Order Entered, In Manhattan — Approving Payout To Shkreli-Defrauded Retrophin Shareholders…

Here is the full order as entered in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) a day or so, ago.

As we noted two weeks, ago — the additional $30 million of fraud-laced losses go on Mr. Shkreli’s “relevant conduct” pre-sentencing report — under the still in-force federal sentencing guidelines. See this for calculation of actual losses — at page three, lower right hand column.

At an absolute minimum, we must now say his fraud totals have eclipsed $90 million — since it was in fact, his fraud at KaloBios in the late fall of 2015 that directly led to the drop from around $1.42 per share, to $0.27 per share, this week — as the renamed Humanigen found out that a consortium of not-for-, and non- profits had beat it to the punch in winning a PRV from the FDA — for its Chagas program. [Last year the stock was trading at $4.75… in the NASDAQ Pink Sheets.]

Charming, Marty. Simply charming.

[This also means we will not cover Marty’s reaction to Trevor Noah’s spoof of last night. It was comedic genius, as found by Billy the Kid. Do see the comments to the last post.]

I’m out!

Namaste, one and all…

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Order Entered, In Manhattan — Approving Payout To Shkreli-Defrauded Retrophin Shareholders…

    • condor says:

      I bet… you are right! And I bet the “medical research” is… actually paying Mr. Brafman’ bills — thus lowering Mr. Brafman’ blood pressure… so that’s… medical, I guess…

      Namaste!

      Like

      • FTD says:

        “Q: Hey Martin…what’s going on? I was shocked to find this item on ebay this morning. Incredible. I had wrongly believe this was a vinyl album.. Is it possible that you might clarify what sort of medical research you’ll be donating to? As (I’m QUITE sure) you know, a lot of research is not worth the cash thrown at it. Will you be bound by agreement to donate? Just to be sure, this auction is ONLY for the physical CD and it’s packaging, right? What rights would be conferred to the buyer? WTC still owns the content, correct? So, the buyer wouldn’t really be able to even share this with others, except in a private setting, no? What assurance would a buyer have that WTC doesn’t one day release this material? Don’t destroy the CD set. Of course, you could do so, but it would serve no good end. It’s very cool that you have been a patron of the arts. The WTC album was framed as a sort of publicity stunt, never revealed as part of a pattern of donating to artists. Be well, Donn Sep-06-17
        A: My plan is to donate half of the sale proceeds to OHSU for rare disease drug research. I know a great researcher there very well who will make terrific use of the funds. The only format available is the CDs–the makers wanted to ensure the format matched the era of the artist. The copyright owner is governed by a complex agreement which will be provided to the bidders who are ‘in the hunt’ at the end of the process. The only copy is owned by me. The artist represented and warrantied this in the purchase agreement”

        Is there a way to confirm if Martin does donate the proceeds, Condor? πŸ™‚

        Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        Okay FTD… you got me with this one. I’ll make my answer — and analysis — a new post, in a few… but to sum up, only a fool would pay for this, without a signed release from at least five parties that have judgments against Marty… add to this that in general promises to make gifts are not enforced by the courts.

        Look above, in a few moments…

        Namaste!

        Like

  1. aldt440 says:

    “And lest I be misunderstood, I am not here looking to persuade you. I could give a rip whether you think it’s fair.”

    Well, I think your position is irresponsible and could have particularly broad unintended social consequences. Shkreli’s case could be the first major public test of a substantial increase in sentencing based on relevant conduct. Social acceptance of the guidelines, or even a lack of public interest, could eventually lead to formal policy and further encroachment of civil liberties. The jury’s fact finding role was severely diminished in the 80’s and 90’s and I’d rather not go further down the road of determinate sentencing.

    “What I want to know is whether a judge, with the actual losses in front of her will have the courage to sentence him in line with Mike Milken et al.”

    There’s nothing courageous about circumventing due process and viewing the rule of law as a mere formality. Transferring responsibilities from jury to judge is unconstitutional and not what the Framers intended. I can provide you with hundreds of years worth of precedent and cases proving that juries as finders of fact is probably the most important and valuable of all civil rights. Shkreli isn’t Milken. This isn’t just about CEOs. Promoting arbitrary and discriminatory sentencing based on a preponderance of evidence is a slippery slope. Courageous would be taking a stand and rejecting determinate sentencing in a case where PhRMA has leveraged the integrity of our court system to advance their own interests.

    Although I don’t totally agree with the statutory maximum ceiling element of this case, and feel that all conduct subjecting a defendant to a longer sentence should be tried before a jury, there’s still some good quotes in here:

    “That right to a jury is no procedural formality, but a fundamental reservation of power in our constitutional structure.” Just as citizens participate in the legislative process by electing representatives to the legislature, they participate in the judicial process by serving on juries.

    Blakely vs. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)

    Perhaps an alarming trend is a more accurate description than social breakdown for the current state of affairs. Every day, the dragnet of the law is getting larger and the mesh is getting finer. The 4th amendment is almost gone and there is clearly a drug exception to it. The 1st amendment is currently under attack with the so called “hate speech” exception.

    Please read this awesome paper on the evolution of sentencing. It’s the best I’ve read on the topic of the polarization between Watts and Booker on the subject of acquitted conduct.

    http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=wmlr

    Like

    • condor says:

      It is courageous, in my view, to refuse to bend to public (misguided) outcry, and sentence a criminal — as a criminal, to the years all his less famous (but similar) crooks have been required to serve, to wit:

      “…You were willing to commit only crimes that were unlikely to be detected…. When a man of your power in the financial world… repeatedly conspires to violate, and violates, securities and tax business laws in order to achieve more power and wealth for himself… a significant prison term is required….”

      — then-USDC Judge Kimba Wood, in sentencing Mike Milken (1990).

      I do think the guidelines are unfair: why isn’t Marty crying loud and long, about all the felons now serving 20 to 30 years, for completely non-violent drug offenses?

      Many if not most never had any violent history — simply ran a mid-level hemp distribution network — but because they made more than $20 million from that unlawful but non-violent business, they got 20-plus years. Where is Marty’s voice on THAT!?

      If Marty is who he pretends he is (a good guy concerned about all of humanity), maybe he should stop talking about HIS case, so often… and point to the more egregious injustices under the guidelines.

      Then I might respect his (and your) arguments a little more.

      Do stop back.

      Namaste…

      Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      And you are right about one thing: Shkreli isn’t Milken — Mike Milken admitted his parking was unlawful, plead guilty and agreed to do ten.

      Marty? Unrepentant. ‘Nuff said.

      Liked by 1 person

      • aldt440 says:

        Milken remorseful? Repentant? hahahhah

        In March 1989, prosecutors put a deal on the table for Milken: a guilty plea to just two felony counts, three if the deal also included immunity for Lowell (his brother). He was given a deadline to accept by 3PM on March 29, 1989, after which he would be formally indicted. Well… Milken was so convinced of his ability to negotiate a better deal that he let the deadline pass, determined to face the full weight of the Government’s case head on.

        After a year had transpired from the initial indictment, prosecutors had accumulated far more evidence and took a much tougher position than in previous negotiations. Milken now had the option of going to trial and rolling the dice, or pleading guilty to six felonies. His attorneys advised him that pleading guilty to 6 felonies exposed him to a potential prison term of nearly 30 years (conviction at trial on 98 counts would be even worse). His lawyer’s sentencing estimates* were all over the place ranging from 1 year to 10.

        Den of Thieves – James B. Stewart 1991 p.415, p.435

        Is Shkreli still unrepentant if the Feds never gave him a decent plea option? Milken’s plea wiped out 92 felonies! That’s a no-brainer and has nothing to do with remorse!

        *You can’t “plead guilty and agree to do ten” buddy. That’s not how the USSG worked in 1990. It doesn’t work that way now either. You’re thinking this is a civil suit with an agreed order. Remember all of the stuff we’ve been talking about here with acquitted conduct and uncharged conduct in sentencing reports??

        Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        Um… Good luck with all that. I’ll let the judge decide. You will too.

        But do let Marty know he’s doing … ten.

        Namaste — feel free to keep posting. But we aren’t buddies.

        Updated: for all readers, now — as to Marty generally of late — his (1) purported eBay attempt to sell the Wu-Tang CD set, and (2) purported possession (by fraud, without a doubt) of the hair and blood of the 2016 Democratic nominee for President… suggest only two things, so I won’t cover either of them: (1) he is essentially broke; and (2) he is mentally unstable. And quite possibly a danger to himself or others.

        It makes sense that Secret Service agents want to interview him.

        I just hope he’s remitted to the relative safety and stability of the federal prison system before he harms himself.

        If it is not litigation or law related development, don’t expect me to follow it. His Facebook account is a real time, and very public train wreck — if that’s your preference, do follow his largely troll-worthy antics there. At least until he’s sentenced.

        Namaste…

        Like

  2. aldt440 says:

    What on earth is going on here? How does $11M turn into $90M? Treble damages? We already strongly disagree on sentencing guidelines, but this is ridiculous. This is similar to what would happen if refuse to pay a $0.10 balance on my credit card and penalties balloon to $3000 before the account is sold to collections: it’s simply unfair and predatory.

    Why are you pushing this so hard?

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      I believe Martin needs to answer for the size of his financial fraud. He’s already convicted of having engaged in it — and whether we like it or not, the sentencing guidelines remain the law of the (federal) land.

      Perhaps one small irony, in the scheme of grand Shkreli ironies that will result from this is… that Marty’s trolls will be able to affect a change in thought — and then, via their Congress-people… a change in the actual law. And we do not disagree that the guidelines are… unfair, in application. Few do. But they are the law.

      I am pushing it largely to counter Marty’s preposterous hype machine: he wants the world to believe he made money for everyone.

      That is simply a lie. Another Marty lie.

      And the AUSAs and Judge Matsumoto will sentence him based on… yerp — the truth. He’s doing ten.

      Read all the links — you choose to believe Marty’s spin machine, as opposed to actual court documents — on uncharged conduct.

      Buckle up, Marty — your season is… orange.

      Like

      • aldt440 says:

        He’s been convicted of engaging in some of the stuff you have itemized above, not necessarily “it.” I don’t understand the loss calculation for Retrophin / MSMB and neither do you! There are so many things wrong with your last few posts, I don’t even know where to start.

        In this post, you have raised issues regarding accessibility of the law. Unfortunately, I can’t afford to do my own research. The law, in its current form, is so onerous, complex, and obfuscated, that very few can navigate it or regulate their conduct in a way that satisfactorily avoids punitive remedies. Shkreli’s case is an extreme example, but how is anyone supposed to foresee, even with appropriate advice, the consequences that a specific action might entail? Am I wrong for scorning the adjudicative process in its current form? You really need to think about this for a second because we’re on the cusp of social breakdown. I could realistically spend tens of thousands of dollars and still not have a concise answer regarding Shkreli’s sentencing. The entire process has devolved into an elaborate shakedown and is clearly in violation of sound social precedent. Nobody is immune to chance! If you are going to call for such a drastic measure as a ten year sentence, you should do a better job justifying your position.

        The sentencing guidelines aren’t the “Law of the Land” and they have never been properly adjudicated because congressional authority has been usurped by the prison industrial complex and nefarious factions within our government. Why not take the moral high ground on the matter instead of preaching for expedient reasons?

        I’m sorry, but not everyone that disagrees with the Government’s position is a troll. I don’t want to go into this, but at least he made a miniscule effort to correct his mistakes. A lot of people are pissed off at the utter refusal of the Feds to go after the status quo. There’s so much other more important stuff out there worthy of their resources. Here’s something I just read about today, and it makes Shkreli look like a saint.

        https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608771/the-fda-has-approved-the-first-gene-therapy-for-cancer/

        If the Feds want to sentence him for the KaloBios stuff, they should charge him with it and go through through all of the formalities designed to properly adjudicate the matter.

        To be frank, you’ve made a very poor argument. Conflating all of his transgressions together and stamping it with your cliche of “He’s doing ten” doesn’t convince or persuade me that you are petitioning for just punishment.

        Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        I’ll say only this for now: there is no “right” to be a public company CEO. If one lands that privilege (not right), one must inform oneself of the law — on pain of civil and criminal liability.

        Mr. Greebel clearly (and repeatedly) told Shkreli what he was doing was unlawful.

        All the rest of yours falls away, from there. There is no social breakdown underway. At least, not as a result of CEOs being somehow unfairly targeted.

        That’s just poppycock.

        And lest I be misunderstood, I am not here looking to persuade you. I could give a rip whether you think it’s fair. What I want to know is whether a judge, with the actual losses in front of her will have the courage to sentence him in line with Mike Milken et al.

        The guidelines allow uncharged conduct to be factored in. And the Supremes specifically chose not to rule on that notion when the question was last squarely before them — so yes, Altd440… it IS the law of the land.

        Frankly anything less than 20 is probably unjust, taking into account the serial nature of his crimes.

        But I’ll settle for ten, here. Onward. As you may plainly see — I am comfortable with strong disagreements. Feel free to bring it on, here. I’m just not buying it.

        Namaste!

        Like

      • FTD says:

        Condor handing out the bitter pill of reality to anyone saying “Not fair”

        The same not fair rules that made Martin wealthy will make him lose all his money. Get too confident, that’s what happens.

        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 )

w

Connecting to %s

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