In connection with his 2018 conviction for federal securities fraud, so-called Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli forfeited his unique Wu-Tang Clan album, “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” to the government. A cryptocurrency collective subsequently purchased it but then sued Shkreli, alleging that the former pharmaceutical executive had improperly retained copies of the data and files at the time of the forfeiture and had made them public or intended to make them public.
As the trial over the unusual issue continues, a federal judge has given Shkreli, who left prison in 2022, until Friday to “seize and turn over to the defense all copies, in whatever form, of the album or its contents” and to file a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that he did so and that he no longer possesses any copies, in whatever form, of the album or its contents. The preliminary order issued by U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen on Monday also requires his attorney to file a letter by Friday certifying that they have taken possession of the copies and contents of the album.
The judge also ordered Shkreli to file an inventory and account in the form of a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, by September 30. The inventory and account must include the following information: the nature and extent of the copies of the album’s data and files that he retained; the names and contact information of everyone to whom he provided the data and files; when and how he provided them; and the amounts, source, date and nature of any financial benefits he received from the distribution or playing of the album or its content.
After hearing the parties’ legal arguments, Chen, sitting in the Eastern District of New York, argued that preliminary injunction was in the public interest and that the plaintiff had raised sufficiently serious questions about Shkreli’s possible violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, misappropriation of trade secrets and unjust enrichment.
Shrekli’s attorneys argued that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient harm to warrant an injunction. They wrote in a filing last month that the government
sold the copy to an unknown buyer, who resold it to plaintiff. But before the forfeiture took place, when defendant was the undisputed owner of the copy, and the undisputed 50% owner of the copyright, he made copies as we [sic] was permitted to do so under his original purchase agreement with the original sellers of the work. Neither those copies, nor the defendant’s copyrights, were forfeited by the forfeiture order, and the defendant still has the right to use them to this day.
The judge further warned Shkreli that any violation of her order could be prosecuted as a contempt of court. So the extent of his cooperation will determine whether there are any further legal twists in this already strange saga.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for updates and expert analysis on the most important legal stories. The newsletter will return to its regular weekly schedule when the Supreme Court’s next term begins in October.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
