48
submitted 2 months 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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 20 points 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
48 points (100.0% liked)

Legal News

273 readers
34 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 8 months ago
MODERATORS