Verdict Watch — Day Two — August 1, 2017 Open Thread…

The able jurors are back in the deliberation room, just now — 9 AM EDT. And back at work.

Will we learn his fate by close of business today?

At lunchtime? Or… even sooner (not likely)….

Or not until Wednesday — or later?

We shall see…. and you may still vote in the poll, as no one’s selected time has passed yet.

Leave all that nonsense that is the life and work of Mr. Shkreli, in the comments below.

Onward under cloud cover here… but warm.

Namaste.

Advertisements

59 thoughts on “Verdict Watch — Day Two — August 1, 2017 Open Thread…

  1. R West says:

    There was an interesting segment on Bloomberg radio on criminal securities fraud … not about Shkreli case, just in general. There’s a lot of debate about the severe penalties. The commentator indicated that the penalties are so severe because of the difficulty of detection … so there needs to be a deterrent. In the Shkreli jury instructions, the Judge told the jury to ignore the possible sentence … but I don’t think they will. They aren’t going to want to send him to jail for so long. Brafman tried to indirectly back into the same argument doing his closing, when he said something like “don’t label him a felon.” If it was a six-month sentence in prison camp, they would probably convict hm. However, when looking at years on years in a penitentiary with hardened violent criminals, they are going to be very reluctant to convict, especially with many women (is it seven?) on the jury.

    Like

  2. billythekid9919 says:

    From CNBC article Dr. Martin linked above:

    “After hearing about the note, Shkreli looked at a copy of a biography about legendary investor Warren Buffett that he had been toting around Tuesday. The 1995 book, “Buffett: The Making of An American Capitalist,” was written by Roger Lowenstein, a former Wall Street Journal reporter.
    “How … improbable,” Lowenstein wrote CNBC in an email when asked about Shkreli’s choice of his tome during jury deliberations.
    Shkreli also spent time playing cards in the courthouse cafeteria Tuesday while jurors huddled over his fate.
    Lowenstein said he believed his book noted some fatherly advice Buffett gave one of his sons: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”
    By “differently,” Lowenstein said, Buffett meant doing things “more carefully, especially when it comes to avoiding cutting corners.”
    “Advice we could all benefit from, the defendant included,” Lowenstein said.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • R West says:

      “Berkshire Hathaway came under intense scrutiny in 2011 for possible insider trading prior its acquisition of the chemicals company Lubrizol. The allegations suggested that then-Berkshire executive David Sokol purchased $10 million in Lubrizol shares weeks prior to the announced takeover. Berkshire CEO Warren Buffett claimed that he knew about Sokol’s purchases and, finding nothing wrong with them, went ahead with the acquisition anyway”.

      LOL .. reputation ruined only if you’re caught!

      Liked by 1 person

      • R West says:

        Who knows the true facts, but Buffett did not come out looking good. According to one Barron’s story:

        “The Berkshire Hathaway (BRKB) report on top Berkshire executive David Sokol’s resignation makes Sokol’s deception seem much more extensive than it appeared in Chairman and Chief Executive Warren Buffett’s initial letter announcing the resignation. The investigation also sheds new light on Buffett’s role, and makes parts of the letter he released announcing Sokol’s resignation seem enigmatic, if not outright evasive.”

        Like

      • billythekid9919 says:

        Berkshire regularly reminds it’s employees who might have information on any potential deals they must disclose any positions in companies Berkshire is looking at purchasing… Sokol brought the Lubrizol deal to Buffett and suggested he look at it as a takeover target… Then Sokol made trades in Lubirzol but failed to disclose it. Berkshire then bought the entire company and later Sokol’s purchase came to light. He was then fired for not disclosing the positions as well as the prior knowledge. Buffett actually threw him under the bus for insider trading. In what way would Buffett come out looking bad? Also, why would he want the employee that brought him the deal front running the company? It was a nothing burger except Berkshire had to can a potential successor and a good manager because he personally got greedy.

        Like

  3. R West says:

    I wouldn’t read too much into the jury’s questions. In the Mathew Martoma insider trading trial, the jury asked for a copy of the Press Release that the defendant relied on as his defense … and everyone inferred it was going his way … but he was still convicted. However, if the jury asked, “what’s the difference between a stock and a bond?” … one might infer they aren’t very sophisticated financially. That’s the way it looks here … a bunch of relatively poor people on the jury aren’t going to have much sympathy for the wealthy investors. That probably favors the defendant in a case like this, especially where he came from a lower class background himself. Plus, just because they asked a question regarding Count 4, it doesn’t mean they resolved the first three … maybe they disagreed and just decided to go on to 4?

    Like

    • condor says:

      No the Blob just lurks now. I see him/her… different IP address, different device… different provider and different state.

      Let’s just focus on the ideas expressed — shall we, one and all?

      I don’t require real names… I just am looking for genuine… ideas.

      Namaste — all good here, FTD! Keep up the good work!

      Like

      • billythekid9919 says:

        That’s all well and good but shouldn’t one anonymous handle be anonymous enough. I can understand trying to hit the “refresh” button if you’ve been such a DoucheTroll on your other handle. But in the land of anonymous postings what need is there to run dual handles? Sad {Trump-esque}.

        Liked by 1 person

    • bmartinmd says:

      This may be true, or it may be that one or two jurors want clarification, or it may be that a majority of jurors may want ammunition to convince a wavering juror or two. Or the jurors may just want to be sure of their verdicts. I can understand why Shkreli might feel emboldened by this news, but he’s a fool. Brafman, on the other hand, should know better.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Mr Rhymes says:

    Please come back with a verdict… I’m getting tired of the dancing shkreli cucks and their maudlin, high-pitch screeching for Shkreli’s innocence.

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      Fascinating! Two of these questions were asked here yesterday — and they are answered by pages 32 to 38 of the instructions.

      So I expect the able judge will simply refer them to those standard instruction pages. No more gloss, I bet.

      As to assets under management, I think the parties could craft a definition, but they’ll likely lift it from the ’40 Act rules, and the ’39 Act rules — see page 7, et. seq. of that PDF file…. in sum, it is inappropriate to count a public company’s securtities (i.e., Retrophin) in one’s assets under management — where one hasn’t yet even obtained control of the public company shell. And it is clearly inappropriate to “make up” a mythical value, based on what you hope MIGHT happen in the future.

      I would hazard a guess, that if the jurors are working from top to bottom, they have now reached Count Four (that would be page 26 and beyond, in the indictment they are reviewing). This is where assets under management first comes up. And I’d bet they’ve found him guilty on the first three, already. He is… toast.

      All of it says the jurors are focusing on whether Mr. Shkreli acted with fraudulent intent, when he claimed $40 million under management — with only $11,000 in the bank. The $11,000 would be the Form ADV required definition of “assets under management” — not a “made up” $40 million, from Mr. Shkreli’s hopes and dreams.

      I read it as ominous — for Mr. Brafman. Too much evidence of bad intent is already in.

      To be fair to the defense though — they argued that as a “hedge fund” well below the size thresholds (i.e., technically largely unregulated — but always subject to the ’34 Act Section 10b-5 “anti-fraud” rules), Mr. Shkreli wasn’t required to be ’39 Act, or ’40 Act registered. True. And so (they argued), he need not comply with all those pesky ’40 Act rules. But now the jury wants to know what those rule driven terms mean. And when he (Mr. Shkreli) used the term “assets under management” — it is logical to assume he wanted his investors to figure he meant it in the “usual” ’40 Act way. Which means… he misled them.

      We shall see.

      Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        UPDATE: Meg Tirrell says the Judge has sent back the answer that there will be no additional definition of AUM, given by the judge.

        That is, the defense likely doesn’t want a pure ’40 Act definition, since Mr. Shkreli was not required to register under the ’40 Act.

        But it is plain he meant to have the investors believe he meant a hard asset count (i.e., the ’40 Act version).

        They are on Count Four, for certain.

        Like

      • bmartinmd says:

        If seems that Shkreli and Brafman are viewing the “fraudulent intent” question from the jury very favorably, contrary to your interpretation, condor: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/01/jurors-ask-about-fraud-intent-at-martin-shkreli-trial.html. But I think that’s a mistake by Shkreli and Brafman and reading way too much into the jurors’ questions.

        I also think once the jurors get through their deliberations on count 4, then their decisions on counts 5-8 will go pretty quickly.

        Liked by 2 people

      • billythekid9919 says:

        So… if one’s asset management shop is small enough not to have to register you can lie all you want because the rules don’t apply to you? That seems very odd to me! OR is that just the defense’s position? Also, what if your lies would cause your book to be big enough to register? 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        No. That’s just Mr. Brafman’s recast of Shkreli-world, to try and save his skin.

        The 1934 Act applies to every purchase and sale of securities — and makes any material omission or misstatement actionable as civil fraud — and in willful cases of lying — criminal as well.

        That’s where Mr. Shkreli finds himself, today.

        And the hedge fund must have only accredited investors (rich folks) as the account holders, in order to be exempt from the investment advisor fiduciary rules.

        Still — all affirmative fraud is unlawful.

        But Mr. Brafman has argued that Mr. Shkreli’s lies are to be ignored — because he’s so… special.

        Ugh!

        It’s all Alice in Wonderland, from here.

        Namaste man…

        Liked by 1 person

  5. bmartinmd says:

    My best guess: The jury is methodically working through each count (and finding Shkreli guilty on each count along the way). As I wrote before, 8 counts–>2-4 counts to deliberate per day. Perhaps they got through 3 counts yesterday and are working on 3 more today. I’m still banking on tomorrow (Wednesday) for a verdict, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s Thursday morning. I definitely think it will be this week. The jury definitely doesn’t want to come back on Monday.

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      Sean is… ill-informed. So his opinion is… meaningless. As we keep saying… Retrophin public shareholders lost money — real cash — when Mr. Shkreli made Retrophin pay his personal (fraud laced) prior debts.

      The “poor Martin” is a tiny violin sonata that is decidedly… off-key, to me.

      Hey — that rhymed!

      Like

    • al says:

      “The U.S. attorney’s office was unable to do the most powerful thing in this matter: refrain from using power against a despised figure when resources were so better aimed elsewhere.”

      This goes back to what I stated earlier, with Shkreli attempting to redirect attention elsewhere. He was already under investigation before the price hike; before anyone had the slightest clue of who he was.

      So him being a “despised figure” is irrelevant, as an investigation was already underway.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. al says:

    The fact that most people who hear about Shkreli think he’s in trial for the drug price increase is a perfect testament to the success of spreading confusion.

    So now the jury is overflowed with information when they search his name when trying to get information on him. This may cause the deliberation to take longer than expected.

    Liked by 1 person

    • FTD says:

      I don’t think so, Al. I think the information that comes up that he is a con artist and a distrustful person. I don’t think it works in his favor how much media he has. The overflow of the consensus that this man is toxic. That’s the overflow that Marty has to worry about,imo.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. FTD says:

    Let’s be real, this jury has likely been given links this fool has done on social media. He was told to be silent multiple times before the trial started and he just kept being foolish. There are hours and hours of examples how he behaves. (Whether theatrical or the real martin, it doesn’t matter)

    This jury probably has typed in the google search “Shkreli” to see what this person is like. If that’s the case, he’s sunk. But remember, he did it to himself.

    If he was silent and left little to no trace? He would be in a good situation especially if he really was this good samaritan & apologetic. Speaking of which, why didn’t they bring out witnesses for that? No one wanted to go to bat for Martin? That’s a bad ominious sign.

    Is it fair if his trial is sunk that Martin is ruined off perception of what he has done? He started the fire and then he moved his hand close to the flame. He was aware of what he was doing. You can’t blame *Fake News* for the juvenile loser who kept taunting everyone.

    It isn’t fair but you know what the reality is? Presumed innocent doesn’t work in the social media age, it WILL NEVER WORK if you have a direct negative presence, people WILL SEARCH for you at HOME. It is our nature as human beings, we are curious. Don’t KID YOURSELF. He was warned multiple times, you can’t pretend you were autistic. You put out that close to 2 year impression of yourself as being a douche bag to the law. You turned on the camera, you livestreamed, you commented. You harassed others. And no, you can’t say he was joking or having fun. To be blunt, he has broken the law, he recorded conversations on the PHONE using skype without the participants knowing that he was recording them. He RECORDED family members of trolls who messed with him.
    Never once did he say “I hope you don’t mind but this call is being live streamed” You can’t do that, it is ILLEGAL. He engaged it in multiple times and it is preserved for all time on youtube. Read it and weep, Shkreli supporters. That’s your deity.

    If this case was tainted by social media, point almost all of your fingers in the direction of Marty. I will not feel sorry for someone who grabbed the gun & pulled the trigger on his own ruin. There are just far too many people who need help in their court case.

    Liked by 1 person

    • al says:

      “If he was silent and left little to no trace? He would be in a good situation especially if he really was this good samaritan & apologetic.”

      This is wrong. He likely raised the price of the drug to cause distraction, to deter away from the securities fraud allegations. Mass public confusion, even through actions that are frowned upon, make him appear to be more innocent; because the drug price gouge is perfectly legal, and was more of a mock toward the bigger drug companies that do the same thing but more gradually so it goes unnoticed. He did it to annoy those people, in the bigger companies, as it directs attention to them as collateral damage. For all we know, Martin could have hated those big drug companies, as maybe one of his big short sell positions failed as a result of the company doing this very practice of price gouging. So maybe this was his payback, while also spreading mass confusion in regard to his actual trial case.

      Liked by 2 people

      • FTD says:

        Al, I don’t think anyone is confused that he’s a individual who lies constantly. That much we are certain of that people who have delved into this story can detect a liar’s tells. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.