“Pharma Bro” Shkreli Fined Over $60 million, Banned from Industry for Life

While Big Pharma companies like J+J and Moderna are constantly being praised for their Covid-19 jabs, at least in the MSM, Martin Shkreli, the near-universally hated “Pharma Bro” just received quite a stiff ruling in an anti-trust suit.

Judge Denise Cote, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled against Shkreli in a lawsuit that the FTC and seven states (California, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) brought against Shkreli over what they described as his using monopoly control to gouge the price of Daraprim, an anti-viral drug used to treat HIV.

In fact, Judge Cote ruled that not only must Shkreli, who’s already in prison for seven years thanks to a securities fraud conviction, pay a $64.6 million fine, but also that he’s banned from ever working in the pharmaceuticals industry again. Writing on that in the massive, 135-page ruling, Judge Cote said:

Banning an individual from an entire industry and limiting his future capacity to make a living in that field is a serious remedy and must be done with care and only if equity demands. Shkreli’s egregious, deliberate, repetitive, long-running, and ultimately dangerous illegal conduct warrants imposition of an injunction of this scope.”

Along a similar line of thought, Cote also says in the ruling that:

“Without a lifetime ban, there is a real danger that Shkreli will engage in anticompetitive conduct within the pharmaceutical industry again.”

Is Biden to Blame For The Dramatic Rise of Inflation?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Additionally, writing about the specifics of the Daraprim scheme, Judge Cote said:

The Daraprim scheme was particularly heartless and coercive. Daraprim must be administered within hours to those suffering from active toxoplasma encephalitis.”

Then, continuing on that line of thought and describing the predatory, monopolistic intent behind Shkreli’s actions, Judge Cote said:

“From day one, Shkreli focused his new venture on acquiring sole-source drugs that were the gold standard treatment option for life-threatening diseases with a small patient population and inferior alternative treatments, with the intent to raise their prices, block generic competition, and reap extraordinary profits.

Similarly, at one point, Cote adds that “Shkreli established two companies, Retrophin and Vyera, with the same anticompetitive business model: Acquiring sole-source drugs for rare diseases so that he could profit from a monopolist scheme on the backs of a dependent population of pharmaceutical distributors, healthcare providers, and the patients who needed the drugs.”

Additionally, to show just how unrepentant Shkreli was (and is), likely as a way to defend her quite harsh ruling, Cote emphasized that he’s never even shown that he recognizes that his actions were wrong, saying:

“Moreover, in the face of public opprobrium, Shkreli doubled down. He refused to change course and proclaimed that he should have raised Daraprim’s price higher.”

“Shkreli has not expressed remorse or any awareness that his actions violated the law. While he takes full responsibility … for the increase of Daraprim’s price from $17.50 to $750 per pill, he denies responsibility for virtually anything else.”

Still, despite Shkreli’s reprehensible, monopolistic actions, Cote’s ruling is particularly severe and might show a shift in mindset among the judges tasked with bringing monopolists to heel. As Matt Stoller described it in his Substack newsletter:

More than the obnoxiousness of the villain, the precedent here matters. It’s rare for an individual to be found liable for monopolization, so this decision means that judges are getting more comfortable seeing antitrust violations as immoral behavior, instead of seeing the problem as well-meaning businessmen being a bit too zealous.

We’ll see if the same line of thought is applied to similarly obnoxious Big Tech monopolists.

By: Gen Z Conservative, editor of GenZConservative.com. Follow me on Parler and Gettr.

Notice: This article may contain commentary that reflects the author's opinion.