Doubling down on fraud …
… would be like doubling down on judicial misconduct. Self-defeating. Let’s talk about the judicial misconduct complaint. Completely spiteful nonsense. Read the complaint. Read the article that the complaint is based upon. Somebody please tell me where the beef is. Like throwing dishes against the wall, maybe it made some feel good in the moment but no positive value after that. Any attorney filing such an ethics charge should be embarrassed, as should the posters supporting that spite. At least thirty-two posters sung praises for filing that complaint; others supported it beforehand; others were conspicuously silent. One had the good sense to find the idea laughable in advance. Like the thrown dishes, this was never a good idea even standing alone. Now, how many of those supporters, having read how Hikma has reminded the judge that this is the same attorney who reported her to the State’s regulatory authority for using the phrase “fish oil,” still think that was a stroke of brilliance to file that complaint.
But that is past. And now it appears the legal strategy is to double down on accusations of fraud. There is no credible allegation of fraud no matter how many times that word is uttered in the motions (61 times, versus 0 mentions of negligence). There is no credible allegation of fraud no matter how many times use of the word is cheered on by aggrieved shareholders’ postings. So, if Hikma’s lawyers have taken umbrage over the unsupported allegations, there may be good reason. And this morning we learn that in a Lou Reed-induced moment of brilliance, the legal strategy is to use fraud in the Motion 24 justification for standing. That would be particularly easy for the Court to dismiss, and allow complete avoidance of the real issue of mistake the Court made. Just out of curiosity, if there were such blatant examples of fraud in the judgment and trial transcript, then why two months out were you focused on the judge using the term “fish oil.” Not a post mentioning fraud, not a filing. But when Curfman points out mistake, suddenly you “see” all this “fraud” that was there all along for your esteemed viewing. Either the fraud existed all along and went unnoticed for months, or has been conjured up from legitimate and serious questions of mistake. In making the motions so much about fraud, you undermine that legitimate issue of mistake. So, if this is about shareholders rather than petty grievances against defendants and a judge that ruled against Amarin, then please put away the fake outrage and put forth credible arguments. The court will not see this as a negotiation where alleging fraud is an opening gambit. Otherwise, perhaps the next motion filed may be a Rule 11.
