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 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.