About | Boring Legal Stuff

Ahem. Nothing written, appearing, or linked to, on this site is intended to be individual legal, or investment, advice. Consult a financial or legal adviser before making any trade, or any other decision, based anything you read, or see, on this website.

This website treats all U.S. viewers’ visitor-paths — and visits — as public data. If you are from Europe, understand that this site can see — but will not disclose to the public — your visitor-path, in compliance with applicable E.U. directives. All material on this website is derived from public documents, and/or edited, modified, and derived (in most cases) from public domain sources, or in some other cases, is originally-created by the author(s) of this site. Any use of any proprietary image, document or other non-public domain property or data is genuinely-intended by the author(s) to fall under the United States common-law “fair use” doctrine (as a means of clear identification of the parties involved — including Mr. Martin Shkreli and his various current and former companies), and is offered as criticism of, and commentary on, matters of substantial public concern. Chief among these “matters of substantial public concern” are the for-profit health care systems, and new drug, vaccine and biologic approval policies here in the Americas [i.e., the central core of Turing Pharmaceuticals, Retrophin, and KaloBio’s (pre-bankruptcy) business models].

This site also examines how pharmaceutical companies use the protections of the bankruptcy laws — to shield executive officers, and large shareholders, from liability for alleged malfeasance, and breaches of fiduciary duty. There can scarcely be a more crying need for sunshine, than inside the often dark, and confusing labyrinth that is pharmaceutical pricing strategy, in the United States.

A final matter of substantial public concern here critiqued, analyzed and commented upon is the continuing trend, at American public life science companies like¬†Turing — even post Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, to wildly overpay CEOs like Mr. Shkreli¬†— for shockingly poor performance. For a time after the financial crisis of late 2008, the trend was toward more responsible executive pay — as authorized, and overseen by the boards of directors of most public companies. It seems that in 2015 and beyond, the excesses (and lack of board oversight and genuine board engagement and independence) on executive pay has reappeared, like a virus — Turing is one of those companies. It is now in self-inflicted disarray, quite obviously.

Kalo-Shkreli-Congress-2016So, if any of this offends the current Turing board of directors, or Mr. Shkreli, so be it — he and they are public figures, as to all of these matters of substantial public concern, under applicable US law. [That would be the New York Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Welch jurisprudence.]

Of course, if anyone wishes to dispute this site’s assertion of “fair use”, or any factual matter asserted here, please leave a comment in any of the comment-boxes, specifically-identifying the challenged material, and the basis for the challenge, on this site. The Site Administrator(s) will promptly consider the claim. In the same comment-box, the Site Administrator(s) will indicate the site’s position on any such claim. This site is entirely not-for-profit. Share, and share-a-like licenses granted in, and to, all content. Copy-left 2016-2017.

Advertisements