The Federal Trade Commission and seven states want a federal judge to hold notorious “Pharma bro” Martin Shkreli in contempt. They allege he “flagrantly and repeatedly violated” a 2022 court order that banned him from the pharmaceutical industry for life.
Since getting out of federal prison in May 2022, regulators say Shkreli broke that ban by publicly trading in at least 60 pharmaceutical stocks and “broadcasting his opinions about the business and management of many pharmaceutical industry companies.” The filing, released on Tuesday, asks the judge to force Shkreli to divest any pharma stocks he still owns.
Officials are also requesting a fine equal to the profits Shkreli made from those trades, plus prejudgment interest. They specifically want him unable to subtract any offsetting losses. The request further asks for clear, escalating consequences for future rule-breaking, including financial penalties and possible jail time.
FTC Commissioner Mark Meador emphasized the point in a statement, noting that a lifetime industry ban only works if breaches get consequences matching the seriousness of the order. The original ban resulted from a finding that Shkreli organized an anti-competitive scheme to protect his company’s monopoly on Daraprim, an anti-parasitic drug. He famously raised the price from $17.50 per tablet to $750 per pill.
Beyond the ban, a judge ordered Shkreli to hand back more than $64 million. This civil case stands apart from the criminal case behind his 2017 conviction on securities fraud charges involving hedge funds and a drug firm he founded. He was sentenced to seven years in 2018 and released in 2022 after credit for time served and other factors.
Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said Shkreli’s conduct pushed up prescription drug costs for American patients and stopped lower-cost generics from entering the market. “When judgment is entered by a court, whether it’s a settlement or an order following a trial, defendants must fulfill their obligations,” Guarnera said. “Today’s action should serve as notice that the FTC will not hesitate to enforce violations of court orders.”
