Slashdot Mirror


SEC Charges Theranos, CEO Elizabeth Holmes With 'Massive Fraud' (engadget.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: The SEC has charged Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani with fraud relating to the startup's fundraising activities. The company, as well as CEO Holmes and former president Balwani are said to have raised more than $700 million from investors through "an elaborate, years-long fraud." This involved making "false statements about the company's technology, business and financial performance." In a statement, the commission said that the company, and its two executives, misled investors about the capability of its blood testing technology. Theranos' big selling point was that its hardware could scan for a number of diseases with just a small drop of blood. Unfortunately, the company was never able to demonstrate that its system worked as well as its creators claimed.

The company and Elizabeth Holmes have already agreed to settle the charges leveled against them by the SEC. Holmes will have to pay a $500,000 fine and return 18.9 million shares in Theranos that she owned, as well as downgrading her super-majority equity into common stock. The CEO is now barred from serving as the officer or director of a public company for 10 years. In addition, if Theranos is liquidated or acquired, Holmes cannot profit from her remaining shareholding unless $750 million is handed back to defrauded investors. Balwani, on the other hand, is facing a federal court case in the Northern District of California where the SEC will litigate its claims against him.
Worth noting: the court still has to approve the deals between Holmes and Theranos, and neither party has admitted any wrongdoing.

32 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. A good start. by olsmeister · · Score: 2

    So nice to see some accountability for these people. I also saw this today:
    https://www.justice.gov/usao-n...

    1. Re:A good start. by Dthief · · Score: 2

      what about the investors do some due diligence and not throw money at a worthless company. TBH I didnt RTFA but did they falsify data, or just make large false claims?

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    2. Re:A good start. by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 5, Informative

      In fact, Theranos had a big song and dance about being too awesome to cough up lab data or peer reviewed papers, as is normal in this business space. A lot of companies looked at Theranos and most of them refused to consider writing checks, for this very reason.

      The people who wrote the checks bought into the "visionary thing", and did not follow standard business practices in the pharma and diagnostics medical space. I feel no pity for them, even if I believe Holmes should face consequences.

    3. Re:A good start. by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

      Well:

      Holmes will have to pay a $500,000 fine and return 18.9 million shares in Theranos that she owned, as well as downgrading her super-majority equity into common stock. The CEO is now barred from serving as the officer or director of a public company for 10 years. In addition, if Theranos is liquidated or acquired, Holmes cannot profit from her remaining shareholding unless $750 million is handed back to defrauded investors.

      She did lose billions when the fraud came to light, and will probably be sued into oblivion and never work in the industry again. That's about as heavy a set of consequences as you can put together outside of jail time.

    4. Re:A good start. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      what about the investors do some due diligence and not throw money at a worthless company.

      FOMO. If you don't jump on the opportunity, someone else will.

      TBH I didnt RTFA

      Then you missed the best part: They are going to make a movie about Theranos, with Jennifer Lawrence starring as Ms Holmes!

      did they falsify data, or just make large false claims?

      Mostly just lying, exaggerating, and hand-waving. Liz almost certainly started out believing the technology would work. Then schedules slipped, so she told a few fibs to buy time to fix the kinks. But then the schedule slipped some more, so she made the lies a little bigger. The it became clear that there were major problems, and she faced a choice: Either come clean and give up her status as a feted young billionaire on mission to save the world, or ... keep digging deeper. Given that choice, what would you do?

    5. Re:A good start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      She lost billions? She lost very little, personally: the billions were based on potential valuation and investor stakes and she didn't have enough knowledge to reputably work in the industry in the first place. From her perspective the only penalty here is the jail time she might be facing from SEC charges.

    6. Re:A good start. by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If by "accountability" you mean that they'll have to pay a fine that's a fraction of the money they stole and not face any actual jail time, then yes. That'll teach potential future fraudsters!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:A good start. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      what about the investors do some due diligence and not throw money at a worthless company.

      While that's good, we still wanna punish those who commit fraud. See also why "why don't you just carry a gun and take Krav Maga" isn't a reason not to punish a mugger.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:A good start. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If by "accountability" you mean that they'll have to pay a fine that's a fraction of the money they stole

      They can't pay more because the money they stole is gone. They were charging $X for the blood tests, and then paying someone else $3X to actually run them. They made up the difference by burning up investor money.

      ... and not face any actual jail time, then yes.

      Jail/prison should only be used for violent people that are physically dangerous. For everyone else, there are more constructive punishments. For instance Ms Holmes could spend the next 10 years cleaning bedpans in a nursing home.

      America imprisons more than four times as many people per capita as China, Russia, and Iran, yet we have one of the world's highest recidivism rates. We need to stop looking at prison as the solution to every problem.

    9. Re:A good start. by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The SEC prosecuting her for fraud does not necessarily make the investors whole, remember.

      I don't feel much pity of the investors either; Theranos was asked many times to "show their work" and the answer always came back "trust us!" diligent savvy investors ( a whole lot them ) saw that and avoid the mess. Many even went as far as to write articles and advice letters warning other of Theranos stock.

      Then there were others who were either gullible greedy or both and bought into the lies; after all if what Theranos claimed was true they stood to make a lot of money. Now even if they can recapture of the residual value of Theranos even in excess of their personal holdings as a percentage of equity; they still stand to lose a lot of money.

      None of this changes they fact that Holmes made material false statements to induce behavior in others that was against their interests for her personal gain. That is FRAUD, and fraud is crime. I don't think we want a society where its okay to run around telling lies for the express purpose of duping other out of their property. I am not talking about opinions and highly selective statistics, or gross generalizations of the political kind either, I am talking about plainly demonstrable falsehoods.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    10. Re:A good start. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      If by "accountability" you mean that they'll have to pay a fine that's a fraction of the money they stole

      They can't pay more because the money they stole is gone.

      Irrelevant. A defendant's ability to pay has (or should have) nothing to do with the amounts of judgements against them.

      ... and not face any actual jail time, then yes.

      Jail/prison should only be used for violent people that are physically dangerous. For everyone else, there are more constructive punishments.

      Prison is not just a place to keep dangerous people away from the rest of us. It is also a deterrent, for white-collar crimes as well as violent ones.

      Granted, many studies have shown that it is not the level of punishment, but the certainty of receiving it, that acts as a deterrent to crime. Nevertheless, you don't want white-collar criminals to think that they can just buy themselves out of trouble, as though it were the cost of doing business. Jail is a just punishment for all serious crimes.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  2. just pay a fine by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does she get off with just paying a fine if she committed "massive fraud"? Shouldn't there be a little jail time involved, too? I'm not saying she's gotta do life, but maybe five years and then community service.

    People get harsher sentences for selling half a pound of weed.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:just pay a fine by Train0987 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The SEC can only levy civil penalties (fines), not criminal (jail). The DOJ will have to get involved and charge her criminally before she sees jail.

    2. Re:just pay a fine by zlives · · Score: 4, Funny

      the DOJ... okay i can rest easy that this will happen now.

    3. Re:just pay a fine by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The DOJ will have to get involved and charge her criminally before she sees jail.

      So, what your saying is that it's only a matter of time before Elizabeth Holmes is named Secretary of Health and Human Services.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re: just pay a fine by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh no no no. See the problem isn't that you can't defraud people and get away with leading to cushy government job. You can as long as you don't defraud rich people.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re: just pay a fine by lgw · · Score: 2

      Oh no no no. See the problem isn't that you can't defraud people and get away with leading to cushy government job. You can as long as you don't defraud rich people.

      Bernie Madoff made that mistake. He didn't just go to jail - he was attacked in jail (a low-security prison where you don't have many violent offenders) and beaten so badly he needed major reconstructive surgery on his face - he literally had his face beaten in. The moral of that story is pretty clear.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:just pay a fine by hey! · · Score: 2

      Small world phenomenon, I guess, but I have a friend who's a friend with Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud -- for 22 years Ambassador to the US under King Fahd.

      According to my friend, this was Prince Bandar's view on the difference between democracy and monarchy: in a democracy if you screw up the people vote you out; in a monarchy they drag you out of your palace and cut off your head.

      My takeaway: if you don't vote, you'd better be willing to storm the palace. And increasingly our lives are governed by international, extra-governmental organizations: corporations.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. Penalty is too small... by HockeyPuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She raised $700m from investors but is only penalized $500k? I wonder what her net-worth is now? Probably still paid her self a ton during her tenure....

    1. Re:Penalty is too small... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Informative

      She raised $700m from investors but is only penalized $500k? I wonder what her net-worth is now? Probably still paid her self a ton during her tenure....

      It's in TFS, for crying out loud:

      Holmes will have to pay a $500,000 fine and return 18.9 million shares in Theranos that she owned, as well as downgrading her super-majority equity into common stock. The CEO is now barred from serving as the officer or director of a public company for 10 years. In addition, if Theranos is liquidated or acquired, Holmes cannot profit from her remaining shareholding unless $750 million is handed back to defrauded investors.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Penalty is too small... by Jfetjunky · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wish I could mod you up..

      Forbes has downgraded her net worth from $4.5 billion to $0. This settlement basically ruins here. Probably prevents here from "failing upward" too, which is good.

    3. Re:Penalty is too small... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      She raised $700m from investors but is only penalized $500k? I wonder what her net-worth is now? Probably still paid her self a ton during her tenure....

      It's in TFS, for crying out loud:

      Holmes will have to pay a $500,000 fine and return 18.9 million shares in Theranos that she owned, as well as downgrading her super-majority equity into common stock. The CEO is now barred from serving as the officer or director of a public company for 10 years. In addition, if Theranos is liquidated or acquired, Holmes cannot profit from her remaining shareholding unless $750 million is handed back to defrauded investors.

      OK fuckwit, now how about you READ what the parent stated, which was asking about her salary was during her tenure, which has fuck all to do with any of her punishment other than a $500K fine, which is likely pocket change to her. The company was founded in 2004, and prior to this fraud discovery was valued at over 9 billion. Anything from a $10 to 100 million dollar annual salary for a CEO would not be outlandish, which would leave her with a significant amount of personal wealth that is NOT forfeit.

      In other words, when the dust settles, this "punishment" likely won't be one, and she'll buy her way out of jail.

  4. Re:The reality of feminism by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In fact, it is very rare for executives to go to jail, no matter how egregious, no matter how much they knew.

    In this case, she is the "visionary" with no college degree and no world experience. Her lawyers can plausibly argue she was hands off and relied on experts for the important details.

    I am not suggesting she should not be punished -- I am for it. But her case is unusual in a number of respects. Worrying over specifics about gonads is premature.

  5. bbbut the black turtleneck... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Funny

    and the performing a chemistry...

    I am shocked that someone who wears a black turtleneck and outputs not-quite-sensible technobabble could be guilty of defrauding people of money. It just can't happen, I tells ya!

  6. Re:The female Steve Jobs by Cederic · · Score: 2

    Ah, she went full SV then; you don't get the credibility if you actually complete your degree.

  7. Re:She should have done what Musk did by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, you missed the bit where all of Musk's stuff actually WORKS, like electric cars actually being out on the road and rockets that actually launch payloads and land again.

    The Theranos majik blood tricorder never worked. Hence the fraud.

    But we get it, you hate Elon Musk.

  8. schadenfreude by supernova87a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Again, I will just state that the reason we (maybe secretly) take so much satisfaction / schadenfreude at this story is that someone who was so hyped and the darling of Silicon Valley got so much funding and attention. While others who toil away on good ideas, without nearly so many connections and silver spoons, struggle to even get 1 minute of air time with the kind of funders and backers that she got.

    Separately, I hope that they absolutely nail and jail Sunny Balwani, who threatened and intimidated whistleblowing employees with their careers for exposing the massive fraud that Theranos was.

    Finally, we should be thankful that the SEC and agencies like DHHS and CMMS actually still have some teeth and reputability to follow through on issues like this and have not been totally gutted. Imagine 100 years ago when hucksters like this were touting every fake medicine under the sun and people were actually grateful for public-serving regulation. The order from CMMS to Theranos actually essentially said, "You are in immediate jeopardy of violating the law and must provide proof that you're reversing the harm caused by your inaccurate / fraudulent medical test results. Simply closing your lab will not remove this jeopardy." Thank god for rules.

    1. Re:schadenfreude by lgw · · Score: 2

      Imagine 100 years ago when hucksters like this were touting every fake medicine under the sun and people were actually grateful for public-serving regulation.

      You might be surprised. During prohibition, fake "medicines" that were mostly alcohol were the common thing hucksters were selling. Everyone knew the deal, but the snake oil hucksterism kept it legal (or legal enough the the buyers didn't get arrested). Yup, a whole culture of hucksters caused by over-regulation.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  9. Shkreli Did Less by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And got nearly a decade, all his assets taken, no chance of profit, etc - and he had already paid everyone back (plus he gave away the meds to anyone who couldn't afford them for the original "scandal" that made him famous.) Holmes and her entire family should be executed if held to a similar standard.

    1. Re:Shkreli Did Less by ausekilis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only did he do less, he arguably had less of an impact. With him, people lost money. With Holmes - if people believed the test results - it *could* have been fatal. People use those tests to determine various levels of things and figure out medications and such.

      I don't recall hearing about any deaths from Theranos results, but if there were you'd bet your ass she'd be spending some years at Club Fed.

    2. Re:Shkreli Did Less by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      With him, people lost money.

      That's not even the case, he borrowed from one of his companies to pay off debt (with interest) to investors of another (then paid it back.) All of his investors actually made money (which they begrudgingly had to testify to while wanting him behind bars, being insurance company buddies,) but that's the most they could get him on.

      With Holmes - if people believed the test results - it *could* have been fatal.

      People did believe the test results, it's just really hard to pin health issues on bad diagnostics (about a dozen actually did file suit and failed due to health complications before it was known to be 100% bullshit.)

    3. Re:Shkreli Did Less by icejai · · Score: 2

      The big difference?

      Shkreli - Offered a cash award to anybody who could get a piece of Hillary Clinton's hair.
      Holmes - Holmes has access to deep political connections in Washington. Just look at Theranos' board members.