Shkreli says he isn’t responsible for Daraprim ‘monopoly’
Jailed ‘pharma bro’ Martin Shkreli has told a US federal court he is not responsible for antitrust violations alleged by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The FTC sued Shkreli and Vyera Pharmaceuticals, which he founded in 2015, earlier this year, alleging that they illegally monopolised the market for life-saving drug Daraprim (pyrimethamine).
The case is notable in that the FTC is seeking to hold an individual defendant liable for an alleged monopoly.
The FTC complaint outlines how, in 2015, Vyera (then known as Turing Pharmaceuticals) acquired the rights to Daraprim from the only existing supplier, only to immediately raise the price from $17.50 to $750 per tablet.
New York attorney general Letitia James, who jointly filed the suit alongside the FTC, said the aim of the litigation is to block Shkreli from “ever working in the pharmaceutical industry again”.
“Martin Shkreli and Vyera not only enriched themselves by despicably jacking up the price of this life-saving medication by 4,000% in a single day but held this critical drug hostage from patients and competitors as they illegally sought to maintain their monopoly,” James said.
Shkreli, currently incarcerated for an unrelated securities fraud offence, has filed a motion for the court to dismiss the case, arguing that he cannot be held personally responsible for any of the allegations.
“Plaintiffs fail to cite a single case in which the FTC successfully sued an individual under the statutory authorities that plaintiffs invoke in the complaint,” lawyers for Shkreli wrote.
They also claimed that the FTC’s allegations of Shkreli’s direct involvement in the alleged misconduct, during his spell as CEO of Vytera, were “vague and nonspecific”.
“The complaint includes only conclusory allegations of Mr Shkreli’s participation in the allegedly illegal agreements—such as that Mr Shkreli ‘formulated’, ‘directed’, ‘controlled’, ‘participated in’, and ‘conceived’ the agreements—and no specific allegations showing that he reviewed, negotiated, approved or signed any of them,” the motion said.
Lawyers for the jailed pharmaceutical boss also argue that the allegations are barred under the four-year statute of limitations.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
