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.
Don't use that one. If anyone needs to email me on any issue, it is mkasanoff@att.net
Marjac's actual name is Michael S. Kasanoff, Esq.
Here is the link to the District of New Jersey Court's website with easy to understand Transcript procurement instructions:
https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/transcript-policy
Thanks, Zebra. As do you.
Ha! Timing is everything isn't it?
Thanks, bradyisgoat. You are absolutely right that the company should have fought vigorously fought these issues. We stepped in only after they abjectly refused to do so.
And we were right, make no mistake about it. Amarin and its shareholders are in their current ongoing predicament largely (even if not exclusively) due to an utter institutional breakdown of the court system at all levels, as well as total incompetence exhibited by the Company and its lawyers.
I need not re-hash everything, but Judge Du made a mistake when she invalidated the patents based upon her wrong reading of the wrong studies in the wrong way. We conclusively established beyond any doubt that Judge Du was mistaken.
This was compounded by the flagrant fraud upon the Court not only through the cropped table, but through Dr. Heinecke's scientifically infirm expert testimony. Two BRILLIANT minds, our very own Hindu Kush, and the expert from Cambridge he found for us at a very reasonable fee, Dr. Jarvis, conclusively established all of this beyond any doubt.
On the issues of Standing and Intervention, an avalanche of binding Ninth Circuit precedent supported us. We deserved to win and should have won.
Yet what is especially galling, is that neither the Courts all the way to the highest levels, nor the Generics' high-powered law firms provided any reason, much less valid reasons why we should not prevail. If we are wrong, tell us why we are wrong, and let's have a debate. Despite the core issues being served up on a crystal clear silver platter, those core issues were ducked all they way through.
The only Opinion we received on our application, was Judge Du's abomination that we completely eviscerated on Appeal. At least in her initial 3/30/2020 decision, she wrote a comprehensive Opinion setting forth her analysis and reasoning, even if that analysis and reasoning was defective.
The Federal Circuit ducked the issues with their gutless Rule 36 one word "Affirmed". The SCOTUS likewise ducked the issue with its one word "Denied".
Now that SCOTUS does that for everyone, but does so based upon a "Pool Memo" prepared by a law clerk. Many Ivory Tower judges and lawyers may disagree with me, but that Pool Memo should be a public record to which we are entitled so that we can see exactly what their reasoning was in denying Certiorari. The Courts exists to serve the litigants and the public, not the other way around.
My anger and disbelief over these institutional breakdowns and the lack of fairness we received, is yet another reason why I had to stay away from Amarin for awhile.
Thank you W0lf1. There was not really much to say since the SCOTUS denial, given the absence of legal issues and the prevalence of medical and business issues. Plus I have four major Briefs due by October 24, and two other newer lawsuits which have taken almost all of my time. And because I most of these are contingency cases, I have to hustle on other matters to generate cashflow. So I won't return to any sense of normalcy until the end of October.
You have brilliantly summed up the reality of what happened that day, ILT. EPADI is no different than the environmental and public interest groups that routinely intervene in federal court cases throughout the country. Judge Dyk was literally making up an identification standard that does not exist anywhere in the Federal Rules or the Federal Circuit Rules. I threw down the gauntlet and called him out on that, but he had no answer.
Thanks, Kiwi. While the ultimate result was not acceptable, it was not due to a lack of effort. I will always stand by the efforts of everyone involved in those litigation projects.
Thanks DAR53. Same to you. I went on hiatus for awhile in the aftermath of the SCOTUS denial. I expect to become more active again in the Amarin world in the coming months and year but perhaps not necessarily on the Board.
Same here, Anilkhera. Thank you.
That's not how I remember it. I answered the question directly, stating that I represent an entity made up largely of Amarin retail shareholders. Then Judge Dyk babbled something about having to list all the members on the Case Information Statement, holding us to a standard to which no party is ever held. I hit back correctly stating that there is no such requirement in the Federal Circuit Rules. He then moved on.
Thank you ILT. Beautifully written.
So I was completely away from the Board for many months, not even lurking, while buried in multiple non-Amarin related litigation deadlines, and then like lightning bolt from Valhalla, I get the normal Amarin email notice, but this one sets forth the Board's response to Sarissa. After reading it and then excusing myself to the lavatory to regurgitate my lunch, I headed here to see what all the fuss was about.
All I can say is WOW! This is the most electrifying thing for shareholders in recent memory, as Amarin has become a bleak stock, and even this once vibrant Board, a somewhat depressing place. I am so glad to see that there is a renewed swagger among the shareholders who have had to deal with non-stop Amarin negativity for far too long.
In terms of again taking up the litigation sword on behalf of shareholders, there could potentially be a derivative litigation component of this assault on the Palace, but right now from where I sit, this issue can be resolved successfully and internally either through a negotiated deal with Sarissa, or by actually calling the Special Meeting, and then the shareholders rise up in support with their votes.
Overall, a great lifeline for the suffering shareholders has been advanced. This is a situation worth thinking about and monitoring to determine what can be done at the retail shareholder grassroots level to assist the rebellion.
Thank you so much Restingzebra. I am indeed clearing calendar in preparation for the commencement of my Amarin docket in the Fall of 2022.
Aye, Aye, Cap'n. Thank you as well for tremendous information and date you are continually providing to help the shareholders.
Thanks Ram. Whenever one puts themself out there, detractors will always emerge. I will eternally grateful for the overwhelming positive support for our effort to remedy the disgusting legal injustice which befell the company and its shareholders.
Thanks DAR and Resting Zebra. Truth be told, without a current marjac Amarin legal matter pending, the iHub Board has sort of passed by ole marjac, lol, as the current germane topics are outside of my wheelhouse. Plus I have been ultra, ultra, can't even come up for air busy, so much so, that my new cases are slightly delayed. But I will still lurk, and wish everyone the best--even my detractors, lol--in hope of turning this depressing "penny stock" around.
Megc, the Law360 Article is for subscribers, but below is the Third Circuit's decision providing the reasons why they affirmed dismissal of this Class Action against Amarin.
2022 WL 2128560
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
IN RE: AMARIN CORPORATION PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION
Dan Kotecki and Catherine Little-Hunt, as Trustee of the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, Appellants
No. 21-2071
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 9, 2022
(Opinion filed: June 14, 2022)
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 3:19-cv-06601), District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, AMBRO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
OPINION*
CHAGARES, Chief Judge.
*1 This putative securities fraud class action alleges that pharmaceutical company Amarin Corporation, PLC (“Amarin”) and its executives misled investors when it disclosed the topline results of a Phase III trial for its lead drug product. Because we agree with the District Court that the complaint fails to allege adequately a materially false or misleading statement, we will affirm its dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
I.
We write primarily for the parties and recite only the facts essential to our decision. Amarin's lead product is Vascepa, a drug intended to treat heart disease. Amarin has conducted three Phase 3 trials for Vascepa. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved Vascepa for limited use following the first trial. In the second trial, called ANCHOR, Amarin was denied FDA approval of Vascepa for use in an expanded patient population.1
The plaintiffs’ allegations focus on the final Phase 3 trial, called REDUCE-IT, and more specifically, the results from the trial's placebo arm. This trial evaluated whether Vascepa, when combined with statin therapy, could reduce major adverse cardiac events (“MACE”). FDA approval of Vascepa for this indication would greatly expand the eligible patient population. Amarin used the same mineral oil placebo in both the ANCHOR and REDUCE-IT trials. The FDA, notably, had previously raised “concerns that the placebo data in the ANCHOR trial indicated that the mineral oil placebo may not have been inert (i.e., chemically inactive), and thus may have biased the treatment effect of Vascepa.” Appendix (“App.”) 143.
On September 24, 2018, Amarin announced topline results for the REDUCE-IT trial, and the company's share price increased. The topline results announced that the REDUCE-IT trial demonstrated “an approximately 25% relative risk reduction” in MACE as compared to the placebo group. App. 153. The company further noted that the full results would not be released until a conference later that year. When the full results were made available, some health experts and medical professionals raised concerns that the mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT trial was not inert. If the placebo was chemically active, it could have affected the trial's results and thereby exaggerated Vascepa's efficacy. Amarin's share price dropped approximately 27% after the full REDUCE-IT trial data was released.2
Lead plaintiffs Gaetano Cecchini, as Trustee of the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, and Dan Kotecki brought this action, asserting violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class action of Amarin stockholders.3 The complaint asserts that the September 24, 2018 press release announcing the topline results of the REDUCE-IT trial and statements made in a conference call that same day were materially misleading.4 The complaint's primary theory of liability is that at the time Amarin disclosed the trial's topline results, it failed to tell investors that the mineral oil placebo was not inert. This caused the topline results to overstate the relative risk reduction in MACE for patients receiving Vascepa as compared to the placebo group. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court granted this motion, concluding that the complaint failed to allege adequately both a materially false or misleading statement and scienter. The plaintiffs have timely appealed.
II.5
*2 Our review of a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss is plenary. See OFI Asset Mgmt. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber, 834 F.3d 481, 489 (3d Cir. 2016). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “we accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[ ].” Newark Cab Ass'n v. City of Newark, 901 F.3d 146, 151 (3d Cir. 2018). The complaint must “contain sufficient factual allegations, taken as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Because this is a private securities fraud class action, we must also apply the heightened pleading requirements for allegedly misleading statements or omissions as set forth in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”). See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(1) (“[T]he complaint shall specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and, if an allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, the complaint shall state with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed.”).
III.
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act prohibits the “use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security ... [of] any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.” 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b–5, which implements § 10(b), provides that it is unlawful “[t]o make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b–5(b). To a state a claim under § 10(b) and Rule 10b–5, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentations or omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; (6) and loss causation.” Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27, 37–38 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The plaintiffs focus on three categories of material misrepresentations or omissions: (1) statements of opinion that Amarin made when disclosing the REDUCE-IT trial's topline results; (2) a duty to disclose further information regarding the mineral oil placebo due to the topline results putting this information “in play”; and (3) statements in Amarin's quarterly and annual SEC filings that disclosed certain risks as theoretical, which in fact had already materialized. We address each of these arguments in turn.
The plaintiffs argue that the topline results for the REDUCE-IT trial were false or misleading because Amarin failed to disclose that the mineral oil placebo may have impeded statin absorption in the placebo group.6 By failing to disclose this information, the plaintiffs contend that the topline results exaggerated the benefits and effectiveness of Vascepa relative to the placebo group. The plaintiffs maintain that the full trial data “undermined the notion that there was a true ‘placebo’ group, with well-controlled cholesterol, and would have given investors reasons to distrust the [25% relative risk reduction in MACE] that [d]efendants reported.” Appellants’ Br. 20. These allegations are buttressed, according to the plaintiffs, by the earlier concerns raised by the FDA during the ANCHOR trial regarding the possibility that the mineral oil placebo was not inert.
*3 The parties agree that the disclosures in the topline results are statements of opinion. In a similar context, we have noted that “nterpretations of clinical trial data are considered opinions.... Opinions are only actionable under the securities laws if they are not honestly believed and lack a reasonable basis.” City of Edinburgh Council v. Pfizer, Inc., 754 F.3d 159, 170 (3d Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted).
We conclude that the complaint fails to allege adequately a false or misleading statement of opinion because the topline results announced by Amarin did not lack a reasonable basis. While the disclosures at issue discuss the REDUCE-IT trial data with reference to the placebo group, they make no characterizations regarding the impact of the mineral oil placebo. Relying on the opinions of certain medical professionals that are discussed in news articles, the complaint only alleges a difference of opinion regarding the impact of the mineral oil placebo. These differing interpretations as to whether the placebo was biologically active, and thereby affected the trial's results, are not sufficient to establish that the defendants’ interpretations of the data in the topline results “lacked a reasonable basis.” City of Edinburgh, 754 F.3d at 170.7
We further agree with the District Court that the plaintiffs’ theory of omission liability is unpersuasive given Amarin's contemporaneous disclosures regarding the mineral oil placebo. In Amarin's quarterly and annual SEC filings, the defendants “warned of the exact risk [the] [p]laintiffs argue they failed to disclose—that the use of mineral oil as a placebo may exaggerate the effect of Vascepa in the REDUCE-IT trial.” App. 31–32. The statements announcing the topline results, moreover, noted that the full results for the trial were to be released at a later date. We conclude that the complaint fails to allege adequately a false or misleading statement of opinion in Amarin's disclosure of the topline results.
The next theory advanced by the plaintiffs is that Amarin put information regarding the mineral oil placebo “in play,” and therefore it had a duty to disclose further information when announcing the REDUCE-IT trial topline results. Disclosure is required under § 10(b) and Rule 10b–5 when “necessary ‘to make ... statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.’ ” Matrixx Initiatives, 563 U.S. at 44 (quoting 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b–5(b)) (alteration in original). There is no affirmative duty to disclose all material information, but such a duty may arise when a company chooses “to speak about a material subject to investors.” City of Edinburgh, 754 F.3d at 174; accord Williams v. Globus Med., Inc., 869 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2017) (“Once a company has chosen to speak on an issue—even an issue it had no independent obligation to address—it cannot omit material facts related to that issue so as to make its disclosure misleading.”). While the disclosures at issue describe the REDUCE-IT trial results with reference to the placebo group, they did not make any affirmative characterizations regarding the effectiveness of the mineral oil placebo. See Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d 275, 284–85 (3d Cir. 2000). We therefore conclude that Amarin's disclosure of the topline results did not put into play either the full trial data or additional information regarding the mineral oil placebo.
*4 The plaintiffs lastly contend that Amarin's disclosures in its quarterly and annual SEC filings were misleading because the company “continued to reiterate theoretical risks, without disclosing that they had already shown signs of manifesting.” Appellants’ Br. 14. The plaintiffs point to Amarin's Q3 2018 Form 10-Q as an example of the company warning about a hypothetical, future risk related to the mineral oil placebo that had already been realized due to the results from the REDUCE-IT trial.8 This argument fails for two reasons. The complaint, first, does not identify the statements in Amarin's SEC filings alleged to be materially false or misleading and therefore is subject to dismissal under the PSLRA. The risk disclosed in these filings, in addition, had not actually materialized at the time that the statements were made. The complaint only alleges a difference in opinion as to whether the mineral oil placebo might be biologically inert. And this is exactly what Amarin disclosed in its quarterly and annual SEC filings.
We agree with the District Court that the plaintiffs have failed to allege adequately a false or misleading statement. Because we will affirm on these grounds, we decline to reach the issue of scienter. We further find it unnecessary to consider whether the District Court abused its discretion by taking judicial notice of certain documents because all of the documents at issue were only relevant to the court's scienter analysis.
Having concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under § 10(b), we will also affirm the District Court's dismissal of their claims under § 20(a). See Williams, 869 F.3d at 246.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court's order.
All Citations
Not Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2022 WL 2128560
Footnotes
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
1
A securities fraud class action was filed against Amarin due to its alleged failure to disclose accurately Vascepa's prospects for FDA approval based on the ANCHOR trial. We affirmed the district court's dismissal of this action in In re Amarin Corp. PLC Sec. Litig., 689 F. App'x 124 (3d Cir. 2017).
2
The FDA ultimately approved the use of Vascepa to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events based on the results of the REDUCE-IT trial.
3
The amended complaint names Amarin and the following Amarin executives and board members as defendants: John Thero, Steven Ketchum, Craig Granowitz, and Joseph Zakrzewski.
4
The complaint alleges that the defendants made similar statements regarding the topline results during a CNBC show on September 24, 2018, a healthcare conference presentation on October 3, 2018, and the announcement of its third quarter 2018 financial results.
5
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
6
The plaintiffs identify three categories of allegedly misleading statements regarding the topline results: (1) the data “demonstrate[ed] an approximately 25% relative risk reduction, to a high degree of statistical significance ... in [MACE] ... as compared to placebo,” App. 153; (2) “REDUCE-IT topline results ... confirm our hypothesis that [Vascepa] ... can provide additional cardiovascular risk reduction benefit on top of LDL-C [cholesterol] control with standard of care statin therapy in studied patients,” App. 154; and (3) other statements that characterized the complete data set for the REDUCE-IT trial, such as the results were “representative of an overall robust study result.” App. 156.
7
The plaintiffs rely on the Supreme Court's decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175 (2015), which considered whether an issuer's statements of opinion were actionable under § 11 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a). We have not yet decided whether the framework in Omnicare is applicable to claims under § 10(b) of the Exchange Act. See Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank Corp., 962 F.3d 701, 717 & n.16 (3d Cir. 2020) (“We have not considered whether Omnicare applies to claims brought under the Exchange Act and under Section 14(a). But it is unnecessary to resolve that question here. Even assuming Omnicare’s holding applies, the Shareholders have failed to allege an actionably misleading opinion.”). We also find it unnecessary to resolve the question in this case. For the same reasons that Amarin's statements of opinion do not lack a reasonable basis under our Court's pre-Omnicare precedent, the statements are not actionable under the framework set forth in Omnicare.
8
See App. 220 (“... [A]s part of its review of our ANCHOR [supplemental new drug application], a discussion regarding observed, nominally statistically significant changes from baseline in an adverse direction, while on background statin therapy ... in the placebo group, raised questions about the possibility that the mineral oil placebo used in the ANCHOR trial (and in the REDUCE-IT trial) might not be biologically inert and might be viewed as artificially exaggerating the clinical effect of Vascepa when measured against placebo in the ANCHOR trial....”).
End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
The Court's inaction is on Amarin's Motion to Dismiss, which apparently has been pending for six months since completion of the briefing.
The Complaint is contained within the link. There is no request for patent invalidation. Strictly an antitrust case requesting a permanent injunction and treble damages.
Sleven,
I actually had this done within the hour after you made the request, and was about to hit send, but one of many distractions pulled me away from the computer, and I have so many tabs open, I forgot to hit Send until bedtime, lol.
The Letter to the Court is in this file. Reddys' lawyer is complaining that the Court has sat on the Motion to Dismiss for six months, and without relief from the Court, Amarin is blocking access to their lower cost generic icosapent ethyl products.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WKe9cgCYELreQKssHwfx-4kH1HzL55bh?usp=sharing
alm, it has been my honor and privilege to champion this cause and interact with some many wonderful people who have been wronged by this decision. We tried our best and left it all out on the field. No corners were cut and nothing was held back.
I think that is just about right, zip. Still a gutless and pathetic dereliction of sworn duty on the part of every judge who looked at this case at every level.
Some of the best litigation results are often obtained outside the courtroom and away from arbitrary judges.
My lane, of course, is litigation. However, if the science and business side can boldly advance where the litigation cannot, then it will be glorious result for the shareholders.
Very likely. Either way, whoever comes out with something, it will be most interesting to see what they find.
zman, I was not aware that Dr. Budoff was going to be issuing an analysis. I will be watching for the release of his findings.
Other than the current Delaware infringement case (where Hikma has already been dismissed), the only litigation avenue now available to combat the generics in the US market, is to obtain solid scientific proof that they are ripping off the public with an inferior product, and then launch a consumer fraud Class Action seeking both damages and injunctive relief. Solid scientific proofs are needed before doing so.
Certiorari Denied.
Our case is listed on Page 6 of today's Orders List.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062722zor_b97d.pdf
I would like to thank everyone who supported this effort. It was a noble cause that should have received better treatment from the courts. The lyrics from the Grateful Dead's Black Peter come to mind when it comes to the judiciary in this case:
"The people might know, but the people don't care."
You could very well be right. I will do further research as to credentials, cost, and what they would need to prepare a comprehensive expert report.
I thought that Dr. Preston Mason was doing a study. My understanding is that we are still waiting upon the results, but others have speculated that the study has been completed without a showing of significant difference. We simply do not know the exact status.
If we are still in limbo by the end of the summer, I will explore whether it is cost-feasible to do something with our own experts establishing evidence of the generic product's inferiority. Armed with evidence, only a single lead plaintiff purchaser of generic V is needed to launch a consumer fraud action against the generics in New Jersey.
I would love to see some solid scientific evidence conclusively providing this point. The Generics are probably not disclosing to the public, "Oh by the way, our generic product oxidizes as compared to real Vascepa." That is a material fact being omitted. That is fraud. That is actionable.
Yes, in addition to facts, law, science, math, justice and morality on our side, let us also have the Almighty, the Force, and any other positive karma, including but certainly not limited to, luck.
I look forward to seeing your findings, ILT.
Thank you chas for your phenomenal write-up on Vascepa, which I have downloaded and will likely use as a trusted source in the future.
James,
Thanks for your kind words. Heartfelt and appreciated more than words can express. If you are proven ultimately correct, it is a sad commentary on the American legal system, but I cannot deny the multitude of perverse rulings that have occurred in this case. Hopefully the Petition is still alive after Monday.
I am nothing and could not have tried to do something without the support of the people, meaning the people who have been unfairly wronged by these horrific events, and the betrayal of their trust. While there have been, and always will be trolls and detractors, the outpouring of support has been overwhelming. I just hope that the SCOTUS took the time to see what we are trying to say, and at least call for full briefing of the issues.
I don't disagree with your cogent analysis, BAM, other than the implication that it is exclusively JT's fault. As the CEO he had to have relied upon Kennedy and Covington in making the litigation decisions. Hence, there were multiple bad actors, inclusive of the JT, the BOD, and the lawyers, as well as the courts and the generics, who all substantially contributed to the destruction of the Amarin stock price through an unholy combination of arrogance, hubris, stupidity, and other misconduct.
I agree, Meowza. That is why we focused the Petition on the institutional integrity issue, and the Hazel-Atlas precedent, which was necessary for us to even have a shot at certiorari. If we are denied, I will aghast that based upon applicable law and these facts, the court system chooses to do nothing about the wrongdoing. It should not have even gotten this far if the lower courts did their jobs, yet here we are.
The fate of the Petition was decided yesterday. We will find out that fate around 9:30 am Monday morning.
Ha! Love it. Edison was another Jersey guy. It's true that every step of the way in the EPADI litigation trying to reverse the hideous Nevada result, that we left it all on the field, and put in the effort and time to get the right result. If the Judiciary at the highest level does not recognize the supreme injustice that has transpired in this case, then it will truly be a shame.