[TrumpCard]

The actual statement of decision from the court, which is available for download in the Stanford Daily article linked above, is not as damning as the article makes it sound.  If you parse the article, some of the most serious allegations against Cohen are from characterizations by the plaintiff's lawyer, not from the court's statement of decision.  The headline of the article talks about a "fraud" case, but looking purely at the statement of decision, the court found for the plaintiffs on "negligent misrepresentation," and the court found in Cohen's favor on the fraud claim.  The allegation is that the drug was banned in 1976 when it was used as a skin treatment because the side effects included death and other severe harm, not that anyone suffered physical harm as a result of any trials of the drug by Cohen's company.  The court found that the defendants shared information about the 1976 FDA with others, possibly including the plaintiff's own father, and that the plaintiffs knew that the drug had been determined to be toxic, but not the full context of the FDA's decision in 1976.  The lead plaintiff also was the president of the company making the drug, so presumably he gained access to all the material information prior to the company's dissolution, but the court found that the plaintiffs weren't told the information prior to their investment.  Reading between the lines, it seems clear that Cohen was trying to get the FDA to reverse its 1976 decision in the context of using the drug to treat Huntington's Disease (which is severe and generally deadly after a number of years) even though the drug was banned in the context of use as a skin treatment.  The fact that the court ruled against him on negligent misrepresentation is very unflattering, but in my view, the article is way over the top in the way it portrays Cohen's conduct.

[TrumpCard]

The actual statement of decision from the court, which is available for download in the Stanford Daily article linked above, is not as damning as the article makes it sound.  If you parse the article, some of the most serious allegations against Cohen are from characterizations by the plaintiff's lawyer, not from the court's statement of decision.  The headline of the article talks about a "fraud" case, but looking purely at the statement of decision, the court found for the plaintiffs on "negligent misrepresentation," and the court found in Cohen's favor on the fraud claim.  The allegation is that the drug was banned in 1976 when it was used as a skin treatment because the side effects included death and other severe harm, not that anyone suffered physical harm as a result of any trials of the drug by Cohen's company.  The court found that the defendants shared information about the 1976 FDA with others, possibly including the plaintiff's own father, and that the plaintiffs knew that the drug had been determined to be toxic, but not the full context of the FDA's decision in 1976.  The lead plaintiff also was the president of the company making the drug, so presumably he gained access to all the material information prior to the company's dissolution, but the court found that the plaintiffs weren't told the information prior to their investment.  Reading between the lines, it seems clear that Cohen was trying to get the FDA to reverse its 1976 decision in the context of using the drug to treat Huntington's Disease (which is severe and generally deadly after a number of years) even though the drug was banned in the context of use as a skin treatment.  The fact that the court ruled against him on negligent misrepresentation is very unflattering, but in my view, the article is way over the top in the way it portrays Cohen's conduct.