LawBeefaroni wrote:
Bottom line, this guy has been able to continue along with no resistance for years and is so emboldened that he's tweeting LOLs about pricing people out of life saving drugs. He started his career doing reverse pump and dumps what, more than 10 years ago, and has moved on to owning drug companies and price gouging. Yes, he's a shitbag but there's also a problem with the regulatory system.
It's worth noting that only one thing there (the pump and dumps) is even plausibly a securities law violation. Being a horrible douchebag is not a securities law violation - at their core securities laws primarily punish lying, and he's been pretty open about being a horrible douchebag for the most part.
Right, I wasn't talking about him breaking the law there just, in the theme of the thread ("I know capitalism works...but..."), his horrible moral stance.
However, it's worth noting that he got to the position he is in, being able to do all that immoral stuff without consequence, by doing a bunch of illegal stuff without consequence (thus far).
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Bottom line, this guy has been able to continue along with no resistance for years and is so emboldened that he's tweeting LOLs about pricing people out of life saving drugs. He started his career doing reverse pump and dumps what, more than 10 years ago, and has moved on to owning drug companies and price gouging. Yes, he's a shitbag but there's also a problem with the regulatory system.
It's worth noting that only one thing there (the pump and dumps) is even plausibly a securities law violation. Being a horrible douchebag is not a securities law violation - at their core securities laws primarily punish lying, and he's been pretty open about being a horrible douchebag for the most part.
Right, I wasn't talking about him breaking the law there just, in the theme of the thread ("I know capitalism works...but..."), his horrible moral stance.
However, it's worth noting that he got to the position he is in, being able to do all that immoral stuff without consequence, by doing a bunch of illegal stuff without consequence (thus far).
Well, whether he has done illegal stuff is TBD. He's clearly done (by most objective standards) horribly immoral things, most especially price gouging on medical treatments. But in part due to the way patents and pharmaceutical treatments work in this country, it's far from certain that any of that is or was illegal.
The retrophin stuff that he's been arrested for sure looks illegal, but he's denying it and he'll have his day in court, and in any event that's not really how he got to where he is now.
El Guapo wrote:
The retrophin stuff that he's been arrested for sure looks illegal, but he's denying it and he'll have his day in court, and in any event that's not really how he got to where he is now.
I'd say it's a direct line to where he is now. Robbing Peter to pay Paul the whole way. At MSMB he filed requests with the FDA to reject devices and then shorted the companies that made those devices as his request cost them millions (despite eventually being overturned and the devices approved). This made MSMB a lot of money. He used MSMB money to buy Retrophin. He [allegedly] stole from Retrophin to appease his MSMB investors. He started Turing using money he made from Retrophin and various [allegedly] illegal trades in Retrophin and other stocks. He used Turing to acquire drugs and then jacked up their prices. He's now buying KaloBios to do it again.
Is it illegal to file a request with the FDA to reject a drug/treatment? No. But it sure starts to smell illegal when you do it purely to cripple a company's share price and couple it with a negative PR blitz on stock message boards while shorting the company's stock.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
He was charged in a seven-count indictment unconnected to the drug price hikes imposed by his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals. The charges instead involve his actions at another drug company, Retrophin, which he ran as CEO from 2012 to 2014.
The indictment said Shkrelia and others orchestrated three interrelated fraud schemes from 2009 to 2014. It said they fraudulently induced investors to sink their money into two separate funds and misappropriated Retrophin's assets to satisfy Shkreli's personal and professional debts.
El Guapo wrote:Honestly, I think Shkreli's long-term business plan might be to ultimately offer everyone in America the chance to punch him in the face one time for $100 apiece.
I would consider it, but I'd need some time to train up first.
He was charged in a seven-count indictment unconnected to the drug price hikes imposed by his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals. The charges instead involve his actions at another drug company, Retrophin, which he ran as CEO from 2012 to 2014.
The indictment said Shkrelia and others orchestrated three interrelated fraud schemes from 2009 to 2014. It said they fraudulently induced investors to sink their money into two separate funds and misappropriated Retrophin's assets to satisfy Shkreli's personal and professional debts.
I appreciate when anyone here brings stuff to my attention (I do!) but Lawbeef and Guapo just had a back and forth on the subject after Defiant posted it so they've got this news covered.
What makes the case interesting is that a lawyer, Evan Greebel, has been charged as an accomplice for not protecting his corporate client that Mr. Shkreli is accused of using essentially as a personal piggy bank.
Lawyers are important players in corporate transactions, ensuring their clients comply with the rules. But when legal advice pushes over the line into enabling fraud, then a lawyer can wind up on the wrong side of the law.
...
He was the lead outside counsel and corporate secretary for Retrophin while working as a partner at the law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman (he moved last summer to Kaye Scholer). Mr. Greebel’s practice involved working on corporate transactions and, more recently, helping firms involved in Bitcoin.
Mr. Greebel is charged with one count of conspiring with Mr. Shkreli to commit wire fraud in connection with the claimed misuse of Retrophin’s assets to pay off the hedge fund investors. According to the indictment, he helped draft sham consulting agreements to mask the payments so that they appeared to be related to the company’s business.
...
In a comment posted on Investorshub in February, Mr. Shkreli defended his actions by claiming that “every transaction I’ve ever made at Retrophin was done with outside counsel’s blessing (I have the bills to prove it), board approval and made good corporate sense.” That certainly makes it sound as if the lawyer was working on behalf of the chief executive.
But if the Justice Department’s charge against Mr. Greebel is true, then the first misstep appears to be that he put Mr. Shkreli’s interests ahead of Retrophin, his actual client.
...
The Securities and Exchange Commission, which also filed civil fraud charges against Mr. Shkreli and Mr. Greebel, has emphasized that it wants to focus on corporate gatekeepers for failing to protect companies and their investors from fraud.
Fraud allegations against the attorney have ugly implications about the facts and where prosecution intends to apply leverage. Any legal privilege and the defense of being advised by counsel gets VERY messy WHEN and IF corporate counsel "participates" in the fraud.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
Former Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Martin Shkreli has asked for immunity in order to testify before a US congressional hearing. He was subpoenaed to testify about a 5,000% price increase for a drug. Reuters reported that Mr Shkreli's lawyer asked for immunity because of an ongoing Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into the price rise. Mr Shkreli stepped down as Turing's head following his arrest for investor fraud at a different company. In a letter seen by Reuters, Mr Shkreli's lawyer said the former CEO would "gladly cooperate" and produce documents at the hearing next Tuesday if he is given immunity. On Thursday, Mr Shkreli said he would remain silent if forced to appear at the congressional hearing. The FTC is allegedly investigating anti-trust violation by Turing Pharmaceuticals when it raised the price of the drug Daraprim. Daraprim is used to treat toxoplasmosis, an infection common in people with Aids. The drug was invented in the 1950s and acquired by Turing for $50m (£35m) in 2015. In August, Turing increased Daraprim's price from $13.50 to $750 per dose.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
He might be one of the scumbaggiest human's to ever breathe air on the planet, but with his current case with the FTC still pending he took his lawyer's advice and chose not to testify.
Any testimony he could have opened up about most certainly would have been used against him
in the FTC case.
That's why the 5th amendment right is there, so a person can't be forced to self-incriminate.
On the wu-tang album controversy, the group was insanely stupid to have only had 1 copy of
the album released. Hard for me to believe that someone doesn't have a master copy available
in which to make more of them. If they don't they're galactically stupid.
They probably do have the master recordings. They're almost certainly contractually obligated not to produce any more versions of it as part of their PR stunt.
The album may either wind up being seized for restitution if he loses the case, or sold off to pay his legal bills. But I doubt that the artists can devalue his asset without getting themselves sued.
JSHAW wrote:On the wu-tang album controversy, the group was insanely stupid to have only had 1 copy of
the album released. Hard for me to believe that someone doesn't have a master copy available
in which to make more of them. If they don't they're galactically stupid.
It's like none of you people know hip-hop!
I'm SURE RZA, GZA, Method Man, Ghostface Killah, Masta Killa, Raekwon and the rest (ODB RIP!) learned the gospel from the Almighty Prophet Chuck D.
"If you don't own the masters The Masters own you."
JSHAW wrote:
That's why the 5th amendment right is there, so a person can't be forced to self-incriminate.
I'm pretty sure him taking the 5th is not the source of animosity he has generated.
I don't think he can use the 5th to refuse to answer any questions - only those that may incriminate him (which is what one of the Representatives mentioned). But yeah, it's his amazingly disrespectful behavior that is the biggest issue.
It's like he never grew up from being a kid that sits in the back of the room that disrupts the class by making fun of the teacher when his back is turned, and then blames someone else when he gets caught.
JSHAW wrote:
That's why the 5th amendment right is there, so a person can't be forced to self-incriminate.
I'm pretty sure him taking the 5th is not the source of animosity he has generated.
I don't think he can use the 5th to refuse to answer any questions
Agreed. Who decides whether an answer will incriminate him or not? Presumably that's why you have a lawyer and that's why you have a judge during trials. During a congressional hearing? I haven't a clue. Certainly not the people trying to hang you though, I would hope.
His answer "I'll listen to my lawyer's advice, not yours" while flippant, was the right answer. I want to see this guy burn and I assume he will be, but I did enjoy that response.
Fortunately for all of us at one time or another, there's no law against being an insufferable asshole. But when someone makes it a lifestyle...yeah, I hope he gets his dick knocked in the dirt for one thing or another.
JSHAW wrote:
That's why the 5th amendment right is there, so a person can't be forced to self-incriminate.
I'm pretty sure him taking the 5th is not the source of animosity he has generated.
I don't think he can use the 5th to refuse to answer any questions - only those that may incriminate him...
Is it considered a criminal investigation? If so, he can't answer anything or he waves the privilege. If it's civil, then I think things get tricky. Or that's what I vaguely remember from a constitutional law elective 20 years ago.
IANAL, but this congressional hearing isn't part of that criminal trial. If he gives an answer here, would that compel him to take the stand in that trial?
(and if so, would giving a magazine interview or sending a public tweet do the same thing?)
Isgrimnur wrote:Anything you say can and will be used against you, especially if it's a matter of public record.
No, that's not what I'm saying. IIUC, Stessier is suggesting that if he answers any question (even questions unrelated to his case) at this congressional hearing,he waves his fifth amendment rights to his criminal case and would have to take the stand in that case. (as opposed to a lawyer introducing his statement or tweet or whatever as evidence)
Martin Shkreli faces a new legal headache, a lawsuit claiming that his $2 million Wu-Tang Clan album contains illustrations ripped off from a New York artist, who now wants the former drug executive to pay for them.
In a complaint filed on Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, Jason Koza said he never allowed his fan art depicting Wu-Tang members to be used in packaging for the hip-hop group's "Once Upon a Time in Shaolin," the sole copy of which Shkreli bought. Shkreli has bragged that he had no plans to listen to the album, but bought it to "keep it from the people." The 32-year-old is also known for sparking outrage last year among patients, doctors and politicians after his former company Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of the anti-parisitic infection drug Daraprim by more than 5,000 percent.
Koza, 34, of Copiague, New York, said he thought his nine works would appear only on the website WuDisciples.blogspot.com. But the Fashion Institute of Technology graduate now blames Wu-Tang leader Robert "RZA" Diggs for including them in the "Shaolin" album, and Shkreli for allowing three works depicting Inspectah Deck, Ol' Dirty Bastard and Raekwon to accompany a Jan. 29 article at Vice.com. "Mr. Koza was happy when his work appeared on the website," the complaint said. "Mr. Koza never granted a license for his works to be copied or displayed anywhere (else)." Other defendants include Paddle8, which auctioned the album, and Wu Tang-affiliated producer Tarik "Cilvaringz" Azzougarh.
Koza said Cilvaringz has acknowledged the infringement, asking in a Jan. 31 email "if you want to skype discussing the use of your drawings. Thanks bro." Benjamin Brafman, a lawyer for Shkreli, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Wu-Tang did not immediately respond to a similar request. A Paddle8 spokeswoman declined to comment.
Last Thursday, Shkreli invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination at a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on drug pricing, and later tweeted that lawmakers in Congress were imbeciles. (Full Story) He also faces separate federal securities fraud charges.
Koza is seeking unspecified damages plus profits stemming from copyright infringement. His lawyer Peter Scoolidge said in a phone interview that Shkreli "didn't need to know" the illustrations were protected to be liable. "There is no intent requirement for copyright infringement," he said.
The case is Koza v Diggs et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 16-00956.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
