Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Wednesday October 09 2024, @07:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the dumpster-fire-for-life dept.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/scotus-denial-ends-saga-of-shkrelis-infamous-5000-drug-price-scheme/

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 09 2024, @08:06PM (4 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 09 2024, @08:06PM (#1376375)

    At least don't be evil.

    --
    🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday October 09 2024, @11:14PM (30 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Wednesday October 09 2024, @11:14PM (#1376390)

    So they do care about people's health after all - sometimes [slate.com]...

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 09 2024, @11:55PM (29 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 09 2024, @11:55PM (#1376393)

      Note that they recused, refused to write any kind of opinion...

      --
      🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday October 10 2024, @12:35AM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 10 2024, @12:35AM (#1376396) Journal

        Note that they recused, refused to write any kind of opinion...

        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 2024, @01:17AM (2 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2024, @01:17AM (#1376399)

          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 2024, @02:11AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 10 2024, @02:11AM (#1376401) Journal

            They could have said exactly that, instead they said nothing, leaving them more room to maneuver in the future.

            What was the value to that when saying nothing said the same thing?

          • (Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Thursday October 10 2024, @06:28AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 10 2024, @06:28AM (#1376412) Journal
            The US Supreme Court is not a health care organization and thus, it's not their job to care about peoples' health - particularly to the exclusion of their responsibilities. The basic premise is just wrong from the start.

            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 2024, @06:22AM (23 children)

        Note that they recused, refused to write any kind of opinion...

        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 2024, @12:46PM (22 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2024, @12:46PM (#1376439)

          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 2024, @04:31PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 10 2024, @04:31PM (#1376472) Journal

            And, like every case appealed to the Supremes, it was an opportunity to make a statement

            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.

            My contention is that Skrelli is an exceptional scumbag, worthy of Supreme comment on what scumbags cannot do within the laws of our land.

            Nonsense.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday October 10 2024, @06:58PM (18 children)

            My contention is that Skrelli is an exceptional scumbag, worthy of Supreme comment on what scumbags cannot do within the laws of our land.

            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 2024, @08:35PM (17 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2024, @08:35PM (#1376491)

              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 2024, @08:54PM

                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.

                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:

                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.

                Federal prosecutors successfully argued in courts that Shkreli orchestrated an illegal anticompetitive scheme that allowed him to dramatically raise the price of Daraprim overnight. When Shkreli and his pharmaceutical company, Vyera (formerly Turing), bought the rights to the drug in 2015, the price of a single pill jumped to $750 after being priced between $13.50 and $17.50 earlier that year. And Shkreli quickly came to epitomize callous greed in the pharmaceutical industry.

                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." [ftc.gov]

                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 [ftc.gov].

                And while it's true that Shkreli's lawyers argued that

                Months later, Shkreli's lawyer filed a petition [supremecourt.gov][PDF] 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.

                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 2024, @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 2024, @11:01PM (14 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2024, @11:01PM (#1376503)

                  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 2024, @01:33AM (8 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2024, @01:33AM (#1376511) Journal

                    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.

                    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.

                    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.

                    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 2024, @02:42AM (7 children)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2024, @02:42AM (#1376515)

                      >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 2024, @03:07AM (6 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2024, @03:07AM (#1376517) Journal

                        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.

                        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.

                        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.

                        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 2024, @01:20PM (5 children)

                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2024, @01:20PM (#1376556)

                          >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 2024, @01:53PM (4 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2024, @01:53PM (#1376565) Journal

                            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.

                            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 2024, @02:18PM (3 children)

                              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2024, @02:18PM (#1376567)

                              >The conviction was not for that. It was for insider trading

                              Kudos to the summary writer, then. First line:

                              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.

                              --
                              🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2024, @10:08PM (2 children)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2024, @10:08PM (#1376628) Journal
                                I suggest reviewing his sordid history [wikipedia.org] on his Wikipedia page. He did a lot more than vastly overcharge patients for a particular medicine. The crimes were attached to those other misdeeds - looks like insider trading. In addition, he's been sued in civil court by several parties for fraud and other things (for an example of the latter, Retrophin sued because Shkreli imploded his previous investment business, MSMB on a bad gamble and then used Retrophin shares to pay off the various aggrieved parties).
                                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 12 2024, @02:02AM (1 child)

                                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 12 2024, @02:02AM (#1376653)

                                  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 2024, @01:15AM

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 14 2024, @01:15AM (#1376869) Journal

                                    Player is gonna play... We really shouldn't be giving scumbags this much leash.

                                    What evidence is there that there's too 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...

                                    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 2024, @05:18AM (4 children)

                    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.

                    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 2024, @01:24PM (3 children)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2024, @01:24PM (#1376557)

                      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 2024, @10:13PM (2 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2024, @10:13PM (#1376629) Journal

                        Even if the SCOTUS ruling changed nothing,

                        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 2024, @02:04AM (1 child)

                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 12 2024, @02:04AM (#1376654)

                          >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 2024, @07:01PM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 13 2024, @07:01PM (#1376836) Journal

                            Notoriety has very high value and significant effects, thus: the money paid for advertising.

                            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 2024, @08:04PM (1 child)

            by bmimatt (5050) on Thursday October 10 2024, @08:04PM (#1376486)

            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 2024, @08:37PM

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2024, @08:37PM (#1376492)

              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 2024, @05:10PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday October 11 2024, @05:10PM (#1376592) Homepage Journal

        That's their way of saying the lower court got it right.

        --
        Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(1)