I Expect That The FTC, Or The NY Or NC State AGs -- (Or All Of Them) Have Demanded A Verified Immediate Report, From Martin, Personally...

In the last post, I mentioned this idea in passing.

But I want to flesh it out: the way this will likely play out is that Martin will receive this week, or next, a written demand (from one or more of the above) to sign a verified (i.e., sworn and notarized) statement -- an affidavit, essentially -- that his work at druglike does violate the 20-cv-706 injunction. That injunction grants the above agencies the right to receive, on request, all the information they need to verify Mr. Shkreli's compliance. . . at any time.

And now. . . is the time. Additionally, I expect Martin has not asked for pre-approval of the druglike work, though the injunction contains a mechanism for doing that (otherwise, why would the AGs already be investigating his associations with Sommer, at druglike?).

So -- pretty shortly, as imaged at right and below, he will have to explain in great detail who owns what, and what the actual sh!tcoin .inu flows look like, from which he is all but certain to benefit, if actual trading volume emerges in the shkreli.inu coin.

Should be pretty entertaining. In sum, under this order, he is prohibited from:

. . .Acquiring or holding an Ownership Interest in a Pharmaceutical Company (other than indirectly through a mutual fund, exchange-traded fund, or other diversified, investment vehicle that is not specifically focused on Pharmaceutical Companies), Provided, however, Defendant Shkreli may retain an Ownership Interest in securities that are under the control of the receiver appointed in Koestler v. Shkreli, 1:16cv7175 (S.D.N.Y.) until the earlier of (a) the sale of the securities by the receiver or (b) 180 days after the receiver returns the securities to Defendant Shkreli so long as Defendant Shkreli does not exercise any rights as owner of the securities, including voting rights, while the securities are under the control of the receiver or under the control of Defendant Shkreli;

D. Taking any action to directly or indirectly influence or control the management or business of any Pharmaceutical Company; Shkreli’s public statements about a Pharmaceutical Company will be deemed an action taken to influence or control the management or business of any Pharmaceutical Company if Shkreli intended the statement to have that effect or if a reasonable person would conclude that the statement has that effect;

E. Serving on, nominating, or otherwise seeking or obtaining representation on the board of directors of a Pharmaceutical Company; or

F. Obtaining, holding, or exercising any voting or other shareholder rights in a Pharmaceutical Company, including rights assigned to Defendant Shkreli by an Entity or individual, including rights assigned in connection with Shkreli’s transfer of Ownership Interest in a Pharmaceutical Company to the Entity or individual.

G. Defendant Shkreli may submit a notice of his intent to accept Qualified Employment (“Notice”) to the Commission and each of the Designated State Representatives by submitting the Notice electronically to the Secretary of the Commission at ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov. . . .

So -- as I say. . . I'd bet my last dollar that he hasn't pre-cleared this engagement -- or his deployment of the Shkreli.inu, in it as a means of "in-game" payments.

We should see more on this, pretty shortly -- as a subsequent federal court filing, in 20-cv-706, in Manhattan before USDC Judge Cote.

Grins. . . .

नमस्ते