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.
Amarin - and the future
I have a simple plan as regards the investment I made in this company
I am going to pay a great deal of attention to the oral hearings in Feb and I dream to hope that Marjac succeeds
I - greatly appreciate Marjac and the team for their incredibly determined effort
However if there is no joy before the federal court I am going to take a path which makes life easier - stop reading the Amarin I hub (or anything else about Amarin for that matter ) -
I will sit it out and keep my shares
I will no doubt have be made aware by some means if they are ever bought out - or the SP ever gets over 10 again !!!
Let us hope things turn in a different direction- somehow !!!
Alm
They would have to leave the market immediately
An injunction would be immediately granted if they continued to sell
Breaching such an injunction - contempt of court
Consequence - imprisonment
Serious stuff …..
So yes they would exit immediately
Alm
Lizzy / Rose
A Marjac win would have immediate effect because the patents would be restored with immediate effect !!!
So the generics- all would have to stop sales immediately
Hikma could appeal yes - but that would be to the Supreme Court - take a long time and they all out of the market - and in my view absolutely low /next to no chance of Supreme Court ruling for the generics
So if Marjac wins this is mega !!!
Alm
Duke
Let’s face it Amarin had to change strategy - paying for several hundred unproductive reps in USA could not be maintained nor adopting a similar unproductive expensive approach in EU
However as yet the pudding has not really been tested - time will see what proof it actually delivers
Alm
Dogn
Yes they will amend and take that route
It may be accepted by Andrews … it will take time as hikma will reply
He could again call for oral argument
If Amarin do not succeed they can appeal anyway against Andrews decisions
Gsk case may well have resolved in terms of timing which may assist
It may delay the Healthnet trial - issue of if case restored v hikma-There being joint trial ?? Abd of course Healthnet may be inclined to settle
Plenty to go at !!
Alm
Amarin v hikma
This article fails to address the fact that Amarin will seek to restore the case against hikma before judge Andrews - who dismissed the case but in such a way as permits Amarin to resubmit its case in effect on a different basis.
Amarin will do this in next couple of weeks and it may then be again game on against Hikma
This all has a long way to go
Alm
Study / kiwi/ /north
Study you must make sure this is sent Amarin and KM
This is exact the problem - and you emphasise quite clearly Amarin failings what has to be done in the future to ensur approvals are obtained
Thank you for such a detailed explanation of the problem
Alm
North
Agree - he can’t
But he can make sure Amarin properly represented at these vital occasions - see study’s observations/impressions about how they performed and admission been on holiday and not progressed matters - are they serious ????
If Uk approval is rejected / extremely limited as to scope what signal does that send to Eu delivery of V
This is beyond careless !!!
Alm
Kiwi
I of course hope you are right in your expectations that mitigate will be accepted as the complete confirmation of reduce it … but those that want to doubt will continue to pour scorn
Alm
Capt Beer
Thank you
Maybe some folk need to read and understand ..rather than spout bullshit
Alm
Capt Beer
Thank you
Maybe some folk need to read and understand ..rather than spout bullshit
Alm
Kiwi
Not an expert on trials … far from it but from the way in which things seem to have bounced around between yourself and others as to mitigate I am unsure that mitigate is the answer to what you suggest
And certainly Amarin and indeed no big pharma are going to fund another several year long half a billion cost trial that the sceptics laud as being required as proof of the validity of the reduce it trial
We have what we have
From my view Bhatt and other close colleagues involved in Reduce it are beyond question incredibly brilliant experienced and immensely knowledgeable in their field
Have they been hood winked by the reduce it trial ??
-there will always be those who question -who do so for their own schemes snd purposes who are biased and quite frankly content to be dishonest
Sure if mitigate helps in some way great - wonderful
But do you seriously consider it will be the holy grail that changes all those who speak out against V. And reduce it ?
Covid snd Du have immensely damaged Amarin
Where would Amarin be now but for these factors ?
Alm
UK NICE
The other appalling aspect of this meeting is the lack of realisation by KM and his team that you have to be prepared - well prepared and hit these things hard and with the highest calibre of Amarin representative / expert / supporting documentation
Is KM and the board asleep ??
Do they know how damaging it would be if UK did not adopt V on the broadest possible basis - or even worse it was rejected
The board has made so many appalling mistakes and errors of tactic and strategy
How much more are shareholders expected to take of this slapdash pathetic approach to building this business
I hope the activists shareholders start to rip them to shreds
Alm
Study
As a Uk citizen I am both astonished and appalled at the mum I jumbo rubbish that has been displayed by so called experts
Unbelievable that after all this time there is such ignorance and wilful blindness to the incredible benefits and cost effectiveness of this drug
No wonder there are so many Uk cvd deaths
God help us !!
Alm
N7
Of course Amarin is for sale at the moment ….the question is not whether Amarin would sell but who would buy and for how much !!!
I suspect Amarin would not agree any sale below ?????….15 ???? 20???
But then would any BP offer that much as matters presently stand ???
Therein lies the difficulty
What is needed is a number of things to happen - make your own list … but for example
Such as Sales to increase in USA
Sales to start / increase in eu
Litigation success
And so on
Maybe one day … if not a BO then over time with things going right the SP should be up to 10 within a year maybe 15 in 2 years
We hope !!
Alm
Marjac
If only it was that easy ….
You will do it
Alm
Marjac
Very good article indeed
Yours is a simple case
We have standing because ….
And can thus under rule 60 seek the setting aside of the judgement because
By virtue of fraud and mistake the court was persuaded to rely upon
K and m to find patents obvious
Neither study could ever support such a finding factually or scientifically
Alm
RAF - jobs
They are crazy ….
Save the money !!!
Alm
Kiwi
Odds - sorry did not address
On settlement with Healthnet
Within next 6 months -10percent
Within next 12 months -20 per cent
Within next 2 years (assuming trial date thus shifts and Hikma thus in trial)50 per cent
Always more likely to settle the nearer the trial date
Hikma far less likely to settle - I think they would risk a trial - they don’t give a damn and if a win protects their business model
And then if lost appeal process
So years and years to resolution
Alm
Kiwi
I suspect Amarin on the one hand may wish to see what Judge Andrew’s does with its revised claim of infringement against Hikma-which will no doubt take say 3 months for Andrew’s to rule on from Any Hikma response to it - so say another 6 months altogether??
And how long to negotiate settlement thereafter ??
Maybe all done 12 months from now if it goes settlement way ?
However the trial timetable has been set and may well thus be put back substantially- which is not very helpful to Amarin
Amarin would be strengthened in any trial or for that matter any settlement if both H and H go through to the trial process - it would help and encourage a negotiated settlement with both
Health net will probably also want to see how the Hikma aspect of the infringement claim develops but may feel under more pressure to get this off their backs -they may feel that they can have a no financial cost settlement but agree change in how they operate to prevent infringement
It’s a complicated situation and longwinded - lots of variables
Amarin conversely may be very keen to settle with Healthnet quickly on the basis that such would influence the methods of others -who are the equivalent of Healthnet and thus change that way the loss of sales to generics
A back door settlement infringement victory in effect - but again not neat clean or quick to change the market place
Might take a couple of years to force the hand of others to toe the line - depends how aggressive Amarin wants to be
Alm
Amarin v hikma
One month to revise from Andrew’s decision being announced
So not long to wait
Tge lawyers would have had this drafted before Andrew’s decision in anticipation of his announcement but will tweak/ fine tune it in the light of what he stated
It will be ready soon …..
Alm
Km talk
Got to say underwhelmed by it all - in reality what is new that is going to translate into sales ….. most of the stuff is speculative and way down the road in terms of timing Eu sales slow to develop
Reality is that Amarin has a long hard slog ahead
But good at least that have an IR dept at last …maybe they will try at last to develop perception ….. And new board member who clearly has a push this stock up task
Hope the activists keep kicking ass
Share price has gone up a touch but from very low lows
Absent Marjac success - We will have to sit back and watch how things develop over next 12 months / 2 years and maybe get to 10 SP
Alm
Kiwi
Agree that it requires many moving parts coming together to get SP to 10 and above
And time for this to occur
I am content enough to wait for up to two years
Alm
Marjac -rule60- a win
My guess would see 6 SP within a few days and lead to a climb over the next 6 to 12 months -to 10 and maybe 15 in two years - all the current generic sales would revert back to Amarin so that would give lift
I think the company has been damaged by du but also other factors - covid - lack of take up - hesitation impact over new markets - poor management - greedy management
But nonetheless the downside is limited the upside slow but significant over time
The buzz rise / takeover speculation that the stock achieved post reduce it is now harder to replicate
The right panel : a panel that has read the case : a panel that sees the fact that the patents could not be rendered obvious when K snd Mori are removed (as they most surely must be ): a panel that wants to see Justice and fairness in the USA patent system
And Marjac leading them through to our promised land -
If anyone can - you can
Alm
Styles
We are two years away from a share price of 10 maybe 15
It will take a long time
There is little downside - over time sales will develop in Europe China rest of world and USA may yet not be a dead duck
We need immense patience there is no point looking at the day to day share price if you are long unless you want to buy more cheap shares
Alm
Paint can you send to me by e mail ? To Allan.maidment@maidments.co.Uk
We both Trying to assist Marjac !!
Alm
Marjac
As per louiebluie …
How does this present in terms of an Epadi shareholder who is no longer a shareholder making application under rule 24 -as now a former shareholder who has suffered a loss - but granting Rule 60 would not per se remedy her loss …
Although a finding of fraud in granting Rule 60 would
If merely mistake then generics not culpable and only recourse would then be against board / company for negligent acts which resulted in loss
In effect she would have to take further litigation action against generics if fraud could be proved to recover her loss from them
The Epadi perfect shareholder example rests with one who was member to begin action and retains shares and can show thus loss of expectation
Generics may not have analysed in this way but FC may explore what dealing with when questioning the issue of standing - who has standing and in what basis ???
Alm
Louiebluie
It’s some out of the box work I’m doing with Marjac
Alm
Marjac
Shareholders may loose value in their investment on the sale of shares if the share value is less than its purchase cost
No doubt on the day of the du decision many sold their shares and lost capital as a result
It is my understanding that Epadi is made up though of shareholders in the company post the date of the du decision who were actually shareholders at the date tge Epadi action was instigated
I presume that all were shareholders also at the time of the du decision
For those of Epadi that still hold shares in Amarin what is the consequence of the du decision
They have not actually lost capital - because they have not sold
It is right to say that they have lost the expectation of value on that date representative of share price reduction from 13 to 4 and below (I think it was 13 the day before du decision
It could also be asserted that they have lost the expectation of increase in value above 13 if the case had been won and rather than the companies revenues reducing they would have increased over time
It could also be said that they have lost the expectation of dividends arising from profits from the trading of the company
Is this shareholder “expectation” a reasonable actionable interest -
See numerous shareholder actions against companies in respect of such expectation ???- lots of lawyers just chasing the same re Amarin loosing this du case
Was this expectation a protectable interest that required shareholders bringing rule 24/60 when the company
would not do so
The company- the board had abandoned its proper function in protecting shareholders interests - whilst the directors may be held accountable such legal action against them might not ever recovery the loss as to expectation- directors may not have the means to cover such / may not be insured to cover such and bringing such an action in itself gave no absolute guarantee of success
The only way to completely guarantee that expectation would be restored was to set aside the du ruling
That ruling was based on fraud and mistake
Rule 24 - with standing being held allowed Rule 60 to be pursued and fraud and mistake remedied
Shareholders have the right separate from the company who brought the patent proceedings to seek intervention by the courts to remedy the fraud and error which resulted in their loss of expectation
It is undoubtedly the case that tge company was damaged by the du decision based as it was on fraud and error
It is equally the case that that as a consequence of the company (one legal entity ) being damaged -it was destined to be significantly less successful (incidentally damaging its employees) so were all the other legal entities - individuals companies partnerships who owned shares in the company
Marjac
More to follow once you e mail me
Alm
Marjac
Re your private message
I can it seems no longer access private reply and the message and google link have gone
Can you e mail me with the same and any other relevant material as attachments to e mails
I can then d mail response back to you
Note at starting point
And simple analysis
Amarin is a Uk listed company I believe and is governed by Uk law and of course it’s memorandum and articles of association
It is a legal entity
It’s shareholders are its owners
The shareholders appoint the board
The board of directors have duties to the company and its shareholders ie owners
The board were properly conducting litigation to protect Amarin patents on behalf of thee company and its shareholder owners
It they had won there would be no issue (such is of course obvious)
They lost
We’re the board negligent and or failing in their duties
Do shareholders have the right to Persue negligent directors - yes and their advisors if they to were negligent
Might the FC consider shareholder action should thus be against the board ?
Not perhaps within the gambit of rule 24 / 60 proceedings - out with FC remit to suggest same
In any event - even if board / advisors were negligent ( which allowed patents to be ruled obvious- because board / advisors failed to identify either the fraud (via-sufficient challenge to generic expert-and the challenge of cropped table - and also the error -/mistake -not undertaking statistical analysis of mori as per bhatt paper )- the issue is surely not that they may be liable but that Epadi (shareholders) attempting to rectify matters
By firstly asking board to take Rule 60 - in respect of which there would be no issue as to Amarin standing
And secondly because board failed to bring rule 60 by bringing as shareholders the rule24//60 case to remedy the fraud and mistake where the board has failed to adopt such action this being against the interests of the shareholders as owners of the company -
The board as appointed by the shareholders(and this board had failed to bring rule 60 - could theoretically have been removed by the shareholders so that a new board could have been appointed by the shareholders so that the new board would bring the rule 60
The difficulty in doing this is of course both that this would have taken time (and time here was of the essence given the 12 month time limit for bringing such action and that such would require a resolution of the company shareholders a meeting of shareholders having been called for such purpose and would require a significant Majority vote to remove the board
The appropriate and expedient choice was for Epadi to thus bring its own rule 24 ( we have standing) action and request rule 60 (remedy of fraud and mistake )
Can be asserted that shareholders be prevented from taking such expedient action against a ticking clock time limit but can only rely upon their board to bring such an action
If their board refuses to bring such an action yes the board could be removed but the likelihood in these circumstances were that the opportunity would have been lost
The time frame running is to be set against the point where the board fails to act ( 90 dayswhich was set out in the shareholder letter requiring rule 60 be brought
Board / advisor negligence may have different time points
- from the failure to statistically check mori and thus allow error into evidence
- from the timing of insufficiently challenged generic expert evidence - part of fraud
-from the timing of the cropped table appearing and it not being challenged - part of fraud
- from the du decision date which adopted expert evidence from generic expert and cropped table - part of fraud
- from the du decision relying on mori and at that point and thereafter not raised by board / advisors as statistically erroneous
Are the legal rights of the company and the shareholders one and the same
No
A company is a legal entity in its own right
A shareholder must have a separate legal entity - it can be a person or indeed another company or legal partnership that owns shares
A shareholder invests capital (their money) into a company
A shareholder may gain from the operation of the company - either by increased share value which the owner could sell to realise the gain - or by virtue of dividends paid by the company to its shareholders
To be continued
Alm
Marjac
Michael
Send to my e mail
Allan.maidment@maidments.co.uk
We can communicate on this by e mail
Allan
Alm
RAF
Rule 60 relief granted by Federal Court
Alm
RAF
Well 128 intelligent and wise people all got it wrong
For most of us not in our wildest dreams would we have thought of sub 4 SP
And for next year ???
Well I for one will make no prediction ( both through embarrassment at being historically so wrong -21 was my pitch -and because it seems now impossible to have any real idea where we might be 12 months from now
But - I will wish all of my good friends on this board the very best of good fortune for 2022
And may I single out Marjac (and the team) for all the good fortune we can possibly bestow upon them
Alm
Captbeer
No benefit to hikma - reducing sales - unless all sales of generics below say 7per cent ( hightrigs). - and if they loose still stuffed for damages to date for all generic sales caused losses
There would need to be evidence of Dr reddy infringement and issues arise of separate trial
If hikma loose apart from appealing and thus delaying payment of damages they would effectively be out of the market (unless they won on appeal)
Dr Reddy might well take fright and pull out also for fear of new proceedings against them and loosing also - and Karim has referred to further evidence gathering - so you can bet Amarin have been doing just that against all generics
The percentage now being sold is way over the threshold so it’s a win or bust approach from generics
Judge Andrew’s decision is still awaited
? Will his decision change tactics from hikma / from dr reddy ??
That’s the best hope for a quick change in the present ever decreasing market share for Amarin
They might both settle -suggest - no damages / they both get out of market / no proceedings against dr reddy - is best settlement outcome perhaps for Amarin
3rd generic supply might then try to step in
But any will know that Amarin will pounce on infringement issue maybe even seek injunctive relief to stop excess/ stealing cvs indication
Andrew’s decision is a big one
Alm
Jas
Keeping it simple
The FC -Having agreed that Epadi has standing
Rule 60 - if the FC wish to they could themselves simply overrule Du decision and thus restore the patents
The Epadi case asks the FC to do exactly this
An alternative open to them is to send it back to du - so she has to then decide on the rule 60 case- but given the FC are aware of the facts asserted in the rule 60 - why bother ???
Generics may argue - well we have not taken up the Rule 60 case because we asserted no standing - but they ignored the rule 60 at their peril (and probably quite simply because there is really no basis to challenge it )
There seems little point in sending it back to her when the outcome would thus be exactly the same -FC could remedy the fault in the decision at a stroke both as to the standing issue - allowing that there is standing - and because FC recognise the fraud / mistake
- all of which has been brilliantly set out in marjacs briefs and our experts evidence / bhatt report
But -they may refuse standing
Or if find standing -
The FC. Could also simply say du decision stands - thus not impressed at all by the rule 60 arguments
Alm
Jas
Rule 60
Settlement
No chance
Alm
Irish
Very sad to hear this - our thoughts are with his family
He has found peace
Alm
Jas
I agree entirely with the sentiments you express
Merry Christmas. A very good year ahead for us all
Alm
Fly
Every cent of it and some …
Alm
Lemmi
And those patients and we all are forever in your debt -
Alm