass and slam dunk a few more cases like this one.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11, @03:07AM (6 children)
The problem here is that there's no problem. This interpretation of law has already been done. And SCOTUS doesn't have the man-power to do this for all the cases they receive - keep in mind that Shkreli's case is not that unusual or heinous. So once again, I see no reason for this given what's already been done and the time it would consume.
It'd just be another minor thing to ignore. Even if prosecutor malpractice were to get to the Supreme Court, it would take a decade or two. And there would be little consequence to it.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11, @01:20PM (5 children)
>And SCOTUS doesn't have the man-power to do this for all the cases they receive
Exactly, and yet they do hear cases, and this case is in an area that affects a huge number of citizens, it's not a one-off murder or even a serial killer, it's widespread abuse of citizens' health and finances in ways that kill and or bankrupt them in a relatively short time. It was perpetrated for as long as it was because of perception that the practice was legal, and there are other perpetrators still doing very similar things affecting millions of citizens.
I suppose the Supremes may think they serve the law above all else. In my opinion, they serve the people first, otherwise the institution wouldn't exist at all.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11, @01:53PM (4 children)
The conviction was not for that. It was for insider trading, which was illegal at the time that Shkreli did it.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11, @02:18PM (3 children)
>The conviction was not for that. It was for insider trading
Kudos to the summary writer, then. First line:
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11, @10:08PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 12, @02:02AM (1 child)
Player is gonna play... We really shouldn't be giving scumbags this much leash.
Transparency is the answer: like sex offenders, a registry of fraud and unethical business practice convictions. Anyone who trusts a business partner who appears on the registry without getting solid assurances they won't be similarly abused gets put on a similar registry: for persons who have demonstrated exceptional gullibility...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday October 14, @01:15AM
What evidence is there that there's too much leash?
We already have that. Convictions are public record. As to gullible people, as long as you're the first name on the list - perhaps the only name on the list now that I think about it. We'll throw in your bank account numbers too. For transparency.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday October 11, @05:18AM (4 children)
Why?
Are the rulings of the trial and appeals courts lacking? And since this case was a civil suit adjacent to the criminal cases Shkreli faced, how, would you modify the lower courts' rulings if were you were a SCOTUS justice?
Please be specific. Thanks!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Disagree) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11, @01:24PM (3 children)
Bottom line: it's a case that deserves maximum attention due to ongoing abuse of the same laws by others.
Even if the SCOTUS ruling changed nothing, the act of taking the time to consider and rule beyond a simple rejection would be demonstrative of that importance.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11, @10:13PM (2 children)
This. I'm not in favor of encouraging nonpositive value bureaucracy. It changes nothing, then it is at best worthless to do.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 12, @02:04AM (1 child)
>encouraging nonpositive value bureaucracy
Notoriety has very high value and significant effects, thus: the money paid for advertising.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 13, @07:01PM
What about a Supreme Court endorsement will make that better rather than worse? The more you argue this, the worse it sounds.
(Score: 3, Touché) by bmimatt on Thursday October 10, @08:04PM (1 child)
It would require a legal definition of 'scumbag' though, and that may be too much work for the overworked judges.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10, @08:37PM
Would be nice if they tried... I know one when I see one is a bit too vague IMO.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday October 11, @05:10PM
That's their way of saying the lower court got it right.
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.