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.
Lizzy
We can share the cost amongst us
Let us know how much it was and those who want to will contribute much I am sure
Alm
Ongerman- settlement
Just my thoughts - there will no doubt be different views
1- the case against Hikma and healthnet needs to continue-as a first point therefore Delaware Judge Andrews has to reject H and H motion to dismiss - I am pretty certain he will but it might be 3 months plus before we know
2 H and H thus facing a jury trial may well be motivated to settle -Hickma agreeing to sell only SH not CVD and Healthnet not to switch to generic for cvd prescriptions
3 but before settlement Amarin issues against Dr Reddy for infringement (after motion to dismiss fails ) - in a sense Dr Reddy might think Amarin case for infringement weak - but good enough to get through motion to dismiss
dr Reddy will be pretty sure any motion to dismiss would likely fail (as we suspect it will with Hikma) thus Dr Reddy face same prospect - jury trial and all risks and costs - so they too may settle
4 thereafter any other generic would know A would issue against them for infringement if they start to sell GV unless they clearly restrict to SH
5 any other provider such akin to Healthnet would also know they would face the same if they switch cvd V to GV
So the generics and The providers know they will be boxed into dangerous litigation if they enter the market and do any switching tricks
Amarin thus keeps 90 per cent of market in USA - cvd in particular
Of course Marjac and team will render all this moot by winning in the FC Du appeal - let us keep the faith in his incredible efforts to overturn Du disaster
Just my lawyer... but not USA lawyer thoughts
Alm
North
I very much doubt Hikma would agree to pay lost profits - not a great deal of value anyway- but Amarin I am very sure would settle for the rest of that deal with huge enthusiasm and would not fight / fail to settle over the lost profits
Alm
Ralphey
Different case ... cropped table is Rule 60
If Marjac / ream win Rule 24/ 60 before FC on appeal the infringement case will lditch as Amarin will have their patents back
If no success in appeal not clear in my view how the cropped table issue would come before jury on infringement trial
Alm
Ralphy
Certainly agree your point by reference to Marjac !
An interesting aspect to this hearing was the build up from Hickma’s counsel that the whole generic industry was watching this case and relying on the Judge to reach (their ) the view that this motion to dismiss must succeed because if not every generic was at risk in every case of having to pay huge and economically crippling damages
The Judge did not bite on this generic blackmail one bit
The problem with this kind of hearing is that if counsel goes into it with a prepared speech they are quickly rendered dead in the water - ok you have got to have a route you want to take the Judge through but you have also got to be prepared to be constantly interrupted and questioned at a tangent and give an informed response before resuming the journey
Amarins counsel was not the best at dealing with this type of hearing
Having said that given the legal hurdles the generics have to jump over to succeed in a motion to dismiss ( as Marjac so succinctly set out in an earlier post ), Magistrate Halls recommendation to the Judge to dismiss as set out by her in detail and given the weight of argument for Amarin (thought not delivered with the silver tongue one would like) in my view Amarin will get this through to trial
The generic presentation was largely huff and puff with no substance
Of course Hikma knows that in a jury trial anything can happen (as they pointed out- and it reflects their real fears ) and they will have to make an economic assessment of risk if this goes to trial -
Amarins counsel notably did point out that Hikma had deliberately avoided changing their “label” (my word) over the past 11 months because they most definitely wanted the cvd market - when they could have changed their literature to make plain they only covered SH
Now what will a jury make of that when assessing damages when they find infringement ??
Hikma and Healthnet are going to need big balls to run this at jury trial
Alm
Marjac
“The D.C. was unmoved by Epadi theory of fraud on the court as evidenced by dismissal of Epadi application for iintervention.” By stating such the defendants in effect assert that the DC undertook an assessment of the merits of the Rule 60 motion. On the contrary the record of the DC decision gives no hint whatsoever that any judicial assessment of the Rule 60 motion took place at all. Such makes the DC decision incomprehensible in terms of its implications.
Any party prepared to perpetrate a fraud on the court could retain complete confidence that their fraud would escape judicial examination,censor and rectification,simply on the basis that the merits of an assertion of fraud will never be examined in circumstances where they can rely on lack of standing to prevent any such examination taking place.
On the contrary the court should be greatly concerned and indeed determined to act to protect itself from the wrongdoing of those prepared to manipulate and alter evidence to achieve their purpose thus perpetrating a fraud on the court
Alm
Marjac
More
“Epadi interest is a mere economic expectancy interest, which the Ninth Circuit does not recognise as a significantly protectable interest.”
This proposition as set it by the defendants completely ignores the legal status of shareholders. It is of course correct to say that shareholders may have an “economic expectancy”. But that is not the point . The defendants deliberately ignore the fact that shareholders are the owners of a company. Shareholders appoint a Board of Directors one of whose functions is to protect the interests of the company which is owned by its shareholders.Epadi is made up of a group of shareholders who are as such part owners of the company Amarin along with all the other shareholders. The reasonable expectation of the shareholders and in this circumstance in particular the Epadi shareholders is that the directors of the company Amarin would act by bringing a Rule 60 action. They did not . As a result the Epadi shareholders had no choice but to act. Epadi members as shareholders have brought this action to protect the company and their interest in it as owners of the company (in part ) Given the time limits involved the action was brought by those shareholders as a timely intervention in their capacity as such.
Alm
More to follow
Marjac
More
“A party seeking to intervene must do so”As soon as he knows or has reason to know that his interests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation”
The defendants assert that Epadi in effect should have instigated its Rule 24 /Rule 60 action at the outset of the litigation process some 4.5 years ago.the reality is that it was only at the point where it became apparent that the K table had been cropped and introduced into the proceedings by the defendants. It was further a reasonable expectation that A would have themselves litigated on this matter.
However the passage of time from the revelation of the cropped table introduction to the Ruke 24/rule 60 proceedings was only a matter of x months and not the 4.5 years that the defendants seek to divert the courts attention to on the issue of the timely bringing it Rule24/rule 60 action.
The defendants put it this way “members of Epadi should have know from the outset of the litigation that they had a stake in the outcome of Amarins patent litigation suit against generic competition. This proposition from the defendants is simply preposterous . If it were true all parties who had a stake in litigation suit outcomes of this kind would have to institute Rule24 /rule 60 actions at the very beginning of every patent litigation suit - even though there was at that first point in time no justifiable cause to bring such an action or indeed evidence to support such an action.
The defendants for their own protection from exposure of their fraud seek to obscure the simple and obvious fact that the basis of Epadi bringing this case is that at the very end of these proceedings a fraud was practised on the court and it is this that gave rise to Epadi taking interventionist action. The evidence that such a fraud was perpetrated was only revealed via the introduction of the cropped K table .
Alm
More to follow
Marjac
More
As to a consideration of Rule 24 and Rule 60 motions together the DC should rightly consider that any baseless and frivolous applications under Rule 60 could create prejudice to a defendant as to costs in contesting such litigation . It would be right for the DC to examine the Rule 60 application and the evidence relied upon to support such a motion and also the response of the defendant as to the Rule 60 application as to factual challenge.
In this case the defendants in the DC most notably failed to challenge any element of detail as to fact in the applicants case.The DC however undertook no initial assessment as to the applicants Rule 60 case to determine whether it was baseless or frivolous or indeed whether on the face of the case and its supporting evidence it might have merit. Instead the DC simply concluded that to allow the Rule 24 application would in effect economically prejudice the defendants irrespective of the possible or actual merits of the applicants case
Alm
More to follow
Marjac
More
The DC in part refused the Rule 24 application on the basis of prejudice to the defendants as to find for Epadi that the decision should be vacated would nullify the work of many years ...etc
The DC in finding such misunderstands the concept of prejudice. Agreeing that Epadi had standing would not vacate the courts decision - it could only do so if the court found the Rule 60 case to be made out by Epadi . If the court found it right to allow the Rule 60 motion it is not a matter of prejudice to the defendants - they rightly should not be allowed any economic benefit from the practice of a fraud upon the court . Conversely if the court ruled that the Rule 60 was not made out there would be no adverse economic effect upon the defendants as the patents would continue to be considered invalid as per the courts original decision.
There is no prejudice to either party Amarin or Hickma by deciding that Epadi has standing under Rule 24 -Crucially -The defendants are not prejudiced as to the presentation evidentially as to their case in relation to the Rule 60 motion
Alm
More to follow
Marjac
More
The 3 time points fell within the 12 month limitation period and Epadi brought its action immediately it was able and within that limitation period
“Allowing Epadi to intervene after this case has concluded in this Court for the sole purpose of vacating its judgement would substantially prejudice the defendants as it would nullify the years of work they put into ultimates prevailing in this case “
This was the DC court finding. But this finding as to prejudice flies in the face as to the whole purpose behind Rule 60 applications- and in this case by denying standing ,by virtue of defendants prejudice, the Court has effectively rewarded the devious and dishonest “work” of the defendants (ie the manner in which they presented evidence through their expert and the cropping of the simply crucial table )
The defendants not through years of honest hard work but through dishonesty and an outright fraud on the Court “ ultimately prevailed in this case”
Dishonesty and fraud before a Court can not be ignored and swept aside simply because the dishonest party would loose his ill gotten gains (prejudice)
Before finding prejudice in cases such as this where a serious and immensely financially damaging (7billion in lost shareholder value) has been asserted must vigorously examine the nature of and supporting evidence behind the Rule 60 application to assess their substance and merit to enable it to properly assess the issue of prejudice as to standing . The DC failed to do this
The security blanket behind Rule 60 applications and their purpose was simply thrown away
More to follow
Alm
Marjac
More
“The entire litigation came and went beforeEpadi saw fit to file to intervene”
The defendants endeavour to confuse the court into considering that the very beginning of the litigation (5 years ago) is the date set against which the timely nature of Epadi action should be judged
There are three crucial moments in time which working in conjunction with each other set the time points against which this issue can be judged
1-the date of the introduction into the proceedings of the cropped K table i
2-the date upon which analysis of the Mori statical calculations revealed that such were fatally flawed
3- the date of the passing of the deadline placed upon A by an Epadi party for A to bring Rule 60 proceedings
The dates are as follows
List
It is only against a consideration of these dates that whether Epadi brought a timely action can be judged- on any view Epadi acted with the utmost expedition in bring this case
Alm
More to follow
Marjac
Further .......
The defendants seek to bring the position adopted by A as to Rule 60 to support their assertions that the Epadi motions are untimely and without merit.This can simply be turned on its head:had A supported substantively or financially the Epadi action would the defendants have accepted the timely nature of the application(because it would still have been brought at the same time ?-would it have rendered the motion meritorious in the defendants view?
“ Epadi cropped table-Kool Aid “
By referring to such in their brief the defendants have clearly recognised Epadi assertion that the K table WAS cropped. Beyond this reference the defendants silence as to this crucial factual matter is defeaning.The defendants do not take their obvious opportunity to deny that the table WAS cropped.They do not seek to explain how this happened or whom was responsible for it. Above all and most significantly they do attempt to negate Epadi crucial point that the cropping of the table left out the most compelling information arising from the K study which was - NS- no statistical significance
Had the court read the missing element - the cropped element-NS - the court could only have concluded that the K study could not have rendered A patents obvious
The defendants silence speaks volumes as to their continued duplicity- for indeed they now have the opportunity to recognise the factual and statistical truth.
Cropping-leaving NS out allowed the defendants through evidence from their duplicitous experts testimony to completely misrepresent the K study to support a finding of obviousness
More to follow
Alm
Marjac
In sections ...
Related cases/ counter statement -might it be said that Amarin infringement case is related?
Timing of Epadi case ..”disgruntled retail investors” are in fact shareholders in the company who rightly consider that the loss of 7 billion of shareholder value post the district courts decision which was erroneous and based on two studies Mori and K which in the case of Mori has now been clearly demonstrated to have been statistically and fatally flawed as to its conclusion and in the case of K the DC relied on the false testimony of the defence expert supported by the cropping of the K table which if correctly presented would inevitably have caused the DC to reject K as having any part in supporting a conclusion that patents were obvious
“Outrageous abd baseless theories”- the Epadi case is based on the correct scientific consideration of Mori And K and are not theories but represent statements of fact
The defendants apart from through glib and excited rhetoric do not in their brief address any element whatsoever of the matters set out in clear and precise detail within the rule 60 motion - they do not challenge the facts
“No matter the stage of the litigation
Epadi brought its case within the prescribed time limits and expeditiously after the revelation of the statistical falseness of the Mori study being revealed and the K table cropping coming to light and expeditiously following Amarin failing to Perdue a Rule 60 application
The action brought by Epadi could not have been brought a moment sooner than it was
“The courts well reasoned judgement “
Was predicated on reliance for obviouslness upon the Mori study which is completely statistically flawed abd the K study which was misrepresented by the defence expert and his misrepresentation supported by the cropped K table
“Of note -Amarin did not provide any support whether substantive or financial “
The first point to make is that A did not object to the motions. The second point to make is that Epadi case had to be brought because A did not of its own volition pursue such action- it was entirely necessary because of this
A failure to do is not evidence or support for the suggestion of the defendants that these motions are without merit
Epadi is not aware as to why A failed to bring such action - A were at the time perusing other legal proceedings to seek the overturn of the D.C. decision. It is possible to speculate as to what other reasons A had in not bringing this action. The Defendsnts are not privy as to why A did not do so
More to follow
Alm
Marjac
Will prepare detailed obs - your reply can really grab and focus the FC attention
I think they have really shot themselves in the foot ... absurd references to “conspiracies “ do them no favours - the language of some of this is infantile !!!
And they actually insult the FC as to timeline ...5 years ... I mean seriously insult the court to suggest a consideration that 5 years is in play
I also think it is now huge merit in reply as to starkly setting out why Amarin /it’s lawyers did not bring 60 - because they messed this case up big time and fear exposure will leave them facing legal action from shareholders/coupled with Amarins hope that the wrong would be righted by FC /SC without exposure of their huge trial failings
And thus that others had no alternative than to step up to the plate to ensure the court was not left in the dark as to this 7 billion dollar fraud
-the biggest judicial fraud of all time ??
Immense opportunity here
You guys have done an amazing job ...
Alm
Marjac
Brilliant .... always thought they would desperately avoid the 60 - they have absolutely no answer to that one ...
This raises hugely the odds that FC Will act .... because the FC will be astounded that they have nothing to say to rebut the 60 - which is .... let’s not ignore this one ....that there was fraud on the court
Thus Relying only on the Rule 24 is playing generic Russian roulette —-
You pinned them to the ropes .....
Knock out blows to follow.
Alm
Marjac
I like the fact that they have not served until the deadline .... they needed all the time they could get ....no swashbuckling quick response
Pined against the ropes !!!
Killer blows from Marjac and the team await !!!
Alm
Zip
That wouldn’t help them .... if they accept it was a mistake upon which the court relied - no matter whom created it!
Alm
Marjac
The waiting is over ...this is going to be very very interesting .....
How will they hope to try to cover the exposed fraud on the court !!!!???
Or will they just rely on no standing ???
I am certain sure the reply brief will hit even harder ... no point holding back on setting out in clear and simple terms that the FC can not allow a fraud on the court to pass through their jurisdiction
The DC judge was misled and fraud on her court won the day - and cost shareholders billions in lost share value
A fraud on a massive scale
To allow it to pass through the FC will encourage others to try the same devious and dishonest practices
The FC can not countenance such devious and dishonest practices being played on their court
I don’t need to wish you good luck - you have right on your side
Alm
Posted
The right view expressed clearly
Alm
Capt beer -Marjac
Not a question easy to answer but one Marjac may well have defined in the Rule 24 / 60 proceedings-we are a few weeks away from the generics reply brief and their case for the denial of the appeal being set out
The basis on Rule 24 is E has no standing ( behind which maybe who are E anyway)- a specifically defined group of shareholders who contributed to the fund to bring the proceedings might well be the definition
But Marjac will be best to speak of this
Alm
Capt beer
Thank you for this - it is perhaps understandable from their perspective ...but it would so boost confidence if things were going well to learn this impact / information sooner rather than later
Greatly appreciated your reply
Alm
Cap beer
Surely Amarin will want to release this information - weekly - monthly ???
It is vital information for the shareholders to be able to consider - if it is going well everyone will be happy
Would you be so very kind as to Ask Amarin what they intend to do as to this
Many thanks
Alm
RAF / i.... whilst it is not well expressed I think KM is saying A has commercial infrastructure set up in USA and is doing so in EU but elsewhere - smaller countries -for example New Zealand -they may - my emphasis is on may -look to partner with smaller companies - a bit like they have in Canada -HLS and Middle East - so that all Row gets covered eventually
It’s GIA until it’s not -and this is an obvious map / plan to show ROW will get covered in the end -you would try to cover selling everywhere eventually ....
Alm
North Marjac
The Delaware proceedings-I raise this question.and put very simply .. why now do Amarin not seek injunctive relief -????
the volume of generic sales has risen clearly above the 10 percent much referred to which was lost as to patent protection in the Du case -now it seems circa30 per cent and rising - by the time case heard could be near to all of USA market thus the 90 per cent of sales for cvd indication gone
Ok if A wins treble damages - but a business destroyed- one could say the laying off of 300 reps clear evidence of that process - indeed is that the generics clear intent to destroy A business prior to outcome of case ???
I can understand why not sought in first instance until clear evidence of selling into cvd usage - that is clear now
Injunction to stop generics selling into cvd market would prevent such
Why do they not seek such ? In uk courts would be a no brainer
Alm
RMB
I struggle with the idea that Thero messed up a good buyout offer
Thero an accountant -so I guess he got his head around any numbers... he also stood to gain an immense amount personally on a BO
When the SP was 25 was anyone going to offer 30 -40 plus ? With patent litigation live ? And at that time no EU approval
I favour more that no one came in ...
Now Amarin can be bought on the cheap - 15 - but will anyone come in whilst USA market going downwards unless Marjac / infringement win ?
Cutting costs in USA is right -
Thero thought USA market could grow despite generics ... that is what he was out on and a clear out now shows KM does not run with the idea that 500 reps (those leaving) could make any difference - so let’s cut the costs in USA
No debt / big tax loss / 500m cash and now a smaller head count all clear the decks better as to Possible BO interest
But in any event makes good business sense -
Alm
Sleven kiwi
Whilst hypothetical debate is interesting surely none of us consider Amarin will vacate the USA market ? They may change their selling cost base as they continue USA GIA-as long as they are at least covering cost they will continue to sell- and let their infringement case play out - and rule 24/60 will also resolve
Possibly the sales will increase without additional cost investment - partnering or BO remain options
But abandonment ?? Other uses for the drug may /would assist the USA market
Rather than abandonment of USA what will be more likely on continued GIA is further market share reduction-generic wearing it down - hopefully the V they have via supply will just be moved to other places -EU etc over time
What is unlikely is further substantial increase investment to try and grow USA market - a big Pharma with big pockets might adopt a different approach - let their existing sales force work the sales - which is one of reasons why Pfizer/ Canada is so interesting - a short trial run may be in mind - if Pfizer think their team could double/ treble the USA market on a shirt trial run analysis of Canada - why not offer to partner or BO and have EU and Row to go at
Pfizer would be buying cheap compared with heady days of 26 SP
Will Amarin wait for infringement case to play out before considering BO - not in my view - they will certainly consider an offer if it came their way - they can’t rely on winning even though there are good prospects
But whether they would accept depends simply on how much
Equivalent to 10 dollars per share - ?? Low ball
15 - they would think seriously
20 would take it any day
SP needs creep up to support 15 or 20
Other uses - covid use only timely one ahead what for next couple of years
GIA is a slow run up over time - well run and managed 3/5 years from now - 15 to 20 sp
But Partner / BO/covid use / patent win infringement case could bring this up also
We need management to show metal KM early days yet
Alm
Marjac
Many thanks
October 12th can’t come soon enough
Hope you are getting some Marjac time
Alm
Marjac
Can you remind me / the board the date by which generics /health net have to reply to your rule 24/rule60 brief in FC appeal ?
I suspect we all eagerly await seeing how they will try to wriggle their way out of the noose you have set them
Let’s hope they pull the rope tighter round their own necks
Hope you are taking some time out after your incredible labours
Alm
North kiwi - Marjac
I have read it (as a lawyer)and it’s not at all good ...it is simply brilliant - outstanding
The rule 60 is unanswerable - the rule 24 is where the wrong panel could allow the injustice to stand but -The right panel allowing standing and the rule 60 to be heard and the generics will loose ...
no one should right this off -the response of the generics will be very interesting because thus far they addressed only rule 24 (to Du) and not the substance of the matter as set out in rule 60 application and brief
Dare they ignore this aspect this time and just try to swing the Rule 24 out of jail card ????
Their danger is that if the FC panel read all the material ( as clearly never happened in the Du FC appeal) the hollowness of any attempted defence on the rule 60 material will be completely damning -
- if they don’t respond to the rule 60 - that is because they know they are blown out of the water
There response is due in a few weeks
Marjac and the team have shown their incredible skill and determination -their efforts can not be praised too highly
Alm
Kiwi pharmadude
But see eliquis patent win in FC - Pfizer/BSM patent intact to 2031 - subject to generic appeal to SC
So Pfizer cvd can sell this drug for a long time ....no doubt different in Canada but ....still unclear to me what P are up to with V - could just be Canada only or part of a bigger picture ??
Alm
Marjac - the Brief
A complete masterpiece
Justice cries out from your brief to be done ......let us expect that justice will be served and see it done
Amarin the company it’s shareholders and the patients who deserve to receive this drug are forever in your debt
I most certainly am -
I hope one day to meet you and to shake your hand
Alm
Jfmcrr
Understood the prepare it 1 question had to be asked ...rather why would you not release prepare it 1 and prepare it 2 outcomes at the same time.... what advantage was there to doing it as they have ??
Would it not be crystal clear to have announced - if this be the case . “V does not prevent infection” (so don’t ask your dr to prescribe it for that purpose -it doesn’t work) but .....”V does work as a treatment for covid 19” (so if a patient contracts covid drs should prescribe V)
All seems poorly thought out as a trial outcome delivery ...???
Alm
Jomama-Km did not hype prepare it 1
What he was referring to was preparei it2
Agree not clear why prepareit1 was undertaken
Showed tolerance to high dosage .... and no nasty reactions
Alm
Rose - was not the initial thought that 1 and 2 would be released at same time but it is now thought that 2 will be released via peer review if it is to have credibility
Does not seem clear - as far as I can make out - either whether the 2 trial is over or when it will be over or when peer reviewed outcome will be released
It’s a pity all of this is not known and thus speculation contained
Having said that from what I have read 2 seems to have some prospect of success
Alm
Prepare it1
Wasn’t everyone expecting that V would not prevent infection -not exactly sure why prepare it 1 was ever promoted- ???
What is it he big deal is prepare it2
Whilst not Amarins trial the company had better be geared up to how it manages the prepare it 1 outcome
Because there will be some who will seek to undermine V as a result of this element of prepare it
And the further great information just released as mined from reduce it will be swallowed by negative comment
An acid test for KM .... to start getting good accurate and helpful P R ...... Km step up to the plate ??????
And Amarin certainly made a balls up about informing as to when prepare 1 would be revealed
Now what we do need is solid information about when prepare 2 will be revealed because that is the one that could have a big impact
Alm
Pharma....your research showed what might be possible as to covid ...understand your nervousness
But you will be spot on with this ....thanks for your great work
Alm
Postes and Mr1789
It would be amazing if Marjac and his team get a result in the rule 60 - and Postes you are right the effort is Herculean
Marjac - makes it clear - he asks for nothing - but those of us on this board who wish to gift when success is achieved will be at least by some token be it big or or be it small be marking the gratitude and respect we feel for Marjac and the team
I am not officially co ordinating this - i was rather incensed by James Murphy’s dismissal of Marjacs efforts -it will be for each who wishes to do so to resolve ....
Alm
Marjac reward fund
Invest - 25k
Tal- 25k
Alm - 25k
From memory we 3 have some time ago made this offer ......
Are there anymore out there who will step up to the plate to “gift “Marjac the tokens of our gratitude if he achieves a rule 60 reversal in the FC?????
James Murphy????- why don’t you volunteer 50k - and I will match that ???
If you are so certain there is no pups chance well hell putting up 50 k if you are wrong is the least you can do to back your mouth
Let’s see some more folk put up the value of the Marjac gift fund
Marjac ..... you have the patience of a saint and resolve determination and skill to make this happen -
Will be very happy to gift 25 k to you when you win this one - and 50 k if James Murphy has the balls to offer up
Alm
Lizzy - send this to Amarin IR as a good example of how to communicate effectively and on a personal level with shareholders
Send it to KM at Amarin - as a message of this is how we would like to be treated by Amarin
Alm