Is Plaintiff Suing Martin Shkreli in Pa. an Ex-Big Law Associate's 'Shell Company'?
After reviewing motions to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit against pharmaceutical CEO-turned-convicted-felon Martin Shkreli and others, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ordered additional discovery regarding defense claims that the plaintiff is a "made-for-litigation shell company" formed by a former Winston & Strawn associate.
April 11, 2019 at 06:08 PM
4 minute read
After reviewing motions to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit against pharmaceutical CEO-turned-convicted-felon Martin Shkreli and others, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ordered additional discovery regarding defense claims that the plaintiff is a “made-for-litigation shell company” formed by a former Winston & Strawn associate.
The lawsuit, brought by Spring Pharmaceuticals, alleges defendants Shkreli, Retrophin, Mission Pharmaceutical Co. and Alamo Pharma Services monopolized the market for a kidney drug by blocking competition from generic drug makers.
Spring alleged the defendants stifled competition by refusing to sell samples of the drug Thiola to distributors, wholesalers or Spring itself, denying it the opportunity to develop a generic version.
The defendants, however, argued in their motions to dismiss that Spring didn't have the constitutional standing required to bring an antitrust lawsuit because it is not a generic drug manufacturer at all, but instead a company formed by an ex-Winston & Strawn associate and his wife, an accountant, ”as a vehicle to bring this litigation.”
U.S. District Judge Curtis Joyner of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled April 9 that the parties would need to engage in limited discovery to investigate those claims before he could determine whether the case should proceed.
In its Jan. 15 motion to dismiss, Retrophin alleged Spring was “a made-for-litigation shell company posing as a generic pharmaceutical company in an apparent attempt to exploit the treble damages provisions of the antitrust laws.”
“Its 'CEO'—Jialue Charles Li—is a former associate from Spring's litigation counsel, Winston & Strawn, LLP,” Retrophin's motion said. “The only other individual identified as associated with Spring is Mr. Li's wife, Peimin Flora Hua, who according to publicly available materials is a certified public accountant (CPA) employed by Freddie Mac.”
In response, Spring contended that it was a new company and that it had already taken “substantial steps” toward developing a generic version of Thiola. Additionally, Spring argued that it has worked with consultants to help navigate the regulatory process relating to new drug approval, and that it has secured financing to bring its generic version to market—the only holdup being acquisition of the samples, according to Joyner.
But the question of whether Spring had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution could not be immediately answered. To have standing, a plaintiff must show “(1) an injury that is (2) 'fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct' and that is (3) 'likely to be redressed by the requested relief.'”
In light of that, Joyner said, “considering that Spring has rebutted defendants' jurisdictional challenge, we stay defendants' motions for a period of 90 days to allow for discovery limited to the question of whether plaintiff Spring has standing to sue under Article III.”
Shkreli is represented by William Stassen of Fox Rothschild in Philadelphia; Retrophin is represented by Deei Bansal of Cooley in Washington, D.C.; and Spring is represented by Dan Webb of Winston & Strawn in Chicago.
None of the attorneys responded to requests for comment on the ruling.
Joyner issued his ruling 10 days after Shkreli was reportedly thrown into solitary confinement for using a smuggled cellphone in prison. Shkreli, 36, is serving a seven-year sentence at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey after being convicted of fraud.
However, Shkreli is perhaps best known for jacking up the price of a lifesaving HIV drug by 5,000 percent, reaping staggering profits for his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, in the process.
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 All3rd Circuit Revives Class Action Against Bayer Over Benzene-Contaminated Products
4 minute readLife Sciences M&A Set to Boom, Litigation to Remain Steady Under New Trump Admin
5 minute readOzempic Plaintiffs Push for Marketing Discovery After MDL Judge Imposes Limits
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
- 2Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 3Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 4Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
- 5Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
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