Shkreli at court

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by Pekelo, Jun 26, 2017.

  1. Macca1


    You quoted a post from stevegee58 that was referring to Shkreli's famous price hike of Daraprim. You then said:

    It seemed pretty simple to me that we were talking about Daraprim, no? I don't care about other expensive drugs or US health care. I'm just interested if anyone was killed from a Daraprim price hike. As far I'm aware, despite the price hike, no one in need has been denied access to Daraprim, thus no one has died as a result of not being able to afford it- Which seems quite remarkable considering the amount of hate Shkreli has generated over it.
    #31     Jun 27, 2017
  2. dumpdapump


    Then I was misunderstood. First, this one drug was not the only drug this specific firm has applied price gauging to. Second, multiple other firms have engaged in this practice as well. Third, if there was no outcry (it was initially Hillary Clinton who made this a big issue and raised awareness on a national and policy level) then those firms would have surely gone even further. In the end either insurance premiums would have to go up or insurers will deny patients the access to such medication unless the patient pays out of his or her own pocket. In any scenario it not only hurts everyone who needs access to such medication but those who cannot afford it will have to go without. In some cases such medications are vital to a person's health (else how would a firm have been able to justify such price hikes in the first place and details on this issue have revealed that some of those price hiked medications are indeed vital).

    Are you still in disagreement or can we conclude that such exorbitant price hikes are really causing damage to society and in the case of vital medications to the life of a patient such price hikes can effectively severely shorten the expected life span of a person who would otherwise have access to such medication?

    #32     Jun 27, 2017
  3. Pekelo


    It is called knowing the facts and having a working brain. He misused his investors money, that is called fraud in better places.

    Here kiddos, I will end your quarrel: Did he have the right to raise his drug's price? Yes. Do we have the right to judge him? Also yes. OK, that ends it...

    Now go and play with each other nicely...
    #33     Jun 27, 2017
  4. dumpdapump


    so which answer did you expect to get or which value added by raising this thread topic? I think it is unavoidable to discuss this topic without delving into price gauging issues. They are related and the only reason why so many potential jurors had to be excluded for bias.

    #34     Jun 27, 2017
  5. Pekelo


    No it is not. True, the jury could be biased, but then we should talk about that, instead of debating the source of bias, which is meaningless because his action was subjective. I already explained he had the right to raise the price, now if you want to moralize about it, this is not the thread for that. And he is not that famous they couldn't find 12 people who are not familiar with him.

    So we could debate if he actually committed fraud (I think it is a fairly clear case though) or how much prison time he should/would get if found guilty. But debating OJ's football playing or acting ability is pointless, if you get my drift...


    If anyone bothered to read the 3rd link, it is a funny story. Shkreli went to talk to the FBI in 2015 without a lawyer because business news reported he was being investigated, what he thought was insider trading. He was actually clean on that, but I guess curiosity got him. Now the FBI is using that interview against him for the fraud allegations.

    Note to myself: Never talk to the FBI when running a Ponzi....
    #35     Jun 27, 2017
  6. dumpdapump


    Keeping in mind who decides in a criminal case you should probably not throw out emotions of the jury so easily out of the window. I am almost absolutely certain that some if not the entire jury will know about the price gauging and it would be naive to think it does not factor into peoples' mind. He is a schmuck and human scum and jurors know about it or will know and despite asking them to only decide on the case at hand the human mind can't help but wander. Has happened in tons of cases before.

    #36     Jun 27, 2017
  7. Pekelo


    "Packed into the second-floor courtroom in Brooklyn, several potential jurors said they had already formed strong opinions of Shkreli. One potential juror told U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto that Shkreli is “the price gouger of drugs. My kids are on some of these drugs.” “I know he’s the most hated man in America,” another said, while another asserted that “From everything I’ve read, I believe the defendant is the face of corporate greed in America.” All were excused from the jury."

    Best part;

    " The trial is slated to last four to six weeks, and Matsumoto told potential jurors it “promises to be interesting and educational.”"


    "“I looked right at him, and in my head I said, 'That's a snake,' not knowing who he is,” one woman told the judge."

    Note to myself: Don't have the most punchable face in America when on trial...

    "Despite Shkreli’s vilification in pop culture, only a small fraction of prospective jurors said they knew who he was and pre-formed an opinion. Many more cited work and scheduling conflicts, as well as planned getaways, as the reason they couldn't fulfill their civic duty."
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
    #37     Jun 27, 2017
  8. vanzandt


    HA HA HA...
    Apparently you've never had to go for a jury selection and met your "peers".
    #38     Jun 27, 2017
  9. Calling ME a liberal certifies you as the wrong end of a flatulent buffalo.
    #39     Jun 27, 2017
  10. "only a small fraction of prospective jurors said they knew who he was"

    Proof the masses are illiterate morons.
    #40     Jun 27, 2017