I respectfully disagree. Settlement was not everything. Settlement was the ONLY thing (If management and the highly priced and credentialed legal team wer truly looking out for the bests of interests of the company and its loyal shareholders).
If the "whole concept of settling the case was flawed", and "was never an option", then why did Amarin settle with Teva and Apotex? How were the parties able to prepare confidential settlement statements setting for their respective settlement positions and the basis therefor, as ordered by a federal judge in preparation for a court ordered settlement conference? Why did the lawyers just certify that they complied with the Rule 33 compelling them to engage in good-faith settlement discussions? Did the lawyers just perjure themselves to the Federal Circuit?
By the way, how can the statements that the "whole concept of settling the case was flawed" and "was never an option", even be uttered unless one had access to all settlement meetings, all settlement discussions, and all settlement related documents? Without access to all of that specific information, the statements are rank speculation.
Moreover the supposed concern over 200 generics filing to get their payday, is likewise wildly hyperbolic and speculative. If Amarin had settled with Hikma and Dr. Reddys, that would have put three generics (along with Teva) in line to manufacture generic Vascepa. Then Amarin settled with Apotex, where they paid no money, but agreed to entry terms similar to Teva.
Having settled with multiple generics, there reaches a point of non-cost-effective diminishing returns for other generics. Even if future generics were to file, and win, they would immediately face competition from the generics who already settled, as well as the brand authorized generic. Why bother?
Even if Amarin had to deal with future generics, so what. Prudence means you deal with the immediate threat, which was Hikma and Reddys. Such other litigation against other generics is literally years from completion, can be filed in a friendly jurisdiction like the Eastern District of Texas, can always be settled, and is a cost of doing business.
What's a better position pre-Du, settling with Hikma/Reddys, then watching the stock price go into the high teens/twenties, BO window opening, charging forward with DTC launch, or gambling everything on a binary court event with liberal judge in Nevada, which resulted in a 75% multi-billion dollar market cap loss in one day, not to mention a near 50% loss in stock price in the three months leading up to DUsaster, the destruction of so many loyal shareholders portfolios, and the company now operating in a complete malaise while recklessly gambling on another binary coin-flip court event?
And this is especially cogent considering that management and the attorneys knew or should have known that Amarin's IP portfolio was vulnerable to a devastating attack. There is simply no excuse for not settling the case.
I don't want to hear this hindsight nonsense, "Well everyone thought they were going to win, including the lawyers on the Board." The only people who matter are management, the Board of Directors, and the lawyers getting paid the big bucks, all with the fiduciary duties to protect the shareholders from what happened on 3/30. These are the ones with the decision-making power, the fiduciary duties, and most importantly, access to all material facts and documents.
A financial raping of Amarin shareholders has occurred in 2020, something that could have, and should have, been wholly avoided through prudent risk management, which meant and still means, settling this case. To suggest that the concept of settling was flawed, or never an option, is without foundation.