SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10 2024, @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 2024, @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 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)
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)
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 2024, @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 2024, @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 2024, @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 2024, @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 2024, @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 2024, @10:08PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 12 2024, @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 2024, @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 2024, @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 2024, @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 2024, @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 2024, @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 2024, @07:01PM
What about a Supreme Court endorsement will make that better rather than worse? The more you argue this, the worse it sounds.