Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Stumbling Bear]

The situation is a little different when both parties submit cross-motions for summary judgment. In that instance, both parties agree that there are no material facts in dispute and the Court can decide the case without a trial, on the papers. It is rare that a Judge will not grant summary judgment to one of the parties when both agree, as in this case, that summary judgment is the appropriate vehicle to resolve the case.

Looking at the NCE case, it is difficult to see that there are any facts in dispute. It will be up to the Court to determine whether Vascepa was entitled to NCE or not as a matter of regulatory/statutory law and applicable precedent. [The issue of why the FDA decided not to grant Vascepa NCE or delayed its determination, IMO, will be irrelevant to the Court's determination].

Not sure why the docket states that the hearing is "held in abeyance" other than the fact that the Court permitted the parties to submit post-argument information, which they did. Therefore, I suspect the Court is now deciding the motion and writing its opinion.

Highly doubtful that "held in abeyance" has anything to do with negotiating. The FDA has been steadfast in its position, and refused any suggestion of compromise even at the invitation of the Judge: "all or nothing" is their approach.