Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Be glad you don’t live in Russia or China or Saudi Arabia. If you think the US courts are like those you don’t know the facts.
Interesting. In my recent exam my PA said he had heard of V in some recent professional education but thought it was a substitute for statins. I straightened him out but there are some obvious gaps in education of the prescribers.
B
Agree completely.
Look, I’m a long and not going away. But I don’t have much confidence that there are legal angles to significantly increased sales. I would love to be proven wrong.
New markets and their exploitation is where it is at.
B
Yes but attenuated. Sales is what matters, and litigation does not produce sales, despite hopes otherwise.
Still an ANRN believer.
B
It’s all about sales. Don’t kid yourself that litigation is going to create your wealth.
Zip—if we could get the court to accept this position I would be just as happy as you.
But this is a major uphill battle because of the legal rule that shareholders generally do not have the right to get involved in things like litigation decisions for a company. For the same reason you can’t decide as a shareholder if the company should sign X v Y contact or hire X v Y employee. You legally do not have the right to speak for the company in court, despite how much you would like to.
I’m not downing the effort, just pointing out the reality.
B
Does not address why company can’t raise fraud.
Courts are understandably concerned about being inundated with suits/claims from unhappy investors in public companies.
Shareholders do not generally have the right to assert claims of the company. Biggest problem for this case in my view. The goal is to convince the court why this case is so special it is not subject to general rule.
B
Marjac—I applaud your efforts despite my skepticism.
My suggestion is to be ready at oral argument for these questions:
If we allow your intervention, will not that be an invitation for every unhappy investor in a company that loses a lawsuit to go into the court and try to argue points the company chose not to assert?
Why is your investor group any different from any investor who disagrees with management’s decisions about a litigation?
B
Yeah this is much more significant potentially than the marjac effort
Very solid decision for us
Be glad you are not dealing with the Chinese or Russian legal systems. It’s easy to rail against the USA system when it does not produce your desired result, but it’s not right to blame it on the “system.” Bad decisions by AMRN and it’s stupid lawyers are to blame, not the system.
The laws in this country favor the generics. That is part of the “system.” If you don’t like that, then elect people who could change the federal laws.
B
If this investment now depends on a recovery from insurance companies for the board and company lawyers, via derivative lawsuits over whether people made reasonable business judgments in the past, it is truly time to get out.
Pissing in the wind.
Beware of lawyers trolling for clients.
B
Plus it just sucks resources out of the company that should be focused on the business. The company has to incur legal fees to deal with it, not an expense that will ever be recouped.
Most useless way to spend money on the planet.
B
Great post. These cases are very suspect because the business judgment rule protects management and the board from liability for any judgment call they made that was reasonable. Litigation risk decisions made here were business judgments, maybe bad ones, but they are not liable for bad judgments. Unless management knew about risks not publicly known, very hard to pin liability on them. Plus if they knew of such risks, they would have settled.
Beware of lawyers trolling for clients.
One has to wonder what in Gods name the counsel for AMRN was thinking in filing the HW case against the generics in NV.
I get it prescribed off label as well by my family doc. Arthritis in toe and knee. Helps a lot.
Has nothing to do with politics. Has a lot to do with common sense and regard for people other than oneself.
Regrettably, I have given up trying to figure out their strategy. There does not seem to be one. Speculation about it or exhortations about what it should be are the equivalent of pissing in the wind.
B
These are cerebral people. They will focus on what attracts their intellectual curiosity. That may not carry the day, but will get this case on the radar screen.
B
Anger is not what is needed. Insight into why the Du decision is not good for the country nor consistent with the relevant statute is what is needed.
B
Judge Moore is not a skinny label fan. If the invalidity case ever goes to SCOTUS a reversal and remand is likely, and it helps she will be the chief.
B
Hope is not a plan.
Ancient history, does not matter now.
DK—
Yes they do shit like make the doc sit on hold forever, not accepting simple email communications. It is a total scam.
I had a doc tell me he would not deal with the PA runaround even tho he wanted to write the script for V.
Total BS.
A
SS—
Standard move for a defendant in this type of case. Common thread is they are alleged to have infringed the same patent, but the evidence of infringement may be totally different for the two. As long as there is some overlap in the evidence or even better any evidence the two defendants acted in concert, they will be kept in the case most likely.
B
AMEN CB
Really, you are amazed by this? What planet do you live on?
CB—
Correct, very troubling the biggest or one of biggest insurers does this. This shows the strength of the headwinds faced by the company irrespective of litigation over the patents.
Can anyone with more industry experience explain how the company could allow this to happen?
Will other Insurers follow?
B
Funny, I stopped reading your posts long ago
B
N—I’m hoping my probing and poking improves the arguments being made by Marjac. Fighting the tide of confirmation bias that flows on this board.
The cheering and encouragement is great, but it won’t improve the arguments.
B
So I could own 1 share of AMRN and I should be able to intervene in a patent case because the company chooses to not file a motion I think they should file?
How could that possibly be workable?
Right now you have no limiting principal, which the court will hammer.
Hope for a court victory is not a viable investment thesis. Courts are way too unpredictable to rely on them for positive results for the stock.
Great products sell. Yes we had Covid the last year, hard to say how that held back sales. The next year will show if the company can actually sell this great product. If not I will be out of the stock, but will still use the product.
B
Does that mean that any shareholder of any large corporation gets to intervene in the corporation’s patent litigation if they do not agree with the positions the company is taking?
M—look at JNC COMPANIES, 996 F.2d 1225, an unpublished 9th Circuit decision. It deals with claim preclusion, which is the flip side of the coin from R60 standing via privity.
It makes it quite clear the there is privity in the corporate context only where the relationship between the shareholder and the Corp. is extremely close, such as a sole shareholder or majority shareholder. We have nothing close to that here. As far as I can tell, the rule described in JNC is pretty well recognized in most courts.
B
LaSierra is a bankruptcy decision where a party who had bought real estate was deemed in privity with their seller, who was affected by a court ruling challenged under R60. The parties in privity both had direct interests in the subject real estate. Did not involve privity between shareholders of a corporation and the corp.
Eyak is an environmental case where citizens were deemed to be in privity with their state when the state is a party to the litigation. Again, no shareholder/corporation privity question.
I agree there is a privity theory for standing under R60, but so far have not seen a case holding that shareholders are in privity with the corporation in relation to the corporate patents. Shareholders generally cannot sue to enforce the corporations rights, and can do so derivatively only under strict procedural rules, and only as to certain claims.
B
M—just dicta in a case not involving R60, but instead involving res judicata.
Do you have a patent case that rules a shareholder has standing to file a R60 motion based on the theory that a shareholder is in privity with the corporate patent holder?
B
M—you are reading that case way too broadly.
A
Their point is that shareholders of a party do not have standing in a party’s legal case.
You don’t have a legal interest in the patents in dispute just because you own shares of the patent holder, and your shares went down in value.
Standing the the biggest problem with the motion.
B