US Supreme Court rejects 'Pharma Bro' Martin Shkreli's appeal of penalties
Shkreli appeal did not contest lifetime drug industry ban
Antitrust case was brought by federal agency, seven states
Adds background in paragraphs 3-13
By Jonathan Stempel
Oct 7 (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear former pharmaceutical company CEO Martin Shkreli's challenge to a $64.6 million financial penalty imposed by a judge after he raised a lifesaving drug's price by more than 4,000%.
The justices turned away Shkreli's appeal of a lower court's decision upholding the penalty, equal to the profits he and one of his former companies made by raising the price of the drug Daraprim in 2015. Shkreli, then in his early 30s, was given the nickname "Pharma Bro" in the media. His penalty had been imposed in 2022 by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan.
Shkreli's appeal did not challenge a lifetime ban from the drug industry also imposed by Cote.
The judge cited Shkreli's "particularly heartless and coercive" tactics in monopolizing Daraprim and keeping generic rivals off the market. Cote imposed the sanctions in a civil antitrust case brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, along with the states of New York, California, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Shkreli asked the Supreme Court to review a January decision by 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, which upheld the $64.6 million penalty as well as the industry ban.
Now 41, Shkreli gained notoriety when, as chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, he raised Daraprim's price overnight to $750 per tablet from $17.50.
Daraprim is used to treat a parasitic infection called toxoplasmosis, including in people with AIDS.
Shkreli later served more than four years in prison after being convicted in 2017 for defrauding investors in two hedge funds and scheming to defraud investors in another drugmaker.
He argued in his Supreme Court appeal that he should not owe the entire $64.6 million.
Shkreli said it was unfair to give up profits he never personally received or controlled, and that two other federal appeals courts have limited the liability of defendants in personal gains.
The states countered that the appeal to the Supreme Court was a "poor vehicle" to review Shkreli's disgorged profits because lower courts never addressed the issue.
Since his May 2022 release from prison, Shkreli has worked as a software developer and as a consultant for a law office.
He has separately been sued by the digital art collective PleasrDAO for having allegedly streamed a one-of-a-kind album by the hip-hop group Wu-Tang Clan. PleasrDAO bought the album after the U.S. government seized it from Shkreli in his criminal case.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Will Dunham
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
