47
submitted 1 month ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/legalnews@lemmy.zip

The Supreme Court offered no explanation for denying the petition.

Case file: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100724zor_4gdj.pdf

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 20 points 1 month ago

To be clear, this is a good decision:

Cotes banned Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry for life and found him liable for $64.6 million in disgorgement. In January 2024, an appeals court upheld Cote's ruling.

Months later, Shkreli's lawyer filed a petition with the Supreme Court arguing that the ill-gotten profits from Daraprim's price hike went to corporate entities, not Shkreli personally, and that federal courts had issued conflicting rulings on disgorgement liabilities.

The Supreme Court has refused to let Shkreli off the hook.

[-] Wytch@lemmy.cafe 7 points 1 month ago

I like that legal term disgorgement. It makes me visualize a vile, slimy, bloated monstrosity cornered and forced to vomit forth a mass of ill-gotten gains.

Which seems rather apt in this case.

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago
[-] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Wow! A rich asshole seeing consequences! I LOVE this!

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago

Only because he fucked over other rich people.

[-] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

We have to take the wins where we find 'em!

this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
47 points (100.0% liked)

Legal News

231 readers
14 users here now

International and local legal news.


Basic rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flagSome cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules applyAll lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.


Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS