Here it is below. Says a royalty but doesnt doesnt totally define what situations it would apply. Maybe someone can ask IR

In the lawsuit, Amarin alleges that the generic forms of Vascepa adverse parties seek to market in the United States infringe upon multiple patents owned by Amarin. As part of the settlement agreement, Teva may first begin selling its generic version of Vascepa in the United States on August 9, 2029, or earlier under certain customary circumstances, including commercial launch by another generic manufacturer under certain circumstances, in which event Teva would pay Amarin royalties on its generic version of Vascepa. The agreement also provides that Amarin will pay Teva $2.0 million in recognition of the savings to Amarin in the avoidance of costs, expenditure of time and resources, disruption and burden associated with continued litigation with Teva.

IMPORTANT Quick Question. We keep talking about TEVA as the big threat from generics. But if memory serves, doesnt TEVA if they patents get invalidated and they launch early have to pay AMRN a royalty on their sales? So in a generic competition world we would have the sales that we cn maintain, but wouldnt TEVA with generic Lovaza move over those sales plus be the most dominant generic and we would get a royalty from them which would all drop to the bottom line and also could theoretically allow us to subsidize reducing our own costs. Am I missing something

TEVA - WHATALAN and ALL

If Memory serves, wasnt the settlement with Teva such that is AMRN lost patents and generics entered the market, AMRN would receive a royalty on TEVA sales??? If so, with TEVA being the biggest and more dire generic threat (and moving over all generic lovaza over) wouldnt that create a nice royalty stream for AMRN on those sales with no costs (so all margin)?/

Thanks

Certainly agree that any situation that generics launch is a bad scenario and it would cap the market much lower. Don’t really have a good sense what that would be. More just raising that I give amrn credit sneaking that in there so whatever the situation is they are somewhat better having a royalty than not and it’s with the largest generic. So maybe that teva deal we say was good for teva well it’s a bit better for amrn now too. Regardless of how much revenue it would be - clearly amrn is better getting a. Royalty than nothing and maybe that at least allows the stock to be worth over time what it is now and removes some of the downside risk of price not being able to support where it is now over then.

Kiwi - actually you discovered something that is very interesting i didn’t realize. If a generic were to win against amarin - then teva would get to launch.

I think we can all agree that Teva has the deepest pockets of those generics, most resources, sales skills, distributors etc. So in a generic market place I think it’s a safe bet that teva captures the dominant / majority generic sales share.

Now read the following sentence from the one you highlight as it shows some really subtle and smart amrn negotiation: should the worst case scenario that somehow the patents fail and amrn get screwed (again I’m assuming this won’t happen) but if it does likely Teva will have the majority of sales on the generic side and now they have to pay amrn a royalty on their sales. So amrn would still have all the branded sales, hopefully control supply, but they would at least be getting a revenue cut to them from the generic sales as well from teva. Pretty smart way to ensure in the worst case scenario you may still have a pretty impressive revenue stream with essentially straight net margin income since no offsetting costs.

Agreed - sale that is both massive dollar amount and % holding is something to raise an eyebrow on.

As to your after earnings - generally insiders are prohibited from selling a certain number of days BEFORE earnings and the same number of days AFTER. A lot of time after earnings their could be analyst upgrades and things like that where the worry is the insider who is actively speaking with the reseach analyst may have a clue in terms of what is coming as well as other concern so the closed period is always a certain specific number of days before and after major news (not just one way)

Correct - if they do a swing trade, then the two transactions would be treated as a round trip trade and any profits would then be returned to the company. That said, in general the process of having to do that would look very bad and I think might trigger an 8K,so in general no Exec is going to risk that happening even if they wouldn't have profit (because I still think it gets flagged and doesnt look great). Generally, when an insider wants to transact they go to legal and legal rules on whether the its an open period to which they can buy or sell (with a company like AMRN its probably very few periods since you can't before or after earnings, you can't if there is any material news coming, you can't if you know information that could impact view on stock, etc). Then legal would let the Exec know they were at risk of swing rule (regardless of whether profit ot loss in the round-trip) and would strongly advise against making an offsetting transaction.

On your other question - in terms of insider sales, I would say almost 90%+ it would be misleading to view it negatively. There are so many reasons for sales that retail investors just dont really understand as well (tax sales, 10b-1 plans, just normal diversification, liquidity need, etc). In my experience, if an insider truly felt the stock was going to head down or something bad was coming, most prudent Exec wouldnt sell because they wouldnt want the risk or stress that it might look like they were acting on information. Most Execs at mid to large companies are conservative / risk averse and they aren't trying to optimize stock sales and would rather hold than cause any risk on themselves by trying to cash out before bad stuff happens. The other consideration that I see frequently is that Execs are generally recommended to put 10b-1 plans in place by their legal advisors, financial advisors, etc. So in many instances even if they werent think of at least having a plan that takes some stock off over time, they would be highly advised to do so as best practices for them. So again I wouldnt read much into 10b-1 plans as it's just a best practice whether your bullish, bearish, or neutral and what prudent management does.

Keep in mind most Exec and Directors do have ownership requirements so they do need to hold at least a certain multiple of their compensation to ensure alignment (and that is why when it looks like some people sold everything chances are you aren't seeing their full equity considering unvested and milestone triggered, etc). In terms of suspending a 10b-1 plan. I do think you can suspend but I think it might be tricker to just restart it again so you have to be careful suspending it as you can only put a plan in place where you are in an open period with no issues and with a company like amrn that could be once or twice a year so if they suspend it may be very tough to restart it (as you can't just turn it back on when you want as that could be unfair and I think same thing with suspend - you may have to suspend when you are in an open period as well - not positive on that).

In terms of what would worry me. If all of a sudden JT sells a large part of his holdings (30% plus) at one time. I dont follow much of some of the other management as they have smaller positions and the value might be transformative for their lives that they are more inclinced to sell just out of prudence. While JT has so many shares, there really isnt a reason for him to sell a very signficant block as these smaller % sales gets him a lot of cash. If someone is cashing out $30M in one transaction you start to worry unless they have some huge need personally (which hard to imagine what is that big). I'd be more worried on Baker Bros making a large sale (it can be argued similalry they might not be bearish and just taking profits - but it would make me anxious because I assume their DD is better than mine)

The other item I'll mention that I think is unfair on insiders. We keep hearing "Oh look JT sold at the high again blah blah". In my experience, management that has signficant shares arent sitting there like us trying to get the best price or time their shares (if its a legit comopany and management). They value liquidity at a specific point of time versus what the exact price is. They are not losing sleep if they sold at 16 and its 20 a day later (honestly they are just happy to get a shot of liquidity and they have density of position so every sale is going to be good for them) The 10b-1 plans have set timing every month, quarter, or frequency, etc. They are not picking the day the price happens to be high or whatnot. That is all being managed outside of them. In addition, I can tell you no good exec that doesnt want to take enormous risk of serious trouble cares to create a buy out rumor ahead of a planned sale - that is way stupid. That is just dumb conspiracy theory and I think we all know that AMRN management is conservative. Also, management has their eggs in one basket often, but when the company does well they do REALLY well so unlike us investors that want / need as high of price as possible, in my experience insiders are not as senstitive to their sale price as we are and again just focused on getting liqudiity at regular intervals and care more about the long term trend of the stock the specific price they get on any sale.

Not sure I follow your email. However, if you are looking for benchmarks on Exec Comp and Board comp some good sources are:

(1) Most Board Comp Committees hire outside consultants to help design them and ensure they are fair / reasonable and well explained and defended in the CD&A section of the Proxy and annual report. Some of the larger players in space would be firms such as Perl Meyer. Korn Ferry Hays Group, etc. Each of these companies publish thought leadership, annaul reports on trends / benchmarks, etc.

(2) The NACD (National Association of Corporate Directors) published blue ribbon studies annually on average Board and Exec compensation ranges across industries, market cap groupings, etc. Included in break downs and splits on the different levers used, what the trends are, what averages are, etc.

Cheers

or when RSUs vest. Each year 1/3 of their prior year LTI RSU vests and that triggers tax liability auto-sales

so.. it is tough to buy as an insider if every so foten you have sells based on vesting / taxes and have to wait 6 months. That is why insider buying is very uncommon and a truly huge sign of bullishness in a company (when its a true open market purchase and not an A on the Form 4 due to acquisition of shares do to option exercise or stock vesting). While, insider sales are usually not signs of less optimism in the company.

Case in point - AMRN revealed that internally they were tracking / expecting the huge results so they were definitely expecting a positive trial yet people sold before results so assuming that meant they were bearish would have been a very bad misread versus they were just doing prudent auto sells

Actually they can't buy after sells. You may not realize but insiders are subject to the 6 month swing rule. What that means if you sell shares, you CAN"T buy shares for at least 6 months or else there is concern you are potentially trading or taking advantage. If you do, there are all sorts of issues that come to play so no legal will allow anyone to buy within 6 months of a sale.

Now, I also looked at most of the Form 4s. If you read the form, it clearly shows when the Form 4 is triggered because a portion of an grant has vested. Many of them will show they were actual filings that were auto done by the company. Most companies have a rule that when shares vest for employees (which creates an immediate taxable event to the IRS for ordinary income taxes) that they withhold close to 50% of the taxable amount in order to ensure employee taz liability coverage. And in most companies in order to do this, there is an automatic sale triggered EACH and EVERY time shares are vested where the disposition line covers funds for the tax witholding. Several of the employee Form 4s clearly show they are auto triggered by the vesting of shares. Keep in mind that every year, Execs usually earn shares that vest over 3 years in equal portion. So fast forward a few years and you will have three different year's awards vesting in a year while will lead to tax auto witholding selling at least 3 times.

You do realize that there are organizations that are called proxy advisor firms (such as ISS) that actually represent all the institutional votes (institutional investors dont have the resources or the time to study proxie and determine if they agree so they offload that to proxy advisor forms) and have huge power. They create rules around what is acceptable Exec comp and Board comp across all different areas. If companies such as AMRN had what was considered excessive comepnsation policies or ones that violate the specific covenants and metrics they feel are reasonable (and this is updated annually) they immediately vote the Comp Committee off the Board.

Have you looked at AMRN's Board compensation? Its in the annual proxy. Its pretty damn reasonable. In fact they don't get whats called a fix set of options each year, they get a fixed $ amount. They get ~$100,000 - $200,000 in equity awards (range depending on what year you are looking at with obviously the last few years being much higher around the $200,00). They also get a cash retainer of ~$55,000 (not counting committee participation). So $250,000 while certainly a nice income is very reasonable for a Director of a multi-billion dollar company and is way below other companies (just check out tech companies). The majority of Director compensation is equity and so I dont begrudge directors for selling shares to actually get paid for their services especially since they will have had to pay taxes in advance on their RSUs (which counts as ordinary income and not capital gains tax).

Now lets look at Executives. You do realize that the shares that you see as part of their ownership doesn't truly relfect the total shares they have - most Exec comp plans have milestone and performance based triggers where the shares dont show up until the triggering event happens. So even when you think someone sold down all their shares, it could be because they have a lot more shares that arent displayed. Now in terms of Execs - imagine you spent 5 years grinding at AMRN when you probably had options to jump ship and make a lot more money somewhere else and you knew the stock would be dead for years. You have most of your net worth now in amrn stock. It has risen nicely. On Paper you are worth a lot of money. You go home to your wife (and your 3 kids) and you tell your wife "hey AMRN is gold I'm not selling a single share since". She punches you and says what sane person keeps 95% of their net worth in one thing even if they are so sure its gold. (e.g. that is why hedge funds, mutual funds, just about anything will never have a position be more than a reasonable percent of their portfolio even if they love it). So the wife says, hey stop being greedy, we have more money on paper than we should ever need. How much more do you need it to go up and what difference does that truly make versus the risk of it going down and just having been paper money. She then says you owe it to your kids to bank real money regardless of what you think is going to happen (hey you know the FDA screwed us that last time lol)

My point is for us investors who have small positions relatively we want every dollar up. But the whole point of being management is you are much more tied to the company and some point even if you are ridic bullish the dumb move is not to take signficant money out. From what I can see from benchmarks - the Exec comp is reasonable and for most of the insiders their sales have been more on the prudent level and most of them have actually been automatic sales triggered against vesting to pay taxes (they have to pay taxes when stock vests regardless of whether they hold it or not so expect at Form4 sells everytime an award vests)

They also took a company to 5-6B of valuation from near bankruptcy and you dont think they deserve to cash out?

I'm hoping that expanded label even if assumed by everyone would still help supercharge the stock price and not disappoint after a few days like PT because the expanded label leads to a real material thing - increases sales and ability to really ramp which is ultimately what will move the price.

I do think you are right to raise it. It is clear the market is under-valuing amrn relative to what most of us on this board thinks. At some point instead of thinking conspiracy theories (which are rarely true), its likely that insitutionals perceive some risk (and as mentioned they don't try to get the best price, they usually like to get in when risks are removed and its on the way up even if they left a large chunk on the sideline). So the only main risk out there seems the IP and one can understand why some larger stock buyers or acquireres wouldnt buy if you thought there was some risk and without North telling us hey there is always risk but I wouldnt be too concerned, it's hard to know if its bear myth or potentially real (as none of us are on the inside) so I for one will feel great when its settled. Now admitting its a risk doesnt mean I think its a huge risk - but its the only item on the bear case I can't confidently fully dismisess directly other than trying to try and guess on indirect tells like BB. Also people like MRM prey on these areas that require expert knowledge to manipulate retail. They can say all these things that sound very scary but seem legalese and logical because no one can access it. Just like amrn's lawyer could say something on the other side and I will still not ruly be able to evaluate it myself.

My greater frustration is with amrn it alway seems like when clear a hurdle a new one comes. First the Bear MO attack on AHA, then it was no priority review, then it was expanded label but my fear is now when we get the label stock price will now languish until IP is settled. That would be hugely disappointing if approval is not a value creating event. So I am hoping they settle asap.

sorry meant 20% return for investors

I do agree that in terms of de-risking, the potential of IP failing is probably now seen as the largest potential risk (even if small) out there as I think most are struggling to find too rationale reasons on label expansion. I think part of the challenge is that many investors are able to somewhat do they due diligence and self-evalaute and have an informed POV of what they think the expanded label risk. When it comes to IP, most of us are not experts and hard to really have a very informed / 100% confident opinion since its more of an expertise driven space. So to be honest while I am very bullish and see the risk very low, I do admit there is risk there since I don't kow how to conclude there is not and it could explain why the stock price isnt as high as it should until that risk is removed (mant institutional investors I know are are more focused on returning 20+ return to their shareholders and if they do that they are considered heroes and make a killing. So many of them will be much happier to buy at 35 on the way to $70 lets say versus us individuals that are focused on absolute gain since we arent paid carry, so we want in earlier becase we are afraid of missing a larger proportional gain).

That said -the reason I hope / assume the risk is exaggerated:

Baker Borthers had a huge stake and they made a massive return. If they sold it now, they look like heroes and are rewarded as such. Not only have they not sold shares they have added. It may be bad logic but I do assume that BB does have patent experts, is aware of the risk, and if they thought there was real risk there, then we should see them at least selling some portion of stock and lock in some gains. Even if it was just 10% sell of their position. So as long as current institutions that were in at $3 aren't selling, I feel much better since they should be better than me in accessing patent strength and have less incentive to hold a position than I do.

Second, most generics do not want to enter the market when you are just building it. That is not their business model - they want to enter when its close to peaking and market is built for them. They arent market builders. And as JT has talked the financial commitment is huge, complex so why would they want to. So i'm hoping is all games to get first moveer advantage to get in earlier than someone else

If the IP goes the wrong way against Amrn, while I think we get a large headline drop - I think the real impact is muted since amrn has and is locking up supply in a constrained world so I think they probably still do a ton of revenue and stock price recovers over time but peak sales will be lower but amrn will still dominate market share

Lastly, JT is so consevrative and underpromises. In listening to him, he doesnt seem very worried about the IP and if he was I think with the way he is, we would have a clue. He actually sounds more confident there than hitting his $350M revenue number which we all know is a joke. So JT doesnt seems confident and he rarely communicates that about most thing.

I'm hoping that maybe these final two want a monetary payout or want a few more months than Teva and Amrn just isnt willing to do that right now and its a game of chicken ad eventually amrn settles paying them a few bucks and giving them a month earlier than Teva.

Cheers,

Only other risk I can think of is the generic risks - meaning that something crazy happens in January and Amrn loses the court case. Obviously the fall back is it would be expensive and hard for new players to get supply and AMRN building exclusivity and barriers to entry but I do think the market perceives there to be some risk there until removed.

Form 4s - Please Read before overreacting

Its been quite awhile since I have posted. Still here, still holding strong. Still think we are under-valued but sometimes stocks don't move when they should, but with enough time they eventually get to where they should be (market can sometimes be irrational for longer than we like)

I did want to address today's form 4s and likely a few others like it that will come so people dont start to attack the timing and overplay the sale.

Aaron was awarded RSUs which 1/3 vest on each year anniversary. The form clearly shows that he was awarded the shares 5/1/2018 so they the first thrid would vest now. When they vest, it means you immediately owe ordinary income taxes (no different than if a cash bonus was received). Most executives and directors would have a plan in place that would have the company automatically sell a set percent of shares that cover taxes and that would be witheld from the sale and paid to the IRS by the company on his behalf. This is one of the few times similar to a 10b-1 plan that you can have a sale regardless of whether there is material info or not as it is set as a rule. Anytime I vest shares or have to exercise options, auto-sell and withhold taxes so I dont get stuck with a tax bill and then not in an open window to sell shares to cover it.

That is why you see he acquired shares and then you see he disposed of a sub-set which should be around 40% or so that is the tax exposure. This is automatic and typical. Aaron didn't decide to randomly sell. He had to have a form 4 update to recognize his vesting of shares and that would auto trigger the corresponding tax sale without any action from him. He didnt pick the day to sell - it is tied to whenever the shares vest. So I would imagine there will be other shares in different months (perhaps based on hire date) that when RSUs vest you will see an offsetting sale. Just like when they have to exercise options. That is very different insider selling than a random sale (when you just see a disposed line but no original acquired line too).

Also people keep pointing that such as such sold all of their shares etc. Keep in mind, we dont see all their shares. They have tons of shares and options that are either time based vesting or milestone based vesting that only show up against them when triggered. So you might think someone had 200K shares and sold all 200K and be like wow. But in reality that person may know they control another 1.2M shares that you wouldn't see and so in their mind they sold 15%. So trying to interpret true intent of insider sales is very tough. Last example - it was clear based on the company RRR modeling that they were more confident than even some of us on the success of the trial - yet many of them sold prior to results (because it is just prudent if you have super material anount of shares and everything tied together) but clearly history showed they weren't bearish so think how many times FFF misinterpreted their selling to mean results would be bad.

Yes. My brother is a cardio specialist rep for JNJ and Jansen is where their cardio division / products like Xarelto sit.

What will be really key. BP are experts in tricks and shannigans on how to expand a patent or sneakily make some minor adjustment that creates a new one. Also BP might be thinking that whoever controls AMRN controls the statin / AMRN combo pill which obviously make sense for patients and that if you own vascepa and the combo, does that also increase your statin sales now versus competitors. So if somehow BP sees way to make that 10 years look longer, then we really start flying.

That is my one concern with GIA. Yes, we will make so much revenue, but every year the market should also be doing some kind of valuation cut as each passing year of patent protection is lost. Unless, the FUD people are sending about no supply is true and we then have it all locked up so patent doesnt matter as no one can get EPA at qunatities besides AMRN and no one can get it at the cheapest cost they do. I worry about owning a blockbuster company that grows revenue massively each year, but also could be gone in 10 years. I know we could probably buy other drugs and other indications and I would back that - but there is some risk there.

It all goes into the negotiation strategy. During discussion, BP will want to share their assumptions around peak sales. I would expect them to mostly look at US and to say to AMRN - well these other markets have challenges, long time to revenue, less preidctable so lets only factor a small piece for that. From BP standpoint if can value it based on US sales, then the ROW is gravy and what makes them feel ok about potentially assuming a high peak sales and fair multiple. I think if AMRN is pushing hard on ROW potential then BP would try and play up other US challenges like patent life, etc. Ultimately - BP is going to try and look like they made a fair offer based on assumptions of peak sales and multiples. What they put into each is the negotiation strategy and also based on how much competitive interest there is. My belief remains that if there was legit strong interest from BP, that management and Baker Brothers probably have a reasonable / defendable view of peak sales and valuation. If they aren't expecting to be paid for 3 years from now potential share price if everything goes well upfront now then I think a deal could be worked and whatever the number reported would probably be what was fair. If AMRN is trying to get paid a number now that doesnt include adjusting for BP taking future risks (let's say $500 I have seen quoted as the lowest share price in 1-2 years) then I think that obviously doesnt work since its higher than most of the acquirer market caps today. I think a buy out will balance future potential with the NPV value of that now adjusted for future risk of whoevever is commercializing (uptake, patents, supply, pace of ROW markets, new products, generics, etc)

To clarify - I'm not saying $30B is reasonable for AMRN. I just mean, the economics have to work for BP (meaning the price has to make sense to them relative to the revenue potential or cash flow) but if the economic works I dont think they will be scared off of a large purchase. Pfizer tried to hostile buy AZN not too long ago for a massive sum :) Novartis bought Avexis for $8B and that is a much much longer play to get the revenue back, etc

Not true. I'm not saying BP will buy this or that specific companies are definitely interested (but I do know many are actively "following" the amrn story). However, have a lot of my career advising the pharma sector - I can tell you most BPs are "hungry" and in dire need of the next big blockbuster. Most of them have severely cut their own internal R&D, the prior strategy of what I call spray and pray where they purchased lots of early stage companies cheaper and then figured if one was successful it was worth it (it wasn't), so now most BP startegy is to buy companies after the drug is super de-risked and they know they have a winner. AMRN fits exactly how BP is looking at it. And most of them have a ton of cash and stock and are not afraid of big purchase. That said, doesn't mean the price AMRN wants is the price BP is willing to pay. The good news is Baker Brothers is respected by both sides and I think will be a key player to make a deal happen if it does.

But BP are looking exactly for big purchases for block buster drugs - its exactly what most of them want and need.

That could be construed as trying to manipulate data release. I would expect the number is very close to 25% so that approximately holds up. I have seen first hand in the Board room how much good companies agonize to word things with great precision to ensure you dont open yourself up to any issues. The shorts have a right to claim misleading comments. I would expect 24 - 26 range max. if it was 27% or 28% I think they would have said ~ 27 or 28%. No reason to open yourself up to legal liability about disclosures.

My experience in the industry:

Amgen to me is the front runner, then PFE, J&J, Regneron, AZN i could also see as very interested. What price - that I don't know. I don't see it less than $30-$40. I obviously expect much higher so don't attack me. I'm just saying knowing what I know about BP and biotechs and M&A discussions I have been in, I can't see it being lower than $30-$40. If a BP is interested truly, they will willing to pay at least that.

often times, when a run-up is expected it doesn't materialize. Could be that everyone that wanted shares into Saturday had them. Others seeing all the shorts negatives news probably had some fear and with people up a lot of money, I'm sure some weak hands took profits. And it create a cycle - with the stock not popping because there are some sells, it makes people more nervous and they sell some, etc. Also, I have a feeling that many institutionals are planning to buy on good data. They probably like last time are ok to buy at $30 but with confidence in knowing what they are buying. To be honest, when you see a pattern like this where it is somewhat weak before news, I usually see that as a good sign. More often than not, it herald good news as markets alwats do opposite of what you expect before a lot of news.

The good news is this. The price before Saturday doesnt really matter - it is about whether its a home run and if so, price will go to where it needs to be. Might not do it in one day, might take a week. But if we are sitting at $30 we could risk that even great news could have potentially caused a sell the news effect (again not saying that is warranted or would happen) but higher it was before the more risk that people think great news is assumed. Now people will read the price action now that market epectations are low and when it is great, it sets up for a beat which market always likes.

All - PYRR is back, another confirmation good times are coming!!

Everytime he is here for a few days spewing fear it usually means the good news is coming, Then he disappears when its good for several weeks and the cycle repeats. Like everyone else, I am anxious about Saturday although extremely bullish and confident. Unlike top line results, this time we know the company knows the results and it certainly seems like they are hinting its good. I put a lot of stock in that.

Also - I think the current set of analysts are crazy only have peak sales at $2B. But even at that really low number, most value the stock at $35 so just remember Pyrr throws out these numbers to make thing seem overvalued. But the same analysts we think are all missing the bigger picture and are basing their $30+ price is on $2B of sales. Who do you think is privy to more information about the company - Pyrr or all the banks. I'm going to go with the banks. So just laugh off his gloom and doom. 25% top line is still a win. Now we get to see if its a grand slam. Fingers crossed.

The cardios I have spoken to (some are the largest writers in northeast) are very excited here and many own the stock :)

No Raise so far reasons could be:

1. They know the AHA results are great and want to wait to after to raise at higher dollars (you usually don't see companies being this strategic as they obviously thought that RI results top line were going to be good and yet they still raised in the $3 before it)

2. They are in buy out or partner talks already so dont really need the cpaital.

3. I have particpated in a few capital raise processes and the bought deals often do require a good amount of travel and focus as the banks have you meeting their institutions and together you build the book. I could see them not wanting to have to spend the time or effort on this right now and are 100% focused on the AHA and figure they will deal with this after AHA and all habds on deck getting ready for that.

4. Somewhat related to the one above. With the embargo in place, they would need to have NDAs with not only the banks but all the various institutionals they would meet on the road show to close the book. There would be too many people potentially in the know of data throuh NDAs that leak risk would be real. So managament wants to wait to when it can completely share all info without worrying about embargo impact. So management could feel ts too hard to share all this date which institutions would need / want to know to best price it (as mentioned I have been part of this process and they always share all information available under NDA) and worry about anything getting out or messing up embargo in any way.

Everyone seems to focus on 1 and 2 (myself included) but 3 or 4 are just as likley.

26,23,31,50

Agreed. Different strategies for different people.

I myself have as disclosed multiple times a large position I have not sold a single share and that takes discplin when you look at massive profits. That said, I stick to my analysis and take assmetric risk plays when presented. That said that is my core position that I dont want to have to sell.

I have added options along the way, that I view as a good way to "trade" that the price should be a lot higher in 30-45 days. That way I can eventually close out options and feel like I made some cash in the short term while not touching my core position. Nothing wrong with that.

I agree. I didnt like JZ as CEO. He talked a big game, was egotistical, with little action. I like JT - agreed that he doesnt hype, he tends to under play and meet and beat expectations on him. Probably learned the lessons working for JZ. I think he has given tons of hints this is a grandslam. And looking back he gave many hints on top line as well back in the day.

Doesn't mean when you go GIA that it doesnt test or highlight weaknesses in a management team. But yes, JT has earned when he says something or hints I listen intently.

To clairfy. I like to be very conservative JL. While I also see the case for very large share prices. More what I'm saying, I find it hard to find any scenario that we aren;t worth 35-75. Doesnt mean we aren't worth a lot more, just when I put a range out there, I like to put out what I think is worst case and then assume we will beat it.

Not double talk. Just trying to be as balanced as I can. And I more meant if someone purchased today and was discounting it for time and execution risks. Again, I wouldnt be surprised if we were even offered a lot more. AHA is going to be a big driver of what valuation is and until then I try and be conservative as possible

PLEASE READ Dont engage

All, I respect everyone's right to post here and to share any thoughts they feel are relevant or believe. I dont know what Pyrr motives are. He could be genuine or not (could just not realize that he is guilty of his biggest attack on others with confirmation bias). What I can tell. He comes every few weeks with about 100 posts spelling doom in some way.

1st - It was his condescending barrage that the trial was almost 100% going to fail and that he in his infinite wisdom had figured it out and anyone that was bullish (even with acknowledging there were risks) were basically idiots or "confirmation bias". He talked about not getting emotionally involved but yet he comes back here non stop which doesn't add up in my philosophy. I actually could respect his risk minimized strategy (even the 17% NPV) - some of what he warned about betting it all is fair thoughts to share. But what struck me odd was the comdescension in which he spoke - his research is essentially better than others. He knows the secrets and we are all just falling for it. Well he was wrong and he disappeared for awhile.

2nd - He came back and was 100% sure that a dilution was immminent and that it was going to be done at $11. Again his facts are facts and everyone was just hoping and dreaming. Well guess what they didnt dilute and while I dont know the exact reason for it, its a very bullish sign because if AMRN thought as PYRR says that we are over valued they woulkd be raising as well agree they could use more cash. So they must either know they have even stronger data to show, feel price will be better, or are talking buy out because that is just logic of realistic management teams. If they thought the FDA was going to throw a mineral oil grenade I'm sure they be racing to raise now while stock is strong. Again, Pyrr disapoeared for weeks.

Third - We all knew once him being wrong again below over he would be back - he is persistent for someone who says don't get emotional (interesting right). Now it was that AMRN had no patents issued and that the ponzi scheme was going to collapse. Post after post, until someone shares with the most amazing researcher in the world that there were in fact many patents. Somehow this person was able to show the patents in 5 minutes of reseaech while Pyrr the most taleneted researched and data understanding person didnt see in weeks of research. SO we went from no patents to patents issued. Now the market isn't stupid from an institutional level. I assure you if there not solid patent protection this wouldnt be a small secret that only Pyrr figured out, baker Brother and others would have too and we would not be trading where we are,

4th - ok damn, my patent fears aren't as scary let me move on to mineral oil. Again I won't rehash reasons why that is prob minimum

Back again - Oh man, I have to find the next topic what shall I talk. Oh yes, supply risk (which somehow would contradict his risk of generics) or oh yeah now over valuation

Bottom line. Not to say there aren't risks here. Not to say there isn't abear case why this may not go to 100. But the pattern here is strange. He comes knowing more than anyone else (discovered some secret over looked) is wrong, disappears for a few weeks as he knows he has to. And then comes back with 100 post on the next thing. We are encouraging him including myself trying to respond. That is what he wants - he wants us to give his topic credence by trying to debate it.

My vote - no need to attack him, no need to say anyone cant share their thoughts but I say as a group we vow not to respond. Guarantee he will start to disappear when no one cares. Yes we all agree their are risks, but I think we are all confident across our own analysis that price goes higher. Maybe we will be wrong, but I just don't see PYRR adding real thought compelling evidence, he is just doing what he usually does strings together some conspiracy theories (that when you apply rational Exec management and Board practices dont make sense) with some odd not accepted research.

I don't agree but pointless to argue. It all depends as mentioned on different evaluations of peak sales. Generally, BP have higher peak sale internal peak sales capacity than small to mid-pharma due to a lot of the industry is about having long extended relationships with stakeholders, existing channels, and leverage of scale. So when I say 3-5, I mean some of what is being thrown around for peak sales by non institutionals. For AMRN example, I personally believe that BP will depending ond data from AHA view peak sales in the $10B+ range which people are throwing out numbers of 5-6B now. So again, I think BP will pay 3-5 times that as their own internal assessments will be higher. I won't disclose names just look at a few 10ks for the last few years of BP and you will see tons of acqusitions that were premiums that were way worse that were for companies that didnt even have a PHase III results or approved drug. So multiples to buy also go buy liklihood of getting the peak sales, the further you along in the prcess - finished trial that beat results, established approval, existing sales force and actual threat of self commercialization the higher the multiple can go and vice versa. But hey, I'm not making a case for the crazy buy outs peopel are saying. I think 35-75 can be reasonable and maybe higher if there was bidding war.

hmm not as strong as I think.

let'see on Patents:

(1) They have several patents (remember you thought they didn't have any issued)
(2) Teva decided to settle and only received a few months (yes yes, you have some cockamany story about how that is a trick but somehow Jl and Bakers brother fell for it)
(3) On other posts you mentioned the scarcity of EPA. Amrn is going to do exclusive buy contracts while they are the big buyers and so according to yourself it will be hard for generics to really get supply and do it at a price that beats amrn.
(4) Somehow AMRN with is many patent lawyers feels confident enough that they haven't done a big secondary before everyone else in the market finds the dirty little secret you somehow uncovered. If there was risk they be raising buckets of cash right now (just like you knew that the science had to fail because you found some study from 1912)

Now you also said that we are way over valued but that is the benefit of retail. Ok lets put the vape pen down. You do realize that there is very large instituional ownership in AMRN. In fact if it was super over valued because you are such a guru in the field. I assume the Baker Brothers being likley larger experts in analysis than yourself and being up a humungous sum would be selling in the open market. Based on price strength doesnt seem like they are. Now why would BB be staying in?? Could it be there own analysis that I give more credibility than yours (partculalry as it relates to amrn so far) has come up with the price being worth much more or maybe they are more in tune with what BP would pay since they deal with them all the time?? Of course not, its just us retail getting over zealous but the tens of millions of institutional shares don't count.

We all have different views of what peak sales are. And that impacts what is a reasonable valuation. I think peak sales are very high and wont go into all my reasons but I have had extensive talks to folks in the field and I think its huge. What matters is what BP thinks and what they think they can drive. I suspect that wil be anumber higher than what you think AMRN total valuation is worth. You also assume that when patents expires that revenue falls off completely. It doesn't there is usually a tail. Also you aren't thinking of all the tricks of the trade that BP does to extend patents or sales. Even a combo pill could impact sales decently and defense of it. This is a drug that showed 25% RRR with no safety issues. This is a homerun in BP world. The best part is just like results or lack of dilution you said we dont have to argue we will know the answers shortly.

Mineral Oil. Again I'll repeat my confidence there. JT has been very honest and reliable and the FDA and AMRN have been in constant contact during the past year through the interims, etc. If there were any concerns with mineral oil still it would have been communicated by the FDA to AMRN. Even if teh company had already enrolled and dosed peopel - JT knew this was AMRN best hope Reduce iT and he already knew the FDA screwed them once. There is no way he goes forward and spends another 100M wastes several more years knowing that no matter what the results FDA has issues. If that was true, he would have redone the placebo even at wasted cost and time because this was too important. I dont beliebe they would just ignore this when they alreadt dont trust the FDA. And Baker Brothers would have been on top of this. I just dont buy it. AND most important if JT and crew knew there was a big risk that the FDA had a probem with mineral oil which they chose to ignore and now there was a huge risk that they knew but others didnt, they would again have raised money instantly after the result. If you know a secret that can bust your stock you dont wait on raising money you raise money when the stockprice doesnt reflect that risk. Company would know their stock price is over valued and that mineral oil concerns would come out and we would have raised 500M already

Your response is not connected to reality as well.

I have worked with BP and they certainly would pay closer to 3-5 times peak sales for a blockbuster drug that has at least 10 years on patent and the ability to have other indications and some defenses like (ability to lock down supply). It is very likley that over time amost anyone on a statin should be take Vascepa and then there are people like me who are pretty healthy but are taking it because it does so much good with no risk.

I have been part of M&A in life sciences and you are disconnected here. Many BP are very interested in AMRN and they would pay a lot more than you have indicated. It may not be as high as others on the board think but it much higher than current price as everyone is waiting for AHA to see what is best estimate for peak sales. My brother is a top cardiologist speciality rep for a large company and his doctors are some of the top cardiologists (think presidents as patients). He has confirmed what others are - these guys think this is game changing and he knows his company and others are watching AMRN intently.

I can tell you from first hand experience that many BP have been operating on an acqusition strategy that is evolved from 5-10 years ago. The prevailing Board Room strategy was to buy many compelling pipelines or companies early on with the hope of finding some winners. Overall, this did not work for most of them. Many of them now aspart of their SOPs for M&A want to purchase more de-risked; specifically they are happy to pay much more down the line when the science works and they have no regrets about that. This is why no one took a flyer before Reduce It even if they were bullish on it. History has shown you are better served paying far more when you know what you have and can assess your ability to sell it and what you think it will do for you.

And $6B for a transformative drug that is going to change the landscape of cardio and is the first outcome study to real have this kind of potential since statins. You must be from Canada smoking some legal cannabis - please pass the pipe. I mean Novartis just paid $8.7B for Avexis which has a good potential drug but is orphan status and vascepa has a much larger potential.

Completely agree. While, all my be low risk, when you go it alone you aborb all that risks and often things don't go exactly as you think. Could even be another new exciting drug, sone grenane at us from FDA again. I think Baker Brothers and JT will evaluate offers and understand that if you think the stock in the best case scenario is worth y in a few years, you coudl calculate what Y is worth today giving away all the execution, other risks, and hold time. So I could see a discussion that says if we think its worth 150 lets say (just making this up) in 3 years then $75 might be what they think balances out the three year hold period and transferring risk to others.

PYRR - its all good everyone

Whenever he comes back, it usually precedes a nice gap in trading range up for the stock. We should be welcoming him back with open arms. I'm sure he has a new huge risk that everyone else has missed ready to share.

To be fair, I do believe as mentioned in many posts both sides of the debate and I always believe there are risks, but I have to say there does appear some either hypocritical conformation bias on his side for a bear case (since its just one thing after another like the patents) or there is something amiss here. On a prior post I put my perspective on why I think mineral oil is a deal issue and it has nothing to do with science and all to do with logical managament actions and the lack of a secondary if they knew some scary risk info that we all didnt and suspected the stock would decline.

I am more on the conservative side on valuation. I think PYRR is absurd to think any BP wouldn't value this company at multiples of peak sales with peak sakes at least 5-7B and that is super low. I think peak sales can and will be much much higher. I work with many BP and I can guarantee you if they could buy this for 6B they would do so with a smile and in one second. Novartis paid $7B on hopes of Phase 3 cancer drugs that still have more to prove and dont even have that kind of peak sales. So PYRR has no credibilty with me. But 135B valuation now is a bit crazy too. We may get there in GIA but that is future worth. And with some supply constraints it will take longer to get to absurd peak sales levels. I think $15B - 37B could happen and maybe more if there was a bidding war and amazing AHA

Especially with Baker Brothers having a big share. Combined there will be smart people at the table that know far more information than amy of us - so whatever the decision that JT and BB make, I'm failry confident balanced all the different factors.

I think it would be great to have everyone we can in Vegas and just all agree its about celebrating AMRN and maybe discussing other biotechs (love to see what people like) but that politics should stay at home.