US Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal from 'Pharma Bro' Martin Shkreli in Securities Fraud Case
Shkreli gained notoriety as the "pharma bro" when he was CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, where sudden increases in the price of lifesaving drugs attracted media coverage and questions from Congress.
November 18, 2019 at 02:20 PM
2 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from disgraced pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli, according to an order released by the justices Monday.
Shkreli's 2017 conviction on securities fraud and conspiracy charges was upheld in a summary order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in July.
In 2018, a judge in the Eastern District of New York sentenced Shkreli to seven years in prison and ordered him to pay fines and restitution and to forfeit more than $7.3 million, which prosecutors said he'd acquired through a Ponzi-like scheme in his two hedge funds.
He is currently imprisoned in central Pennsylvania, according to federal prison records.
His petition for certiorari centered on the district judge's jury instruction about whether Shkreli believed "no ultimate harm" would come from his actions. Shkreli's lawyers asked the court to consider whether that instruction was appropriate for a securities fraud case and to reevaluate whether Shkreli's forfeiture amount was calculated correctly.
The Second Circuit rejected similar arguments on his appeal there.
Shkreli gained notoriety as the "pharma bro" when he was CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, where sudden increases in the price of lifesaving drugs attracted media coverage and questions from Congress. He also bought the single extant copy of a Wu-Tang Clan album, an unreleased Lil Wayne album and a Pablo Picasso painting.
Notoriety is "never helpful," Shkreli's lawyer Benjamin Brafman of Brafman & Associates wrote in a statement about the Supreme Court's decision Monday.
"We are disappointed by the court's decision and continue to maintain that Martin was never treated fairly by any of the courts that have reviewed his case," Brafman wrote. "Unfortunately there is often a price to pay for notoriety. It is never helpful."
A spokesman in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York declined to comment.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250