[ad_1]
Former pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli leaves the US District District Court for the Eastern District of New York on August 3, 2017 in the Brooklyn district of New York.
Getty Images
The notorious "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli sued a Florida man in Brooklyn federal court on Friday for fraudulently instigating Shkreli to sign a promissory note that left him in the act. owed $ 420,000 to the father of the man.
Shkreli is conducting his legal battle in a Pennsylvania federal prison, where he is serving a seven-year prison sentence for crimes related to the hedge funds that he previously directed and to the drug company that he has. he founded, Retrophin.
Shkreli earned infamy in 2015 for raising the price of a drug called Daraprim by more than 5,000% while he was running another drug company known at the time as Turing. Pharmaceuticals. Turing now calls Phoenixus.
His new lawsuit arose out of a civil judgment pronounced last December in a New York State court against Shkreli. The latter owed to George Yaffe, a member of Massachusetts, not to have paid Yaffe on a $ 250,000 note signed in 2012 by Shkreli.
The note provided for compound annual interest at the rate of 8%.
Yaffe's lawsuit said that Shkreli had signed the note after retaining a $ 100,000 investment that Yaffe had invested in one of Shkreli's hedge funds in 2007, at the suggestion of Yaffe's son, Lee, who lives in Florida. Lee Yaffe at the time was friendly with Shkreli.
George Yaffe's lawsuit stated that Shkreli in 2007 and 2008 had not responded to his inquiries about the performance of his investment, and that Shkreli in 2008 had told Yaffe in an e-mail that & # 39; "He may have to pay back his father – about $ 125,000 sorry for lack of communication or lack of communication, appreciate your trust."
Given compound interest, Shkreli's debt under the note amounts to over $ 420,000.
George Yaffe is now seeking to get this judgment from Shkreli. In turn, Shkreli appealed the judgment.
On Tuesday, a hearing is scheduled on whether Shkreli should be dismissed by George Yaffe's lawyers while he is still pursuing an appeal of the judgment and his criminal conviction. Yaffe's lawyers want to ask him questions about assets and financial accounts while they're seeking judgment.
Brianne Murphy, who represents Shkreli in this case, declined to comment.
The new trial of the Shkreli Federal Court is against Lee Yaffe.
In this lawsuit, Shkreli claims that George Yaffe "lost" his money due to the poor performance of the Shkreli fund, and that Shkreli "had no legal obligation to pay money to George Yaffe" .
The prosecution of Shkreli, alleging fraud, claims that Lee Yaffe falsely advised Shkreli that making the $ 250,000 promissory note was the "right thing" to do and that Shkreli must "get angry".
The complaint says that the note is "invalid under New York law because it was given for no consideration and was not given as payment for any obligation or & & & ou ou ou en en en en en ou ou ou ou et et et. an earlier debt. "
"The promissory note also contained compound usury interest invalid under New York law," the lawsuit said.
"As a result of Lee Yaffe's fraud, Mr. Shkreli has a $ 420,000 judgment against him," the lawsuit said. Shkreli demands that pecuniary damages "be determined at trial".
Debra Guzov, George Yaffee's lawyer, told CNBC that his law firm would likely be retained by Lee Yaffe, told CNBC that Shkreli "has initiated a frivolous procedure" against Lee.
"He says he's been fooled," Guzov said, referring to Shkreli's statement.
She described this statement as "ironic" because "the note in question was prepared by Martin Shkreli, so he complains of a document he actually wrote."
Edward Kang, Shkreli's attorney in the Brooklyn federal lawsuit, declined to comment, claiming the lawsuit was in itself. George and Lee Yaffe did not immediately respond to a call asking for a comment.
In the criminal trial of Shkreli, Lee Yaffe said that Shkreli had offered to pay him back for his father's investment in the Elea hedge fund by passing a $ 200,000 consulting contract with Retrophin to Lee Yaffe. 000 shares of his shares. Lee Yaffe testified that the agreement, for "research on cluster headaches," was a sham.
He signed a non-prosecution agreement with the authorities and also agreed to repay USD 355,000, which represents his cash payments under the consultancy agreement, the Retrophin shares he received and the return on investment from these actions.
[ad_2]
Source link